Hey guys, french guy here.
There is few things you actually need to know.
First the ISP Free has always been a game changer in France.
First they introduced the "triple-play/low cost internet" wich is TV + unlimited phone call over 150 countries + high speed internet for under 30 euros
Then they started to be a mobile carrier and they broke de price with unlimited call over 150 countries, unlimited text/media messages and unlimited internet for 15 euros.
And now they just setup a built-in adblock in their modem and enabled by default.
But you also need to know that since several year Free is fighting against Youtube(own by Google) because they basically wants Youtube to pay a fee for all the bandwidth the users are "wasting" on youtube".
EDIT: I forget to tell you that he is also behind online.net wich is a very big internet hosting company and back then he was the first to introduce low cost dedicated server(http://www.online.net/fr/serveur-dedie/dedibox-sc).
He is also behind Kima Venture, a pretty good VC I guess.
And he recently launch an internet shcool: http://www.eemi.com/ and is planning to launch a computer science school.
I never understood why ISPs think that bandwidth heavy sites ought to pay them. Surely if a user is wasting bandwidth on sites like YouTube then the ISP should ask the user to pay for that bandwidth. Why don't they do that?
Actually, to my mind there's a good case for sites like Youtube to ask for money from the ISPs.
The ISPs users want connection to the Internet because they want great content (cat videos on youtube and the like). If Google blocked free.fr users from accessing Youtube, it's likely that many free.fr customers would go elsewhere, to another ISP that can provide them with the cat videos they crave. And Google need to pay for all the bandwidth these users eat up repeatedly watching cat videos somehow.
So by cutting the already-meager flow of money available for free content, they hope to force Google to bend to that? When Google is already swimming in money?
Moreover, the guy behind Free Mobile is also behind an Israeli mobile network operator called Golan Telecom. They have been game changers in Israel as well, providing unlimited call/text/data package for 99 NIS/month (about 26 USD). This package also features unlimited calls to more than 50 countries. Recently they even cut their prices in half (49 NIS/month), for 6 months for new subscribers.
I didn't new that.
But he is also behind a very big hosting company who changed the game (dedibox).
He was the first to introduce cheap dedicated hosting serveur with high speed connection and unlimited data.
He is behind kima venture.
He is also the founder of a Computer Science school, soon two.
He also co-owns one of the most famous french newspaper. And was well known for bringing defamation lawsuits to journalists and newpapers. He also got most of his early wealth from running adult services.
From what I can figure out, this ISP merely provides a modem/router with a built-in optional adblocker.
I don't see anything wrong with that in particular, especially in the context where virtually all display ads violate European privacy laws because of cross-site user tracking without explicit permission.
It's just one more additional security/privacy feature on a consumer router to help ordinary users protect themselves.
But yes, the fact that it's on by default is questionable.
However, most ISP-supplied consumer routers have firewall rules on by default, for very good reasons. Although I personally think this one should be opt-in, on by default is not necessarily evil in this particular use case.
Besides being a bit ham-fisted, there's nothing inherently wrong with an ISP offering filters against malicious content.
Also, with the user-accessible opt-out, it would even be legal under the Netherlands' much praised Net Neutrality law. Unlike most of these alarmist headlines, the ISP is not blocking anything.
Actually in France you can't control most ISP-supplied consumer routers.
And for sure on this one you don't have the control at all.
Source: i'm french.
Well, you can, but you lose a whole bunch of important functionality, like being able to watch TV over IPTV (source - I work on SFR's STB, and we watch the competition closely :D)
Most ads are not malicious content at all. Wake up, the web has changed in 15 years. And like it or not, the whole web economy is based on advertising. Do you prefer to be charged 5 cents for every query on Google?
Anything that tracks me without my permission it is malicious. I view the web the way I want - and that includes using AdBlock, NoScript and RequestPolicy.
If it happens to be that enough people share that preference with me to make the current ad-ridden web unprofitable for many sites, well, then so be it. In that case a new model will appear in due time.
So use Adblock then. That's your choice. But don't turn it on by default for everyone. What if every ISP in the world decided to block all ads by default within 5 years. How many Internet businesses it would kill? Most of them?
This is why I never liked IE's DNT on by default solution either, which besides being mostly pointless, and making it even more pointless by activating it for everyone and making advertisers not even consider it, I think it's a really bad idea to get gatekeepers like these (ISP's, browser vendors, etc) to block ads for everyone by default - all ads.
Imagine if cable companies blocked and skipped all TV ads by default. There would literally be a revolution from the networks.
I'm pretty sure Google can win a lawsuit against this ISP if they sue them, and they should. However, France is also pretty weird about Internet stuff. They forced Google to offer paid Maps instead of free before, and other such silly backwards things.
You know there is a huge difference between TV ads an web ones: passivity. TV announcers don't have the possibility to "personalize" ad content according to what they could learn from their audience individual habits.
When you own a huge database of personal information on your users, you should have a lot of responsibility towards your users. Data mining is the business of most advertising companies on the web, that's how they make money, so no wonder ethics become a bit blurred there.
Here are the real questions:
- how can we mitigate the use of tracking, make sure that harnessed data is not misused?
- if it is not possible, why not enforcing on the web an advertising system similar to the TV one, to get rid of the tracking nightmare we're building? We should seriously think about that fallback solution, because we're going to get it in our face (or some other place) anyway (the mandatory ad spot is becoming a reality on many sites now), and we still have tracking on full speed.
DNT doesn't block ads, it prevents tracking (ideally). Other ad-supported businesses (e.g. most TV in the US) seem to get by fine without needing tracking cookies.
You mean, by spamming you every ten minutes with random ads between crappy shows? The premium content (Netflix, HBO, Hulu...), people are willing to pay for it.
It's the same trade-off for the web: if you want good content, either you pay for it (NYTimes), or you have to deal with targeted ads.
TV networks don't target ads not because they don't want and prefer their own business model. They don't do it because they can't.
And anyway: targeted ads are also way better for the user experience. If the advertiser know you're blind, it won't show you 1000 times an ad for sunglasses.
Tracking and ad targeting mean less ads across the web.
Sure, there are definitely benefits to tracking, and if TV advertisers could do it I'm sure they would. I just wanted to address the contention that DNT implied that ads would be blocked. And I wonder how much benefit tracking cookies really have - even without them you can target based on a site's rough demographics, just not on a particular user's. Personally I find it creepy when ads follow me around after searching for a product, for instance.
I browsed the web for some time without ad blocker. I kept clicking on ads, because they featured a big green right arrow, that looked just like a "next page" button. These ads were clearly designed to mislead me, rather than inform me. This falls pretty much under what I consider a malicious ad.
Of course it is. Blocking at the router level is still blocking. And the fact that it's on by default makes it only worse for websites depending on ad revenue.
It's not only Google ads that are blocked; almost all ads are blocked. So, it's not an agressive action against Google per se, contrary to what you may understand from that very incomplete article.
It's mostly Google adsense and Youtube ads. People say it's because of peering issues between Free and Youtube. It's surprising considering that Free is the one french ISP that had always had his shit together, I guess the discussion is becoming heated.
Good question and the point of discussion. Most user don't care about settings or ads as long as their usual activity is not impaired.
What does the ISP gain with it ? I think most people won't notice. I'm more worried about the step back regarding net neutrality of this ISP.
Some people suggest that this filtering is a move in the long fight the ISP has with google to get it to pay a share of the network usage cost.
While the ISP is very user friendly, for net neutrality and open minded, Google and more specifically Youtube, is a totally abnormal situation. Google earns billions in advertisment and don't give a cent to ISP while the traffic of Youtube is largely dominant on networks.
One move the ISP did in the last years is to reduce Youtube traffic bandwidth and claimed the problem was due to a network peering issue. More and more people complained of the problem so that the ISP had probably something to do about it.
It is thus suggested that the ISP might be targetting the revenue source of Google without impairing user experience.
The thing is that Google has probably pushed the shared network usage model beyond its reasoable limit. It kind of make sense to me that the network infrastructure cost should be sharde between producers and consumers. This usually tends to naturally balance and even itself. But with Youtube and Google there is a very strong imbalance regarding network usage and profit making.
If other ISP would make a similar move, this could initiate discussion to find a fair solution.
I doubt The ISP would try to cut revenue of reasonable free web services living from ad revenue, because this is its bread and butter.
Except, the bandwidth has already been paid for, at least twice.
Once by the consumer by way of a monthly internet bill and once by the content provider(website) in the way of their hosting/bandwidth costs.
It is not clear by the ISP's name(Free) whether or how much they are charging for internet access. negrit seems to suggest that this ISP has a fairly aggressive pricing model.
However, if the cost of people actually using their internet access, especially just to browse websites, is too much for Free, they should look to their pricing model or consider upgrading their networks, as opposed to trying to extort(or at least block) advertisers.
As you mention, this ends up being a much bigger issue in regards to net neutrality. For now, it is just youtube that is using 'too much' bandwidth, but blocking that will only mean other sites will take its place as bandwidth hogs.
Hopefully this will result in discussions to finding a fairer solution, but I believe that should involve upgrading infrastructure and providing better service, rather than blocking sites like youtube or netflix.
Here is a french blog post providing more information on this explanation which, according to this post, was indirectly confirmed by Xavier Niel, the founder of the ISP.
the blocking is not optional by default, it's an opt-out system. It also blocked (yesterday) the Analytics tag. The system is based on DNS and forwards requests to a server hosted by Free (the ISP) that returns a blank page.
The only "bullshit" I can see here is your comment[0].
Of all possible crows I would expect the Hacker News one to be the more rational about this; but no; many here are pretending this is somehow OK; lets be very clear, for many sites this for all practical reasons the same as hiding the pay button in any SaaS or PasS start-up.
The tracking done by many ads could be stopped by deleting cookie-headers and using a proxy to serve the ads to hide the real IP from advertisers; but no; they decided that removing the ads completely was a perfectly good idea.
Google should stop allowing all users from that ISP to use _any_ Google service at all (Including Google search and Gmail) with a little message saying that "Your internet provider is actively hurting our business model by using default ad-blocking in all their routers including yours. If you like to keep enjoying our services please contact them and ask them to stop using such aggressive tactics. Thank you."
The only reason we the people with ad-blockers as browser extensions are not actually harmful is because (believe or not) we are a minority.
[0]Yes, calling "bullshit" the title someone decided was appropriate for this article is just as offensive as calling your comment the same way.
> The tracking done by many ads could be stopped by deleting cookie-headers and using a proxy to serve the ads to hide the real IP from advertisers; but no; they decided that removing the ads completely was a perfectly good idea.
If you mean the ISP should modify any information coming over my connection, no thanks. IP blocking (which I understand is what they are using) is nice and simple.
The blocking should be opt-in rather than opt-out, and I am not opposed to Google blocking everyone on Free because of the ad blocking. But do not advocate intrusive methods that involve an ISP actively modifying data.
Offering everything users want only can be done when they are paying, otherwise they must accept the little things they don't like such as the main income source of all the websites they like to use. It would be like google asking all other ISPs to block this French ISP just because they don't like their business decisions.
I've read speculatiom [1] that while the freebox blocks ads more broadly, the move is meant as a slap at Google's revenue specifically in a longer dispute over the cost of bandwidth consumed by YouTube watchers.
The same article suggests that this move to block ads without user consent breaks net neutrality, in the sense that the ISP doesn't let all content pass on the same terms.
Actually "net neutrality" is a philosophy. Just a philosophy. The only aspect of it that is currently a law refer to "content of [the end-users'] choice" as long as it does not "harm the network".
However, as rickmb pointed out earlier [1]: "[...] virtually all display ads violate European privacy laws because of cross-site user tracking without explicit permission." Which rightfully points that ads may "harm the network" by breaking the secrecy of correspondence ("harm" is not restricted in any sense, and anyway the higher Europen Convention on Human Rights talks about that required respect secrecy), and that they may not be the result of "end-users' choice" (did you ever asked for a specific ad to be displayed?).
Net neutrality versus secrecy of correspondence. Round 2 probably... well, not far from now. :)
The fact is, Free is notoriously bad for watching youtube videos (they threshold bandwidth) and got bad rep recently about that along with a probe from the ARCEP (the telecom watchdog agency) on the topic, so this is seen as a kind of retaliation measure to the bandwidth hungry youtube.
I have been using Free for years, and now that I moved across the pond, I can safely say that Free is at least on par with Verizon for Youtube, probably better. And if we simply ignore the Youtube issue, Verizon is years behind Free, there is simply no comparison between the two. I get ~6/7Mbps here with Verizon, and I simply cannot watch a 720p video on Youtube. No problem with Vimeo, Twitch, Netflix etc.
Yes. The bogus filtering of google analytics has been removed. The rules are updated and refined by the ISP. Note that these filtering rules apply only on DNS lookup and not at the HTTP level.
The router/box needs to be rebooted to upgrade and there is no notification to do so, so I guess it would no be that noticeable (and users can't opt-out if they understand what is happening).
At a certain point it becomes financially viable for Google to start an ISP in France just to circumvent the block. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
The optical fiber network in France is actually way better than in the US. And it only costs ~32 euros a month with Free with triple play. Certainly cheaper than the ~100 usd it costs with Verizon (+ bs additional costs). I pay 56 usd here for a terrible dsl connection.
Just for the record , the owner of FreeBOX (ISP)(Xavier Niel) doesn't appear to be blocking ads on websites that he owns.(Monde.fr) Can't wait for that filter list to be public.
And now they just setup a built-in adblock in their modem and enabled by default.
But you also need to know that since several year Free is fighting against Youtube(own by Google) because they basically wants Youtube to pay a fee for all the bandwidth the users are "wasting" on youtube".
EDIT: I forget to tell you that he is also behind online.net wich is a very big internet hosting company and back then he was the first to introduce low cost dedicated server(http://www.online.net/fr/serveur-dedie/dedibox-sc).
He is also behind Kima Venture, a pretty good VC I guess.
And he recently launch an internet shcool: http://www.eemi.com/ and is planning to launch a computer science school.