Well done three
to receive ads that are “relevant and interesting"
Although I'm sure your motives are Evil, but as they say fight Evil with Evil ... wait .......
Three UK and Three Italia are to offer network-level ad-blocking software from startup Shine Technologies to their customers. The telcos have implemented Shine’s ads blocker in the UK and Italy with plans for rapid rollout in Three’s other markets. The carriers are owned by Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings, which has …
Seems more like an effort to charge multiple times for the same internet access.
As for the rest, Three have past form. They've already shared information with US based service via Bluecoat and their US based servers.
https://patrick.seurre.com/?p=42
Now they're using an Israeli based company with apparently strong links to the US. What could possibly go wrong with that? For that matter if they do engage in sharing data outside the EU then what consent will they get from customers *before* sharing starts when there is no Safe Harbour and the so-called Privacy Shield is a complete joke?
"I'd love to see an explanation of how they can deliver "relevant" advertising without capturing and storing personal information that otherwise wouldn't be needed."
Me too, but I'm still waiting to see how they deliver relevant advertising when they *do* capture and store relevant information.
In one sense this is every bit as bad as the Phorm trial. Back then BT used packet inspection to determine what ads were "relevant"
Even though Three might be stripping much of the advertising crud that is on the network, making a decision regarding relevant ads based on packet content could get them into the same sort of hot water.
Suspect that in the end it might come down to an approved list of advertisers a la AdBlockPlus
> In one sense this is every bit as bad as the Phorm trial
Me dear lad, you seem to forget that the problem with the Phorm thing was that it was done without the user's knowledge or consent. Whereas this is a service that you can opt into (at least in Italy it is opt-in, I saw a brochure not long ago).
> Suspect that in the end it might come down to an approved list of advertisers a la AdBlockPlus
Why would that be a problem? Especially when, with ABP, you can decide whether or not to allow those approved ads through. Advertising in itself is not a bad thing, it's the clunky, abusive, and annoying way it's often done that puts people off.
I'd assume illegal in the sense of interfering with network traffic between the user and their destination. Even if it's something benign like stripping ads out of a webpage there's probably some law somewhere that classifies this as intercepting potentially confidential information.
So they make it opt-in.
Then Three can point to the fact that the consumer made an informed choice to use the ad-blocking software. After all, the consumer would have to choose the "I agree" box below a 15000-word legalese agreement that they read in the 2 seconds it took them to click that "I agree" button.
I can see the logic that it would be illegal to read or modify that data without the user's consent (unless you are one of Edward Snowden's former colleagues) but less so if the consumer has actively requested it.
> But blocking ads at network level? probably illegal, but most certainly bad idea.
Remember that there are no absolutes in law. With that said, if it is done with the user's free and informed consent, it should be kosher, according to my half semester of computer law (and that's all the authority I can pull in this subject!)
With that proviso, why would it be a bad idea though?
For the avoidance of doubt:
when you write
"Relevant" means people who've paid.
do you mean
"Relevant advertising" means adverts that the advertiser has paid the telco for, so that the network level blocking will not obstruct the adverts in question
Clarification very welcome.
I'm thinking an earlier version of the Shine scheme used the screen space freed up by blocking ads to deliver telco-selected adverts. Or is that just left over memory from the Phorm era?
edit: How does this work properly in the era when much (most?) advertising is delivered by Google and other ad-flinging outfits, rather than directly by the individual advertisers concerned?
"Relevant" means people who've paid.
Yes. And this is about fighting net neutrality in the advertising space, because most users don't like ads, and therefore there's nobody to defend the concept of neutrality. Of course, if ad supported sites find this a problem, and start blocking Three, then it does become a neutrality issue that the users will care about. But in the meantime, Three hope to "monetise" ad streaming over and above the data allowances that users have paid for and in theory already pay for the (largely unwanted) ads.
Basically, Three want to be paid twice for the same thing, which is nice work if you can get it. If they want to make it fair, then lets see them ignore all ads when calculating data usage for mobile customers.
In the wider scheme, its the same pressure as causing Vodafone to sack its few remaining UK workers, or EE to jump into BT's arms: the City (in EE's case not the City of London) want growth from their telecoms babies. With average users only wanting a dumb pipe and a phone on lease purchase there's not much growth, and pressure on pricing for the commodity service. So the only option is to try and cut costs further, or constrict the pipe and then flog an "upgraded" service to ad slingers (today, users next year?).
Basically, Three want to be paid twice for the same thing, which is nice work if you can get it.
That's how newspapers etc work. If it enables an ISP to offer a better service or maintain their prices to customers then that I suggest is a good thing.
Remember it is the customer who is, currently, paying for the mobile data service, not the advertiser...
Aside: El Reg published this about Shine's proposition last year: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/07/you_should_not_be_paying_for_ads_please_buy_our_software/
There is more to this than simply the goal of 3 to get additional payments (the "fighting net neutrality in the advertising space") as mobile networks are generally congested and if they can cut bandwidth use for *everyone* by around 30% or more due to blocking bloated ads, then it will help end users a lot.
While I have no sympathy for advertisers due to the highly intrusive and resource-hogging sh*t they push, I do have reservations about what this will mean long-term for equal access if only the big hosts can pay to push their sh*t.
"Basically, Three want to be paid twice for the same thing, which is nice work if you can get it. If they want to make it fair, then lets see them ignore all ads when calculating data usage for mobile customers."
A scheme whereby the customer pays for the 2Kb of content and the advertiser pays for the 2Mb of advertising seems a reasonable scheme. And if the advertiser decides that that's too much they can either stop advertising altogether or devise simpler ads.
I've often heard it said that people always have two reasons for doing something: the good reason, and the real reason. So we have "protecting our customers' privacy from intrusive advertising." That's the good reason.
"And this is about fighting net neutrality in the advertising space, because most users don't like ads, and therefore there's nobody to defend the concept of neutrality."
Aaaaand... there's the real reason.
My first thought on reading this article was "this is an attempt to establish a precedent for undermining net neutrality." It's no secret that telcos hate net neutrality and have been fighting it for years, because it blocks them from milking some potentially massive revenue streams. So if they can implement a system whereby they can apply their anti-net-neut principles to something that everyone hates and thus gain popular support for it, they have a precedent they can use to violate net neutrality on multiple other fronts - and suddenly webmasters will be paying subs to ISPs to allow customers to view their sites.
I believe the threat to net neutrality this move poses far exceeds the threat posed by advertising. People can already block ads by installing ad blockers; they don't need their ISPs to do it for them. This needs to be opposed, and brought to the attention of the net-neutrality enforcement institutions.
Is also blocked at network level. Traffic from abroad is sent back to the UK and the likes of spotify, Play Store and Google Maps are filtered then throttled to death so they don't work (although Three deny this and blame the local networks which include Three)
This is nothing new for Three.
Gnnnnaaaaa. Feel at home is a waste of time for data in my experience. Can just about use it for to check email when not on wifi but other than that, its useless. No facetime, no spotify, certainly no casual browsing and no 4g (although prob not 3 at fault there? but so what if everything is throttled to a crawl). Maps are almost useable if absolutely lost. At least you can call someone in the UK and tell them you are lost for free so Feel at home does work well in other ways.
It could be interesting, apart from the cuddles and punches going behind the scenes, I wonder what Google would do to combat this. Perhaps a curt F... OFF!!! message similar to that show on google maps, when you block flash? Or a "bend over or pay us" offer when you install or run their "free" software?
3 might not save much in the way of internet data, but the important commodity to them is mobile bandwidth. Which is limited by radio spectrum and how many transmitters they wish to build. So that's a real financial saving. Especially as in the cenre of big cities, so may customers are using data that they often struggle to maintain performance. The only other solution to which is smaller cells, and more towers. That costs lots more than a few chunky servers.
The blocking technology is provided by Israeli start-up Shine, the shareholders of which include Horizon Ventures, the investment fund of Asia’s richest person Li Ka-shing. Ka-shing is the chairman of Hutchison Whampoa, one of the world’s biggest telecommunications groups.
This post has been deleted by its author
Going to be an interesting one. I peruse a couple of "free" websites (like El Reg) that have adverts, and some of those actively check thatbthenadverts are being displayed. If they're blocked then error messages pop up stopping you accessing the site.
How are Three going to permit customers (sorry, product being sold) to choose who their advert viewing is being sold to in exchange for services?
I use three and think they're great, in that I get unlimited data for £17/month and at home I get 30Mbit/s down with 15Mbit/s up - much faster than my landline because I live in one of the last parts of the country without FTTC.
But since I don't have a lmiit on data I'm not that bothered how much of it is used on adverts, So... what's the big deal?
But since I don't have a lmiit on data I'm not that bothered how much of it is used on adverts, So... what's the big deal?
The speed at which the network can deliver a complete webpage to your device over a mobile connection and the overhead incurred in achieving this.
re Three cancelling legacy, unlimited, accounts... Great offer at £15 from July 2013 to January 2014, by which time I guess some were hitting hundreds of GB usage every month.
There were rumours (and action taken) from November 2014, at which time I took out a different contract. If Three suggests I need to pay more I will get my PAC and move number to "other"...
£15 on Three gives..... £15 on "other" gives
Unlimited data ............. 6 GB
2000 minutes .............. unlimited minutes
5000 SMS ................... unlimited SMS
unlimited tethering
5000 main 3-to-3
I opted for capped bill on Three so I am safe from premium rate numbers, short code subscription services, international calls, if phone stolen.
Interesting story on the Reg, given the Reg is the only website I visit semi-regularly that has pop-over ads, auto-playing video ads, noisy ads, etc. Which is also the reason I only visit semi-regularly now, and also the main reason I block ads in my main browser.
Normal static ads, I'm happy to glance at and might occasionally influence me. But any company who is going to intrusively advertise with music, videos and popups will go on my "actively dislike" list!
All ads on Three are very effectively blocked for me, together with the rest of the websites, calls and texts. Thanks to the complete lack of service here.
Even their "Three inTouch" app to redirect calls over my wifi doesn't help; it regularly crashes and then has to be re-registered over the mobile network, which doesn't work and not the wifi which does.
Time to drop them and go elsewhere.
I couldn't even sign up for their services! Having recently moved back to the UK from France; someone recommended Three as they offer an international roaming tariff for no extra cost. Great I thought. Went to the local Three shop; spent an hour choosing a new 4G phone and also opted for their WiFi router internet service. Assistant spent twenty minutes putting everything through on their computer only for it to fail at the very end, the computer claiming I didn't live at my stated postcode. They suggested trying again a few days later; more time wasted and it failed again. Went home, phoned BT from my landline and they sorted out broadband for me and I also bought a new mobile and SIM card from them. While BT generally gets poor reviews for customer service, they were yards ahead of Three, who couldn't even manage to sell me anything, despite my best efforts to buy from them.
I had only been at my new address for a couple of months, Three asked for various documents to prove both my identity and residence at the address (no problems there). They even did a test transaction of 50p to verify my bank account and set up the direct debit. No problems at all. It even transpired that the assistant was a nearby neighbour and knew exactly where I lived. BUT, if their computer database says I don't live there, then no sale, the computer refused to complete the transaction. It was quite a farce.The assistant was at a complete loss to explain or resolve the problem. Total waste of their time and mine.
It sounds a nice idea but if a web site which is supported by advertising decided that it was hurting them (would Three ever get to be that popular?) all they need to do is switch to https and Three won't be able to see the URLs embedded in the page. If the adverts are https too then all that Three will see is the IP address and domain name so blocking them is going to be a very blunt tool.
"Does anyone else tend to find targeted are are usually for the thing they just bought from [somewhere]"
Yes, though not specifically Amazon as the unreliability of their deliveries (Amazon Logistics, Yodel, are disastrous here) and last year's downgrading of their pick-up service means they are now frequently supplier of last choice.
On the other hand I bought £20 worth of memory direct from Crucial a month or so ago (delivered promptly by the postie) and their adverts are still following me round the web (where not otherwise blocked).
Presumably lots of people see similarly pointless ads from lots of similar suppliers.
I guess there is an economic argument that something is needed in the market to raise the cost of internet advertising. If it was more expensive and there was less of it, it might improve. During the time of limited commercial television channels and limited advertising time, British TV adverts became renowned for quality. The current race to the bottom just pisses off everybody involved - advertisers because although adverts are cheap they are ineffective, end users because they are paying for all the junk on the Internet as well as seeing it, and providers because of the network costs. It's almost as if there was a case for regulation.
I've always said the pricing methods are ass up.
Consumers should pay for useful content,
advertisers should pay to deliver their (crap) content.
The money paid for advertising shouldn't stop with the advertiser,
but pay for the full storage and transmission.
When we use good content,
we should pay the content generators and the delivery network cost.
ISPs are a poor payment model.
We could be paying micro-payments to the organisations
which directly provide the goods and services.
Seems like I'm advocating for an uneven network,
but if you want cheap access to content, accept more advertising,
if you don't want adds, pay for the quality content.
You could get free internet, albeit plagued by advertising.
I had free dial up years ago based on this model.
So they will start by blocking "Irrelevant and excessive mobile ads" then they will block "Irrelevant and excessive" content then they could introduce tiered pricing and throttling for allowable content and in several easy steps, they have destroyed Net Neutrality. I hate adverts but the solution is not a provider trying to control what is relevant and acceptable and what is not - tools already exist for that and we get opportunities to opt in or out as we want.
...why have I got to have the puked across a whole screen preventing me from seeing the website I came to see in the first place. Visit a webpage, crash your browser. Terrific..
And how about all that precious wasted data? I have no problems with ads but keep them simple, static and brief.
...that mobile carriers are messing with their customers traffic for years. Usually they downscale images or add their own tracking stuff, even adding your telephone number into the HTTP request header.
Now they actually do something which has the side effect of being useful for some users there's some discussion.