& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Kruz
50%
50%
Kruz,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/29/2014 | 10:21:43 AM
Re: Perfectly reasonable, no?
Ideally no content should be removed. Operators should be smart enough while pricing this. I dont beleive a small fee will stop content provider from being present. But as said, the operator should be fair with all providers in order to avoid having to deal with regulators. 
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/29/2014 | 5:58:16 AM
Re: Perfectly reasonable, no?
@sreedy: Backlash?  Bah.  I mean, maybe, but there are enough other free and freemium competitors for most web services that either 1) are not ad-supported or 2) are ad-supported but are loss leaders anyway that customers will still have options.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/29/2014 | 5:55:02 AM
Re: Perfectly reasonable, no?
@sreedy: Good point, but at the same time, the net neutrality debate has centered on the treating of content that customers actively want/attempt to download.  Customers presumably have no desire for ads.

So the question here is if net neutrality cuts both ways.  Customers would presumably have a right to deny content coming their way, so Verizon blocking ads could arguably be an extension of that right (i.e., to keep customers' costs and data plan usage lower).
sarahthomas1011
50%
50%
sarahthomas1011,
User Rank: Light Beer
11/25/2014 | 9:31:20 AM
LinkedIn discussion
Lots of good points being raised over on a LinkedIn discussion of this article:

 
  • Ryan Koontz
    Ryan Koontz Sounds like a great way to stir the pot with the Feds... It could fly in completely unregulated markets.15h ago
  •  
    Art King
    Art King Sarah, the Ad folks will write code around the outside of whatever these people want to do. Expect Ad networks to operate below radar, be stealthy, and immediately change methods when they are blocked.13h ago
  •  
    Pete Mastin
    Pete Mastin Will drive content developers toward more in-content marketing (he says, as he sips his coke).13h ago
  •  
    Sarah Reedy
    Sarah Reedy Agreed, Ryan! Interesting perspective, Art. They say their algorithms are pretty advanced, but we'll see. Pete, could be, but Shine says they can block that too!13h ago
  •  
    Peter Tomfohrde
    Peter Tomfohrde Mobile operators are not likely to lead in this area. Most want to drive data usage and if the customer is paying for the data consumed, that's good business. If you block the ads which pay for the content, the likely response is the content gets blocked from the operator. This means no data consumed, upset users, and a tough discussion with the regulator. I don't see a mobile operator wanting to be the first party to cross that bridge. However, a party like Apple controls access to their ecosystem. Apple monetizes access as a primary business model may feel differently.
sarahthomas1011
50%
50%
sarahthomas1011,
User Rank: Light Beer
11/25/2014 | 9:30:46 AM
Re: Perfectly reasonable, no?
Yeah, if the content provider pulls the content because it was paid for by ads that are now blocked, then there would be backlash. I don't think operators can expect to do this without a ripple effect of responses. 
brooks7
50%
50%
brooks7,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/24/2014 | 8:00:36 PM
Re: Perfectly reasonable, no?
Mitch,

 

Only in one scenario.  If I have free, ad supported services (Gmail) that now cost me money...I might scream.

seven

 
Mitch Wagner
100%
0%
Mitch Wagner,
User Rank: Lightning
11/24/2014 | 4:45:37 PM
Re: Perfectly reasonable, no?
"I can only imagine the outcry from both users and content providers if ads started being blocked or replaced by the carriers," Dawson tells Light Reading. 


I'm skeptical. I can certainly see content providers screaming bloody murder about this because it interferes with their revenue model. But it's hard to imagine a significant number of consumers complaining. And handful who do complain will turn out to have ties to the ad industry. 

I mean, seriously, can you imagine any user calling up their ISP to complain that they're not seeing any ads? Seriously?

 
sarahthomas1011
50%
50%
sarahthomas1011,
User Rank: Light Beer
11/24/2014 | 3:11:28 PM
Re: Perfectly reasonable, no?
Yep, customers are the one group who will probably not care about this. Transparency is important, of course, but this benefits them, at least in the short term.
MordyK
50%
50%
MordyK,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/24/2014 | 1:57:39 PM
Re: Perfectly reasonable, no?
True! but I'm not sure you'll have many volunteers manning the barricades to get those as back :)
sarahthomas1011
50%
50%
sarahthomas1011,
User Rank: Light Beer
11/24/2014 | 9:49:45 AM
ad replacement -- clarification
Per Dawson's quote on the backlash if operators block or replace ads, Carthy followed up to say: "I didn't suggest that Carriers are going to or want replace ads. In fact, this was never raised even once in any conversation with any Carrier, in any geography."

Users might perceive it as playing favorites with what ads do get through, but Shine isn't suggesting replacing their ads with operators own ads...rather just blocking them entirely. I think consumers might like that!
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Featured Video
Flash Poll
Upcoming Live Events
September 17-19, 2019, Dallas, Texas
October 1, 2019, New Orleans, Louisiana
October 2-22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
October 10, 2019, New York, New York
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
All Upcoming Live Events
Partner Perspectives - content from our sponsors
Transform Beyond Borders to Lead the Innovation
By Ben Zhou, CEO, Whale Cloud
Reject Limits. Build the Future.
By David Wang, Huawei
China Telecom & Huawei Jointly Complete the World's First End-to-End 5G SA Voice & Video Call
By Jay Liu, Senior Marketing Manager, Cloud Core Product Line, Huawei Technologies
All Partner Perspectives