Front page news: Most People Wouldn't Pay $235 A Year For An Ad-Free Web

Discussion in 'Networking & Security' started by Quartz-1, Aug 22, 2014.

  1. Quartz-1

    Quartz-1 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,328
    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    There's no thread in the Front Page News forum, so I might as well start one here.

    All I'll say in response is that you might want to check how much we in the UK already pay. And the limited bandwidth and data capacities that we get.
     
  2. /usr/sbin

    /usr/sbin Successfully Trolled by Megalith

    Messages:
    3,935
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Why would I pay for what's already there?

    Don't want advertisements, there's a free browser addon for that!
     
  3. munkle

    munkle [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,199
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    I think you missed the point of the article, if everyone used ad blockers then there would be no free web. That amount is what it would actually take to have an ad free web.
     
  4. Liger88

    Liger88 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,661
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012


    I understand the meaning, but I always remember that the Internet was started by people who had good ideas, passion, and would ultimately pay themselves to put them out there. The late 90's really fucked everything up with the advent of pop up ads. The industry has had the past 10+ years to do advertising on the Internet right and fix the pop up madness and they STILL don't get how to do it correctly.

    Every couple years when I have to do a clean install I quickly remember the first thing to do is to load up a ad blocker. Not because it's the first thing that comes to mind, but because I forget and try to go to my normal sites they are COMPLETELY unrecognizable. I thought pop up ads were bad, the flash ones are even worse. I can't even highlight text anymore without getting word ads and that was the final straw for me about 5-6 years ago that sent me to using a dedicated ad blocker.
     
  5. TCM2

    TCM2 Gawd

    Messages:
    571
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Kid, we had a free web _before_ marketing scum discovered it, imagine that!
     
  6. Xinmosni

    Xinmosni [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,973
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    ^ what TCM2 said. WTF?

    So you're telling me the exponential profits ISP's keep raking in year after year is A-OK, yet consumers should fork over even more to pay for the ability to view the internet without ads?

    What kind of sheep-minded idiot would be okay with this? Oh wait, seems like they actually do exist, from the looks of this thread...
     
  7. munkle

    munkle [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,199
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    You guys for real?... The free ad less web was nothing like it is now. Does H charge you anything to come here? No. Does kyle spend lots of money? Yes. He does quite a bit more than what the "free" web used to do. There are reviews of products, some are given to him by companies, some he buys. Providing the bandwidth for all the pictures and users isn't anything like what it used to be when the web was free. Do you want to go back to 1990's text and clip art pages and few people on the web? Didn't think so.

    You aren't paying the isp to not see ads its for the site owner. For example the H pays its isp to provide bandwidth so we can see the site, where do you think Kyle gets that money? Ads... Has nothing to do with isp other than a site owner needs to pay for bandwidth, either we pay or the ads pay the owner and the owner pays the isp. If we payed for an ad free version we aren't paying the isp, we are paying the site owner...

    Seems to me there are people in this thread that don't understand how the world works and that its constantly changing, only thing they can say is kid and idiot, and apparently thinking I said stuff I didn't with no logical thought provided...
     
  8. linuxizer

    linuxizer Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    162
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Two things make the current web more useful than the pre-ad one:

    1. More content, and
    2. AJAX-based apps.

    The former was inevitable as more people moved online. The latter may or may not have been facilitated by ads. Personally, I find the trade-off not worth it.

    It's less the ads themselves than the tracking--every mouse click is now tracked. Look at the Slate article on exactly how far people scroll.
     
  9. sparks

    sparks 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,201
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    the big question is will the isp's start putting a 1 minute add before allowing you to go to a web page.
    OR you can pay them not to see their ads.
    I would think only 4 or 5 senators will have to be bribed to get this started.
     
  10. shade91

    shade91 Guest

    Nobody would pay that. Why pay for it when we can just remove and exclude the majority of it for free using something like AdBlock? I mean, do people honestly REALLY click on bullshit like ads on a website? I can't say I've ever really met someone who actually did that.
     
  11. gangolfus

    gangolfus Gawd

    Messages:
    905
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    I can only see this happening if ISP's want to start offering a cheaper service rate. Someone paying $60/mo for internet access isn't suddenly going to start getting pop up ads before hitting the web unless they pay $80/mo. However, if an ISP wanted to offer a $10/mo or free plan, I can see them doing it by forcing an ad before accessing the internet. Wasn't this Netzero's original business plan? Free (ad supported) dial-up?
     
  12. TCM2

    TCM2 Gawd

    Messages:
    571
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    That's what you get without regulations that forbid modifications of your traffic: perversions of a neutral Internet, all thanks to the free market.

    Excuse me while I puke.
     
  13. Nicklebon

    Nicklebon Gawd

    Messages:
    543
    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    What constitutes an ad?
    To whom would the fee be paid?
    Assuming fee paid to ISP:
    1. Would I have logs to see what is blocked? ​
    2. Would I be able to unblock?​
    Assuming fee paid 3rd Party:
    How would the fee be dispersed to the actual content providers recoop their investments ie Kyle?​

    In the end I'm of the opinion why pay others what you can so easily do yourself especially when the others, read ISP, are not to be trusted?
     
  14. Ur_Mom

    Ur_Mom I'm Not Serious

    Messages:
    19,618
    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    No. Because how would that money be distributed? How much more people would be involved to distribute that money? That would have a lot of overhead in itself - regulating payments to site owners. Also - if a site is valuable, you click ads. Why should a site you visit once and then click out because of lack of content get the same amount of income as the site that provided the answer and gave you value for your click?

    The way it is now isn't optimal, but it's what we have and it works. If you have the content to bring people to your site and have them stay there, the ads bring in income. If you have ads plastered all over your site and no real content? People won't stay and you won't get much income.
     
  15. Mr. Bluntman

    Mr. Bluntman [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,388
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    My, what a generous opinion you have of our government. I was thinking one or two...
     
  16. MrCrispy

    MrCrispy 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,945
    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    1. Implement net neutrality
    2. Block all scamware, malware at ISP level using tech that's been available forever

    That'll solve 90% of the problem. People don't mind reasonable advertising. Many banner ads are useful. No one minds google's text ads. What we do mind are interstitials, popups, huge flash ads. And people especially are wary of being infected with toolbars, viruses or worse from ad networks.

    ISPs love this because its increasing the users bandwidth and they get to charge for it. So actually using adblockers is essential for those not on broadband or with slow speeds just to be able to browse the web.

    Any scheme which requires paying someone for 'adfree access' is bound to fail, because the Internet has no owner (although govts and ISPs want to change that!).
     
  17. Red Squirrel

    Red Squirrel [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,211
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    The issue is the advertising companies who decided that a simple banner ad is not enough, instead they have to blast the most annoying ads at users. Popups, and now the latest thing is those retarded gray out ads that take over the whole site you are trying to read (news sites are the worse for those). Those PISS ME OFF. This forced people to have to take drastic measures to block all that crap, and everyone is a victim including the sites that don't use annoying ads.

    My ad revenue pretty much died since the introduction of adblock, and I don't blame adblock, I blame the advertisers for making adblock necessary. I use it myself. When I revamp my site I'll have to come up with something better to make money as advertising is mostly dead.
     
  18. TCM2

    TCM2 Gawd

    Messages:
    571
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    The problem also is that ads are not a neutral way to pay for honest work. It's not like you have all these hard-working site operators working their asses off when suddenly the ad fairy comes along and gifts them with a wad of cash for their honest work.

    Of course this business model attracts the not-so-hard-working types that rather have a quick buck than do real work. So they regurgitate each other's content, plaster it with their own worthless opinion and think they deserve the big ad dollars.

    Nevermind that the ad networks are as untrustworthy as it gets. Ads are nothing but a security liability. Did anyone ever compensate the people that got infected by malicious ads? Didn't think so.