16 ms·

Alarmist bullshit headline. 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

by rickmb 14y ago

Alarmist bullshit headline. 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.

vhf 14y ago
See, the ISP remotely upgraded all routers, activating the adblocker by default. You say "optional", but I'm not even sure there is an "opt-out". Anyway, don't trust google translation. I found some info in english : http://www.fastcompany.com/3004452/french-isp-free-blocks-all-web-advertising http://www.fastcompany.com/3004452/french-isp-free-blocks-al... http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/3/3832126/french-isp-free-adds-ad-blocker-to-dsl-modems-freebox http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/3/3832126/french-isp-free-add...
- chmike 14y ago
  French user of this ISP here. Yes there is an opt-out. There is an option to disable the filtering based on DNS lookup.
  - mtgx 14y ago
    And how many people who already got their ads blocked by default after the firmware upgrade, will look for that opt-out or know how to do it?
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - chmike 14y ago
      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.
      - pdkp 14y ago
        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.
      - chmike 14y ago
        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. http://www.generation-nt.com/blocage-pub-freebox-revolution-xavier-niel-google-youtube-free-actualite-1676702.html http://www.generation-nt.com/blocage-pub-freebox-revolution-...
- rickmb 14y ago
  It is definitely optional: http://www.freenews.fr/spip.php?article12949 http://www.freenews.fr/spip.php?article12949 (even with my limited French I find the original text less confusing than google translate, ). 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.
  - bloubi 14y ago
    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?
    - anonymouz 14y ago
      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.
      - mtgx 14y ago
        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.
dgoujard 14y ago
It's an active option by default. Many people does not use web panel to disable options.
- randomchars 14y ago
  Many people don't even know that there's an interface to the router.
  - bloubi 14y ago
    Many people don't even know what a router is.
    - frenchfries 14y ago
      lol exactly
bartl 14y ago
It's not very "optional" if it's turned on by default.
jarnix 14y ago
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.
jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
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.
- bjustin 14y ago
  > 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.
  - twiceaday 14y ago
    You'd be hard pressed to find an email service that lets you opt out of their junk mail filter. How is this any different?
    - jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago

by rickmb 14y ago

vhf 14y ago

See, the ISP remotely upgraded all routers, activating the adblocker by default. You say "optional", but I'm not even sure there is an "opt-out". Anyway, don't trust google translation. I found some info in english : http://www.fastcompany.com/3004452/french-isp-free-blocks-all-web-advertising http://www.fastcompany.com/3004452/french-isp-free-blocks-al... http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/3/3832126/french-isp-free-adds-ad-blocker-to-dsl-modems-freebox http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/3/3832126/french-isp-free-add...

chmike 14y ago
French user of this ISP here. Yes there is an opt-out. There is an option to disable the filtering based on DNS lookup.
- mtgx 14y ago
  And how many people who already got their ads blocked by default after the firmware upgrade, will look for that opt-out or know how to do it?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - chmike 14y ago
    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.
    - pdkp 14y ago
      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.
    - chmike 14y ago
      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. http://www.generation-nt.com/blocage-pub-freebox-revolution-xavier-niel-google-youtube-free-actualite-1676702.html http://www.generation-nt.com/blocage-pub-freebox-revolution-...
rickmb 14y ago
It is definitely optional: http://www.freenews.fr/spip.php?article12949 http://www.freenews.fr/spip.php?article12949 (even with my limited French I find the original text less confusing than google translate, ). 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.
- bloubi 14y ago
  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?
  - anonymouz 14y ago
    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.
    - mtgx 14y ago
      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.

dgoujard 14y ago

It's an active option by default. Many people does not use web panel to disable options.

randomchars 14y ago
Many people don't even know that there's an interface to the router.
- bloubi 14y ago
  Many people don't even know what a router is.
  - frenchfries 14y ago
    lol exactly

bartl 14y ago

It's not very "optional" if it's turned on by default.

jarnix 14y ago

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.

jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago

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.

bjustin 14y ago
> 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.
- twiceaday 14y ago
  You'd be hard pressed to find an email service that lets you opt out of their junk mail filter. How is this any different?
  - jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago