Mobile Operator Digicel Will Block Advertising Across Its Network

Online ad companies will have to pay to have ads displayed

[mcneely]

Who needs an ad-blocking app when your telecom operator will prevent ads from reaching your mobile device?

Wireless operator Digicel will soon begin blocking online advertising from traveling across its networks in the Caribbean and South Pacific, the company announced Wednesday.

German telecommunications group Deutsche Telekom is also considering blocking advertising on its networks, a person familiar with the matter said.

[wsj.com...]


Another volley fired across the bow of the ad networks, or maybe a lucky strike? I've been saying for a while now that advertising on the net has become ungawdly disruptive as it might relate to trying to view content. I wonder how long it's going to be before ISP's and other networks discover the boon of possibly charging the ad networks money for the display of ads.

We've had the end user putting up quite a fuss over ads for a while now (via things like adblocker). It appears that some wireless networks might be following suit.

I think that if we keep going in this direction, ad companies large and small will have to rework their model regarding how they choose to display ads. Maybe, and it's a big maybe, ad companies might finally start to put their foot down on irresponsible publishing.

... and since Adsense is already the lowest it's ever been regarding payout, I'm left to wonder if there might be anything at all left of it if Google is required to start paying ISP's and other like networks for displaying ads.

[trebuchet]

The site serves no fewer than 21 individual IAB ad impressions on any given page

Yes, that's disgraceful. Sites like that have killed the model, no doubt about it.

celebrity gossip blog Crazy Days and Nights

And that's one of the reasons why. It's a junk site, producing junk content for an inane audience. When you don't value or respect your content or your audience, why would you bother with responsible advertising standards?

[glitterball]

I do get that there is a function that has "grown" from inception called advertising, which has been piggybacked on the already funded (for a single purpose) web. That advertising is an add on by third parties who have no vested cost/expense in funding THE WEB. It is a stealth theft at all others' costs. Always has been.

Advertising does not fund the web.

Advertising revenues MIGHT explain why MFA sites exist, of course. Those who RELY on third party adverts to justify their existence...

The web offered content long before advertising appeared. Still does. And will for some time to come.... without third party advertising. This cart before the horse commentary does not recognize the actual function of the web, and this does become tiresome after a while.

I have run content sites (mostly travel guides) since the 1990s, long before adsense came along. These were always developed with expectation of Advertising revenue. In fact, back then, most venture capital assumed that advertising revenue (still do?) would be the funding model for a great deal of the web.

The Telcos provide internet access to users who want access to the content on the Internet, if there was no content, then users would not pay for internet access. If users suddenly could not access facebook through one mobile operator in Europe, that operator would be out of business very quickly.

[jmccormac]

Denis O'Brien (Digicel) wants people to pay him. That's why this decision is being made. The Digicel flotation has come in for a lot of analysis and some of it isn't quite so rosy as some would like. Digicel doesn't operate in high disposable income markets so this seems to be an attempt to sweat the assets (customers) and make it more attractive to investors.

Regards...jmcc

[trebuchet]

Denis O'Brien (Digicel) wants people to pay him. That's why this decision is being made.

I suspected as much. The suggestion that mobile providers are going to mount their white steeds to protect consumers from the nasty bandwidth-chomping ad men is just too silly for words.

[blend27]

The Telcos provide internet access to users who want access to the content on the Internet, if there was no content, then users would not pay for internet access. If users suddenly could not access facebook through one mobile operator in Europe, that operator would be out of business very quickly.

Want to have access to content, ah? Ask any Cable subscriber what they think about the "content" that interrupts their attention every 8 minutes for 3 minutes each time at the dinner table with Ads for X Dysfunction, Toe-Nails fungus and a scary Ad that is run for a local politicization of an an opponent running against another one(sounds familiar?) or every other Med Ad promises(almost every time) a constipation if you try their break through medication.... and such....

Then, the worst is that Parents at that table have to explain "what the a)., b) ...z)...", to the kids does really mean?. Cable subscribers also pay for their access to content, don't they. Look where it got them with..... I haven't seen Cable companies post LOSS on the books in a while though....

If users suddenly could not access facebook

But then again, no one is cutting access to it. just silly ads and excess tracking that is pushed by publishers by placing LIKE buttons all over their sites.


P.S. Digice has the right to do what it thinks will make its network survive.
Question for the concern though: Would you think Google will stop "Free Public WiFi to Its New York City Neighborhood: [business.time.com...] if most users of the network install Ad Blockers?

[trebuchet]

None of this is about the normal reasons cited for ad blocking. It's not about making ads less intrusive. It's not about protecting people's privacy. It's not about speeding up page-load speeds. If those were the concerns, Digicel wouldn't be seeking financial deals with ad networks that would allow ads to continue as they are today. This is about money.

"Everybody is trying to erect a toll booth that would allow them to charge a tax to the digital advertising ecosystem," Sourcepoint's Mr. Adkisson said.

Source: [adage.com...]

As I suspected. This is a cash grab to raise funds for a flagging mobile provider so it can be offloaded. Suggestions that Digicel is doing this for the benefit of its customers are little more than pro-adblocking propaganda.

[glitterball]

Want to have access to content, ah? Ask any Cable subscriber what they think about the "content" that interrupts their attention every 8 minutes for 3 minutes each time at the dinner table with Ads for X Dysfunction, Toe-Nails fungus and a scary Ad that is run for a local politicization of an an opponent running against another one(sounds familiar?) or every other Med Ad promises(almost every time) a constipation if you try their break through medication.... and such....

You might not like it, but how much do you think your subscription would cost if TV channels did not have any ads?
How much do you think it costs to produce quality TV programs?

We put up with TV ads because they help fund the production of TV shows.
Honestly, there is too much expectation that content producers, be they musicians, film-makers, writers should work for free. And the vast majority of people that work in those fields (cameramen, sound engineers etc) make very little money as things stand now.

The same applies to content producers on the web. While lots of content might be scraped (which is a form of theft), it does cost time and money for quality journalism to be produced.
If we all decide to block Ads, we will find that free access to newspaper sites will continue to diminish. We will have less choice, and probably find that the only 'free' news sites left will be those promoting certain vested interests.

[jmccormac]

Looks like Dinny (as he's referred to in IE) has decided to pull the Digicel IPO. Bad move trying to put the fear into Google and Yahoo when potential investors might have positions there.

Regards...jmcc