Poll of the Day > I don't think advertisements before videos should count toward data usage.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I think it'd be pretty nice they don't count ads before videos as using data just because we aren't choosing to watch them. I mean I know the videos are short but I'm sure overall they can ad (pun) up together to be a little chunk of allotted data.
---

Totally agree

And it's not your provider's fault that you chose to watch videos with ads. More importantly, I'm pretty sure there are ad-blockers for mobile so just use that.
---

I don't think wireless carriers should take away unused data at the end of each month. It makes absolutely no sense to charge preemptively for data.

Either all data plans should be pay as you go, or all data plans should carry over.
---

faramir77 posted...

I don't think wireless carriers should take away unused data at the end of each month. It makes absolutely no sense to charge preemptively for data.

Either all data plans should be pay as you go, or all data plans should carry over.

I'm sure they do this to prevent network congestion... although I'm sure they would be lying about it anyway
---

faramir77 posted...

I don't think wireless carriers should take away unused data at the end of each month. It makes absolutely no sense to charge preemptively for data.

Either all data plans should be pay as you go, or all data plans should carry over.

Doesn't Vodafone does carry overs?
---

Zeus posted...

And it's not your provider's fault that you chose to watch videos with ads. More importantly, I'm pretty sure there are ad-blockers for mobile so just use that.

The problem there is that, when you use ad-blockers, you're shifting the cost to the video hosting site, which in turn dramatically increases the odds that it will eventually devise ads that bypass blocking software, or will become a "pay-per-view" or "pay-to-view" site anyway.

The operating cost ALWAYS gets passed on to the user one way or another. That's just how the world works. At best, you can exploit loopholes in the system, but since the mere act of exploiting them is usually enough to eventually get them closed, it's not really a long-term solution.

People have been saying this for years, but the "Wild West" mentality of the Internet was never going to be a permanent thing. It was just the period of chaos before everyone figured out just how this thing works and how to profit from it. Now we're all just the outlaws mourning the loss of the West we knew as Civilization rolls in and sterilizes everything (see also Shane, Red Dead Redemption, etc.). The idea that everything should be free online is kind of childishly naive, and eventually, the bill is going to come due.

The main reason why some of that cost is getting hidden in various ways is because so many people react so poorly to being told they have to pay. Though it does seem like things like Patreon or Kickstarter are changing that perception a bit.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Zeus posted...

And it's not your provider's fault that you chose to watch videos with ads. More importantly, I'm pretty sure there are ad-blockers for mobile so just use that.

The problem there is that, when you use ad-blockers, you're shifting the cost to the video hosting site, which in turn dramatically increases the odds that it will eventually devise ads that bypass blocking software, or will become a "pay-per-view" or "pay-to-view" site anyway.

The operating cost ALWAYS gets passed on to the user one way or another. That's just how the world works. At best, you can exploit loopholes in the system, but since the mere act of exploiting them is usually enough to eventually get them closed, it's not really a long-term solution.

People have been saying this for years, but the "Wild West" mentality of the Internet was never going to be a permanent thing. It was just the period of chaos before everyone figured out just how this thing works and how to profit from it. Now we're all just the outlaws mourning the loss of the West we knew as Civilization rolls in and sterilizes everything (see also Shane, Red Dead Redemption, etc.). The idea that everything should be free online is kind of childishly naive, and eventually, the bill is going to come due.

The main reason why some of that cost is getting hidden in various ways is because so many people react so poorly to being told they have to pay. Though it does seem like things like Patreon or Kickstarter are changing that perception a bit.

Man all you needed to do was insert a mic drop and you're golden
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Zeus posted...

And it's not your provider's fault that you chose to watch videos with ads. More importantly, I'm pretty sure there are ad-blockers for mobile so just use that.

The problem there is that, when you use ad-blockers, you're shifting the cost to the video hosting site, which in turn dramatically increases the odds that it will eventually devise ads that bypass blocking software, or will become a "pay-per-view" or "pay-to-view" site anyway.

The operating cost ALWAYS gets passed on to the user one way or another. That's just how the world works. At best, you can exploit loopholes in the system, but since the mere act of exploiting them is usually enough to eventually get them closed, it's not really a long-term solution.

People have been saying this for years, but the "Wild West" mentality of the Internet was never going to be a permanent thing. It was just the period of chaos before everyone figured out just how this thing works and how to profit from it. Now we're all just the outlaws mourning the loss of the West we knew as Civilization rolls in and sterilizes everything (see also Shane, Red Dead Redemption, etc.). The idea that everything should be free online is kind of childishly naive, and eventually, the bill is going to come due.

The main reason why some of that cost is getting hidden in various ways is because so many people react so poorly to being told they have to pay. Though it does seem like things like Patreon or Kickstarter are changing that perception a bit.

The problems with that line of thinking are manifold. First, we didn't get more invasive ads because people were using ad-blockers. That's just a bad assumption. The increase in ad intrusiveness is more due to a mix of improved technology -- letting them do more with ads -- and diminished efficacy on the older forms of ads. Even if nobody ad-blocked, it was inevitable that we'd get these newer kinds of ads because companies get paid more for them.

Ad blockers and prevention will *always* be a battle. Every time prevention makes improvements, ad blockers make improvements as well. Prevention is better today than any time in history, yet ad blocker use is also more prevalent than any time in history and, for the most part, ad blockers work pretty damn well. So yes, you can shut loopholes but you can't shut them faster than they open.

As for the costs getting passed along to the consumer, that's not automatically true either. There are other ways to monetize an audience. The most obvious method is data collection which, even if it's not used for advertising in other forms, it can be used for market research purposes where it comes to product development, background checks, etc. More importantly, you'll always have services which take a loss to build an audience.

However, the advertising itself can change. Heavy commercials weren't always the norm. In fact, even as tv adoption grew, the amount of advertising time grew as well; this, of course, contradicts conventional wisdom since a growing audience logically would logically any additional costs associated with programming. However, the added factor was greed where people saw that they could make considerably more (and, frankly, there's nothing wrong with greed but there's only so much you can take). Right now there's a lot of fat which can be trimmed down while still giving companies enough to keep the lights going. Consequently, we *could* see commercials gradually vanish in favor of content baked into the programming itself -- like the old "word from our sponsors" or product placement.

And, given human ingenuity, it's damn near impossible to "civilize" the wild west of the internet.
---

OreonX1 posted...

Man all you needed to do was insert a mic drop and you're golden

Bearing in mind that PO's comments had to do with my advice itself, but rather industries as a whole (and, broadly speaking, affirms my original argument since he talks about the cost going to the consumer). The fact remains is that your bandwidth is affected by your choice to consume content with advertisements. Why should another party eat that cost?

You're choosing to watch the commercials in two ways:
1) By choosing to watch the videos on sites hosting the commercials.
2) By then not using an adblocker.

While you could argue that advertisers should compensate your provider, there's no basis for the argument that the provider itself should eat the cost on things it didn't ask for either and doesn't benefit from.
---

Zeus posted...

While you could argue that advertisers should compensate your provider, there's no basis for the argument that the provider itself should eat the cost on things it didn't ask for either and doesn't benefit from.

The provider has leverage to affect the advertisers so they should be forced to take the hit so they do what they won't when it's just consumers getting screwed. This is kind of the purpose of government, to enforce balance when their constituents are getting exploited.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Zeus posted...

While you could argue that advertisers should compensate your provider, there's no basis for the argument that the provider itself should eat the cost on things it didn't ask for either and doesn't benefit from.

The provider has leverage to affect the advertisers so they should be forced to take the hit so they do what they won't when it's just consumers getting screwed. This is kind of the purpose of government, to enforce balance when their constituents are getting exploited.

These companies are also their constituents. After all, most are based in the US, hire Americans, etc. Otherwise, you're opting into a service. If you don't like the service, don't use it. I don't walk into a restaurant and complain to the government that place should lower its prices, change its menu, etc. Instead, if I don't like the prices or menu, I don't eat there.
---

OreonX1 posted...

I think it'd be pretty nice they don't count ads before videos as using data just because we aren't choosing to watch them. I mean I know the videos are short but I'm sure overall they can ad (pun) up together to be a little chunk of allotted data.

Me neither but it's unrealistic would be extremely hard to implement across all sites and ISPs. Still a nice idea though.
Try an unlimited plan, there's not much diff in cost as long as you do your homework and get a decent one..