Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year

Soulskill posted about a month ago | from the monopoly-money dept.

Advertising 611

Several readers sent word of research into the cost of internet content without ads. They looked at the amount of money spent on internet advertising last year in the U.K., and compared it to the number of U.K. internet users. On average, each user would have to pay about £140 ($230) to make up for the lost revenue of an ad-free internet. In a survey, 98% of consumers said they wouldn't be willing to pay that much for the ability to browse without advertisements. However, while most consumers regard ads as a necessary trade-off to keep the internet free, they will go to great lengths to avoid advertising they do not wish to see. Of those surveyed, 63 per cent said they skip online video ads 'as quickly as possible' – a figure that rises to 75 per cent for 16-24 year olds. Over a quarter of all respondents said they mute their sound and one in five scroll away from the video. 16 per cent use ad blocking software and 16 per cent open a new browser window or tab.

cancel ×

611 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

$230 (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719759)

...OK...where do I sign up?

Re:$230 (5, Insightful)

Tim the Gecko (745081) | about a month ago | (#47719895)

...OK...where do I sign up?

You can sign up for our flat rate Gold Plan at $1000, or the Silver Plan where we will nickel and dime you until you pay $2010 per year, or the Bronze Plan where you will get some carefully selected ads in return for a lower fee of $500.

This service brought to you by your trustworthy ISP.

Notes: (1) You may occasionally see ads, (2) Ads you don't see will still count against your bandwidth cap, (3) We hate you.

Re:$230 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719935)

Adblock is free.

p.s. But it doesn't block advertorials or slashvertisements. :(

Re:$230 (2)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month ago | (#47720161)

but noscript does. ADblock + NoScript + Flashblock = no ads at all.

Re:$230 (2)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a month ago | (#47720001)

I don't need an Ad free internet and I'm not sure I'd want one. I would like an Annoying and/or Slow Ad free internet. Pop up, holding pages, overlays, etc all must be brought under control. A method to identify and suppress the annoying ads would be a boon to all the "good" advertisers. Those that slow loading times to a crawl must also be eliminated.

I think some sites should try direct sponsorships with a single or a few corporations. Load their banner, use their colors, and merge it with the site design to keep it a pleasant, quick loading experience. Ad services have run out of control.

Re:$230 (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month ago | (#47720139)

I think some sites should try direct sponsorships with a single or a few corporations. Load their banner, use their colors, and merge it with the site design to keep it a pleasant, quick loading experience. Ad services have run out of control.

That will get you a "TL;DR" from the PHB. Just say "synergy".

Re:$230 (1)

RicktheBrick (588466) | about a month ago | (#47720005)

Did you ever get woke up in the middle of the night because your computer is playing an advertisement? Slashdot is a big offender in this regard. Leave your computer on with an active browser with slashdot on one of the tabs. It does not even need to be the active tab either. It use to be that one had to allow the audio to start but now the audio will start even if one does not do anything to show any interest in the product. It is so bad that chrome will show a speaker on the tab where the audio is coming from. Does anyone think they can force interest in their product? I like some advertisements as some are informative but when some are trying to force one to watch or listen to them, I instinctively shut them off without giving them a chance.

Re:$230 (1)

TWX (665546) | about a month ago | (#47720127)

No, I don't actually. But then again I have adblock, flashblock, and noscript running, so there are three barriers to that kind of thing happening, each more daunting than the previous.

Re:$230 (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a month ago | (#47720033)

$230 per website that you use + you still need to your ISP the costs of running the local system that get's you on line. also I see that you have basic TV for $50 more a year for 1 year you can get our triple play plan with faster downloads + 1 year free HBO + hardware rent fees. and for only $70 more for 1 year X1 dvr, extreme 105, HBO and MAX. Come on you want faster internet and more tv right?

Re:$230 (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month ago | (#47720213)

Most of the time, the bottleneck is not my side of the Internet connection but instead other side of the connection and the comparatively low-end CPU of my tablet and laptop as it decompresses images, executes scripts, and lays out the boxes that make up the page. If I had 19 kids and counting, and I had someone who actually watched 19 Kids and Counting, then perhaps I might need faster Internet and more TV.

it's not the ads it's the surveillance. (4, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | about a month ago | (#47720069)

it's the surveillance I don't like. In theory this surveillance is supposed to get me relevant ads but it just creeps me out with it's persistence. I don't really need relevant ads ever. What I actually like is being exposed to lots of different ads. It gives me a sense of what the world is up to in a way. SO I don't mind the ads. It's not like TV ads that I have to wait through. they are just off to the side. What I don't want therefore is the surveillance. it has negative value to me. I don't want targeted ads.

If I could be sure I could be surveillance free I'd pay $230. But I don't see how that is possible. How would I know? where does one draw the line-- things like cookies for sessions and autologin on returning to a site and resuming my netflix movie where I left off are useful. What about amazon auto suggest? I once bought a book on amazon about sexual practices in different cultures and for months I had autosuggests for dildos and some amazingly raunchy bondage movies that I had no idea amazon carried. My sense of embarrassment prevented me from using amazon when other people were in the room. I think however this is not really the surveillance I am worried about. I can easily not use amazon and certainly in the future I always now check the "people who bought this also bought..." before I purchase some item that will trigger things I don't want it suggesting to me. SO that's containable.

But that experience makes me wonder what that little search did for my google profile. Am I now pegged as a dog fucker on google because the key terms I used for a scholarly search had other meanings? I know that google pricks up it's ears when a search leads down a path to a purchase.

You might ask why do I care. I just do, and that's normal. were trained in caring about appearances when were on the playground.

No need to pay, just install AdBlock Plus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720089)

It's free, open source, and you won't see any ads anymore, on any websites, not even before youtube's vevo videos. Furthermore, with this "irresponsible" behavior, you'll cause several bankruptcies and lost jobs, which is cool and that's exactly why I love it.

Re:No need to pay, just install AdBlock Plus (1)

goombah99 (560566) | about a month ago | (#47720175)

except a lot of places now won't roll the video if the ad is also blocked.

Re:No need to pay, just install AdBlock Plus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720207)

... I was forgetting: once you have installed it, remember to uncheck the "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" option under "Filter preferencies", and also install the "EasyPrivacy" and "AdBlock Warning Removal" lists, otherwise you might actually see some ads, which would be disgraceful.

That's it? (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | about a month ago | (#47719771)

Considering that cable modems are $50 a month for capped services. Another 30% higher is nothing.

Considering that more viruses are transmitted by ads now than on their own it gets even scarier. Adblock and no script do more to keep viruses out of your stuff than antivirus.

Re:That's it? (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a month ago | (#47719867)

Unfortunately, this whole scheme requires someone to define what an ad is and get participation from very single website on the planet. If Coke wants to sponsor a site and has a banner in the header that originates from that site's server, how would that be stopped?

Re:That's it? (3, Insightful)

BarbaraHudson (3785311) | about a month ago | (#47720035)

Even worse, how is the money distributed? Who determines the "worth" of a web site or other online resource, and then allocates them their cut?

The current free-market system with sites supported by ads isn't perfect, but it's like democracy - Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Re:That's it? (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a month ago | (#47720093)

Good point, I'm sure the cost of all that coordination was completely left out of the estimate.

Re:That's it? (1)

TWX (665546) | about a month ago | (#47720181)

Even worse, how is the money distributed? Who determines the "worth" of a web site or other online resource, and then allocates them their cut?
The current free-market system with sites supported by ads isn't perfect, but it's like democracy - Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

This is it in a nutshell, it's a bottom-up approach rather than top-down.

And it's not really Democracy, it's Capitalism. Literally, what's it worth to you to get to this content? Right now the burden on what it's worth to one is generally low with ads, but as the ads get more annoying the barriers get higher.

I look at it similarly to websites that only want you to get X pageviews per month without signing up or buying a subscription- I'm just not going to bother reading their content. For the time-waste that I'm engaging in using the Internet as opposed to going outside and doing something worthwhile, there's no need to commit like that.

As for ads themselves, if ads were as unobtrusive as they are in print then I probably wouldn't run adblock, but animated ads, ads with sound, ads that move around the screen, ads that remain fixed in place when the window scrolls, etc, all annoying.

Re:That's it? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a month ago | (#47720215)

Even worse, how is the money distributed? Who determines the "worth" of a web site or other online resource, and then allocates them their cut?

The current free-market system with sites supported by ads isn't perfect, but it's like democracy - Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

One can imagine (but probably not implement) a system where an ISP would maintain a "client access system" that signaled to compatible web sites that the user was willing to pay for content services. The signal would provide how much the user is willing to pay (to allow for ISPs to maintain different tiers) and the web site would, in return, defer ads and other annoyances for users who were willing to pay enough. Leave it up to the sites to say how much that threshold is, and leave it up to the ISPs to set the tiers and track the usage (like they dont do these two things already?) and lastly, divvy up the money. The free market still has a say in what sites are visited and what users are willing to pay.

But then the problems roll in: malware that forces site usage in the background. Sites that take your money but don't give a higher quality of service... And last but probably not least: users who have no idea how a system this convoluted works at all, and make very poor spending decisions with their capital.

Re:That's it? (1)

Barny (103770) | about a month ago | (#47720229)

Who determines the "worth" of a web site or other online resource, and then allocates them their cut?

Easy, take the amount of cat videos on each and every web site and then divide the money even... wait a second, google would get nearly all of it... on the other hand, best to just give it all to them and let them rule, can't be worse than any government (in any country you could pick).

Re:That's it? (5, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | about a month ago | (#47719967)

Adblock and no script do more to keep viruses out of your stuff than antivirus.

That's actually a very good point. I haven't had a single alert from the AV component of my security suite (software on PC, host and hardware firewalls, etc.) for longer than I can remember, and that was a false positive from an installer. Then again, I whitelist cookies, JavaScript, Flash, etc., block all ads, treat all links/files I get sent with a healthy degree of skepticism, and don't tend to visit sites usually regarded as "suspect" (compromised is another matter, of course), so even the likes of SpyBot S&D and CCleaner seldom flag anything. Given how ineffectual AV is against the latest 0-day vulnerabilites and drive-bys, I'm giving serious thought to just switching off the real-time scanner and running a manual scan every week or so for peace of mind.

Re:That's it? (1)

xorsyst (1279232) | about a month ago | (#47719981)

This was a uk study - we get phone, unlimited fibre and unlimited calls for about $60/m. Why would I pay more to avoid the adverts I already block?

Re:That's it? (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month ago | (#47720237)

Why would I pay more to avoid the adverts I already block?

So that you can continue to use the web as more sites deploy ad-blocker blockers.

Re:That's it? (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a month ago | (#47720061)

Considering that dial-up modems are self-capping I would love to avoid the ads.

I'd pay for it in a heartbeat! (1)

MindPrison (864299) | about a month ago | (#47719773)

Not sure how the 3rd world countries would do, but I can imagine it'd be okay with free AD-based internet for them, but for the rest of us who's just FED up with endless load times on our smartphones when it comes to Flash-Ads, or YouTube Ads etc. (yeah yeah, I know about adblocker, but consider that a lot of the sites refuse to work if you have one of those).

Re:I'd pay for it in a heartbeat! (4, Interesting)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a month ago | (#47720159)

You know, there was a day, not so long ago, when the internet worked just fine and had very few ads. The ads aren't paying for "the internet". They're paying for people to "work the internet" full time, and it's not very clear how much value they're adding. I'm sure there'd be a loss if we found an effective way of stopping ads, but I don't think it'd be that great for the parts of the internet that make the ISP fee worthwhile. Every loser with a blog and a webcam now loads his page with as many ads as he thinks he can shove down at you, ideally before you see that hte content wasn't what you thought it was, was inane, or was otherwise useless.

20 years ago you could come online and find useful information. Now even the mighty google takes some working over to get through the corporate cruft, click baiting and paid advertisements to get what you came looking for. Even if you could pay to have the ads shut off, you're basically paying ransom to a criminal who holds all the cards.

Re:I'd pay for it in a heartbeat! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720165)

The study only looked at how much advertisers spent on Internet now.
It just assumes that all of those ad-driven services are desirable and that they are working at minimum profit.
There are plenty of questions to answer still. Will cutting advertising in half just reduce profit or will pages start going away? Will anything of value be lost or only the crap pages?
Will news pages be unable to do proper journalism and source verification at some point or have they stopped doing that years ago so that they can easily be replaced by a free blog without anything of value being lost?

I know that the parts of Internet that I appreciate the most have comparably small user bases and are either run by "some dude with a server in the closet" or are funded by donations because the user base have an interest in keeping the page alive. (Community pages for old computer systems and such.)
I often visit AD-funded pages but I can't say that I would be willing to pay to keep them afloat or that I would miss them too much if they were gone. There are always alternatives.

Percents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719781)

75 what per cent? 75 people/cent?

Re:Percents (1)

Paco103 (758133) | about a month ago | (#47720189)

Amen! This is one of my biggest pet peeves in modern journalism. It's so common that I actually get excited when I see someone use "percent" correctly!

Gladly (1)

Fallso (2997549) | about a month ago | (#47719785)

I'd gladly pay the extra on top to my ISP if it meant no ads ever again.

Re:Gladly (2)

MrNemesis (587188) | about a month ago | (#47719845)

Be careful what you wish for; I'm sure the ISPs would love to be able to collect tithes from users and redistribute them to all of the eligible sites that you visit. And then plaster you with ads anyway.

Re:Gladly (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719939)

Remember ad free cable tv? No? Get off my lawn!

Just to further this point. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719797)

IF i see a video or something that i have to sit through before i can get to my content. I instantly close it, it couldn't be that important that i need to watch an ad.

missing the point (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a month ago | (#47719801)

A large portion of that ad revenue is going to sites that don't really provide any kind of value, but are spammy SEO deals. The best part of an internet with no advertising revenue (or at least a lot less of it) would be precisely that all these content farms would not be able to replace that revenue, and would hopefully go away.

Re:missing the point (4, Insightful)

Zocalo (252965) | about a month ago | (#47720041)

Quite. Also, even when a site is using ads there are usually alternatives that provide similar content for free. If we were able to wave a wand and magically remove all advertising companies from the Internet (or better still, existance in general), I suspect most ad-funded sites would try and transition to Tip Jars or subscriptions, the browsing public would re-distribute to different sites, and a number of sites would ultimately fold, including most of the ad-laden SEO landing pages. No actual content of value would be lost (although some might only continue to exist in the Wayback Machine) and life would go on, only without the ads and malware attack vectors that piggyback on it.

Where do I sign up?

sure it would (3, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | about a month ago | (#47720249)

Yea, all of the spam would just go away. And I wouldn't have any more spam show up in my email, right?

And all of that drive-by malware installing stuff would just go away and people would start being ice to each other, right?

Of course, all of our interactivity would still be there. And we could still have e-comerce on the web, we could still use sites like Amazon rather than having to drive miles to get to a limited selection and pay higher prices at a local "friendly" bookstore. But somehow there would be no advertising. And people would just automatically know where all of the new e-comerce sites were. And there would be no one who wanted to steal your identity and your credit card info and drain your bank account. And best of all, no one would ever see a bunch of fools saying "ad free Internet for $230 a year sounds good to me, where do I sign up?" and try to take advantage of that.

We don't even have ad-free PBS television any more, but some people want to believe they could get ad-free Internet so much that they would OK an additional yearly charge?

--

You're not going to get ad-free Internet. But if you really care about it at all you can get greatly ad-reduced Internet. And it doesn't involve a yearly fee, just a small expenditure of effort. Block the major ad sources in your Hosts file (or, even better for the more advanced user, set up a network wide block in your router). But be aware, this has the side effect of making your browsing a lot faster, since you cut out a lot of unwanted traffic.

heh (2)

David Barreda (3462737) | about a month ago | (#47719805)

Last time I seen AdBlock was free

Re:heh (0)

MindPrison (864299) | about a month ago | (#47719855)

Last time I seen AdBlock was free

A lot of times AdBlock is completely useless as the various AD companies + their customers are working around the clock to find ways around it. When they don't find a way around it, on many sites you'll be met with messages such as: We've noticed that you have an Ad Blocker, as we're depending on advertisement revenue to provide you with free services - we will kindly ask you to turn your Ad Blocker off and reload the page to see your content.

Re:heh (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a month ago | (#47719951)

We've noticed that you have an Ad Blocker, as we're depending on advertisement revenue to provide you with free services - we will kindly ask you to turn your Ad Blocker off and reload the page to see your content.

PHASE 2: We need to get Google and other search major engines to identify sites that degrade experience for users running Adblockers, which is basically just a new form of cloaking, and either display a warning or demote them in search results.

Re:heh (1)

alen (225700) | about a month ago | (#47719997)

google hurt advertising?
that will be the day

Re:heh (2)

rwise2112 (648849) | about a month ago | (#47719977)

on many sites you'll be met with messages such as: We've noticed that you have an Ad Blocker, as we're depending on advertisement revenue to provide you with free services - we will kindly ask you to turn your Ad Blocker off and reload the page to see your content.

If they don't want me to see their content, I'm happy to oblige. On the other hand, if I know the site's content is worth it and the ads aren't too obtrusive, I might turn it off.

Re:heh (1)

BarbaraHudson (3785311) | about a month ago | (#47720153)

If they don't want me to see their content, I'm happy to oblige. On the other hand, if I know the site's content is worth it and the ads aren't too obtrusive, I might turn it off.

This! A good example is slashdot - I don't check the box that offers me the chance to view it ad-free. It's not like the early days of the internet when we were stuck with 56k dialup modems and ads made the page take way longer to load.

Similarly, I like reading BOfH, and I'm not going to complain about seeing a few ads that help pay for it. In my mind, it's a fair trade-off.

As for those sites (like one of my local newspapers) that keep popping up demands that I subscribe to their digital content service or I can't read the article, fine. I'll just go elsewhere.

I use OTA (over-the-air) for my HD TV. After all, even the cable and satellite services are running ads, even though you're already paying to see the content. And if there's nothing on the 20-some-odd channels I get, I can always go walk the dog, call family and friends, invite a neighbour to come visit, etc. Perhaps that explains why I rarely watch TV - there's just SO much else to do that's much more interesting.

Re:heh (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a month ago | (#47719979)

Very rare to never actually. In a tug of war between list maintainers and advertisers, adblock definitely has the upper hand and had it for years.

Sometimes either situation you describe happens, but that is usually fixed in days, and then takes weeks to change again.

Re:heh (1)

what2123 (1116571) | about a month ago | (#47719985)

Yeah, since that happens so often on the 90th percentile of sites you and everyone visits. Those "detectors" use Javascripts, not some server-side scripting. Block Javascript and those nag messages also go away.

Re:heh (1)

reikae (80981) | about a month ago | (#47719987)

We probably visit wildly different kinds of web pages, as I can't remember when I last had any trouble because of Ablock+. Some pages have notices asking you to whitelist, but the main content isn't hidden.

FWIW, I subscribe to EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Fanboy's Social Blocking List and Adblock Warning Removal List.

Re:heh (1)

MindPrison (864299) | about a month ago | (#47720103)

We probably visit wildly different kinds of web pages, as I can't remember when I last had any trouble because of Ablock+. Some pages have notices asking you to whitelist, but the main content isn't hidden.

FWIW, I subscribe to EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Fanboy's Social Blocking List and Adblock Warning Removal List.

We probably do, I usually read the local newspapers online, plus the state wide newspapers...and the "free" tv-channels (also called PLAY channels) online, they all will notify you when you're turning Ad Blocker on. But hey...different worlds, right!?

Re:heh (1)

peragrin (659227) | about a month ago | (#47720257)

Local newspapers are the worst. My local newspaper give you ten free page views based on ip number and then locks you out.

I just get my news from other sources. Sooner or later they will go bankrupt. You can only pay the CEO millions o dollars a year for doing nothing for so long.

Re:heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720051)

The obvious solution here is to load the ad but to block its display.

This will wind the sponsors up to buggery, as they find that the record of ad views is false.

Good.

Re:heh (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a month ago | (#47720135)

At which point I go elsewhere. Just because there's content out there doesn't mean its valuable. Most of the Internet is crap.

Re:heh (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month ago | (#47720203)

I've seen that "AdBlock detected" warning quite a few times. Problem is, I don't even use AdBlock. I don't know how they try to detect it but they're failing.

Re:heh (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about a month ago | (#47720211)

NoScript takes care of most of those who get around Adblock. If ads still show up then I'm happy to let them pass since my primary reason for using Adblock is protection from javascript exploits and excessive bandwidth consumption from all the cross site scripts they invoke + auto-playing videos.

Umm, wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719815)

Use links,lynx web browsers. What ads!

Re:Umm, wrong? (1)

MindPrison (864299) | about a month ago | (#47719903)

Use links,lynx web browsers. What ads!

Been there, done that. I doesn't work quite so simple. While Lynx doesn't show the graphical content, it many times fail to filter out the code used to display the ads, and it includes the links anyway - so you'll have to fight endless links and navigate trough lots of garbage just to read a little content.

I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719827)

If the web site owners can't afford their own sites, then it is their own fault, not the Internet users. We already pay an ISP for having access to the web...

Who still sees ads in 2014? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719829)

Adblock or similar hosts file manager is the first thing I install on every new device I acquire. It's the first thing I recommend to everyone I know when they get a new device. Who sees ads with this easy, free technology available everywhere?

Browser add-ons are your friend (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719831)

Would be cheaper just to donate to the various add blocker type programs.

Does that include ad-motivated tracking? (1)

wiwa (905999) | about a month ago | (#47719833)

If it's just static ads then whatever. But if it means I don't have to worry about facebook, google and a million other sites tracking me so they can sell me to advertisers, then I'd sign up for this in a heartbeat!

But it's never going to happen. It's impossible to coordinate.

Re:Does that include ad-motivated tracking? (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a month ago | (#47719921)

But it's never going to happen. It's impossible to coordinate.

And, another one word reason: Google.

Bad Study (4, Interesting)

visualight (468005) | about a month ago | (#47719837)

A good study would provide a description of what the internet would look like without ads. My intuition is that I'd be just fine with the only content available being content that did not seek a revenue stream. I thought the internet was better back then anyway.

It's also a pointless study because it's never going to happen. I'd guess the only reason it was done is to support the idea that ad blockers and no script are "bad". Oh wait it was conducted by an ad platform.

Re:Bad Study (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about a month ago | (#47720047)

The thing is, companies will normally go the route that will maximize profit.
So if you were to pay the $230 for the Add free internet. Then how will that money be distributed. Per click, length of time on the page, the amount of data transferred to your system?

Depending how the content providers will get paid for their pages, they will modify their pages for maximum profit. Either making a lot of small pages (presentation) to maximize the clicks. Or make a long winded stories to maximize the time spend on the page. Or just download a lot of useless stuff (uncompressed images etc) to maximize download counts.

The add free internet of the Old. Was just a bunch of company billboards, or some interesting projects made by students. (In terms of web). Most of the stuff on the internet was FTP to download patches and free software from companies. Or hobbies from students whos ISP was being paid by their colleges, where you had a Telnet BBS or perhaps a gopher site.

Why would I pay $230 for something I get for free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719843)

I don't see ads now. Why would I pay?

Pale Moon with Adblock Plus and Noscript, or sticking with Opera 12 doesn't cost anything.

How would the money be split? What's the incentive (1)

mrnick (108356) | about a month ago | (#47719847)

OK, so everyone pays $230... how do they pay the websites that you visit? What represents ads? One could argue that www.apple.com is one giant ad for Apple products, right?

Re:How would the money be split? What's the incent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720007)

The biggest failure of the study, to me, is that they simply turned "money spent on advertising" into "money people would have to pay." I don't get their logic in doing so. So without even getting in to how they'd get paid, we have to reconsider if this is actually the right amount.

Re:How would the money be split? What's the incent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720013)

I'll help everyone and let you deposit your money directly on my account. You'll then be sure never to see an ad from my webpages.

Where do I mail the check? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719857)

$230/year for ad free Internet is a bargain.

Products will be cheaper. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719865)

Well, we don't have to pay for advertising anymore so we can save $230 annually on products. Fine with me I pay the $230

It did just fine before ads (5, Insightful)

Dorianny (1847922) | about a month ago | (#47719879)

Perhaps the internet reverting to a state where there were less grumpy cat videos, or viral ice bucket challenges, wouldn't be such a terrible thing.

Is this different from TV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719883)

And I change channels when TV commercials come on. How is this different or surprising? I also pay for cable, which was supposed to be commercial free. That didn't last. If I pay for an ad-free internet, how long will it take for them to collect my money *AND* serve ads anyway?

Post AC - one day I will get an account.

Implying someone HAS to pay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719905)

We'd just have less shitty websites whose only purpose it to make more money by aggregating content other people create and sprinkling it with invasive, obnoxious ads.

AdblockPlus.org

Faulty logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719909)

I'm thinking that there is a fault with the logic that says all the internet advertising goes to those who keep the internet running. Maybe if there were more details on the research of who received the money...

$230 isn't the problem (5, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | about a month ago | (#47719933)

Actually, I would be entirely happy to pay $230/year for ad-free Internet; meaning that I would continue to have access to all the sites that I want, but those sites would be directly supported by my yearly subscription, and so they wouldn't need to display ads or be otherwise beholden to advertisers. I'm sure a great many people would be willing to do so.

The problem is that such a state of affairs is impossible. If people actually started paying for subscriptions, the ads would disappear only temporarily. Eventually companies would realize "Sure, they're paying subscription fees, but if I just put a little unobtrusive link to 'related products' in the sidebar, no on will complain. And, yeah, sure, I'll get a little extra money on the side for displaying links to specific (paying) partners..." Soon enough, the ads are back (in some form or other), and we're now paying for the content twice. (We've seen this happen many times before; e.g. subscription cable-TV was supposed to be ad-free. More recently I've noticed that digital downloads from iTunes or Google Play have ads for other shows added to the beginning.) Moreover, oftentimes 'ad-free' really just means the ads are less obvious but more insidious (product placement, 'trusted' reviewers being bribed to give positive reviews, etc.).

The simple fact is that we cannot ever trust companies to actually honor the social contract of subscription models. Since they cannot stick to the rules, the only option is for end-users endure the constant ads, since at least in this case we don't have to pay subscription costs.

Re:$230 isn't the problem (1)

MindPrison (864299) | about a month ago | (#47720037)

The simple fact is that we cannot ever trust companies to actually honor the social contract of subscription models. Since they cannot stick to the rules, the only option is for end-users endure the constant ads, since at least in this case we don't have to pay subscription costs.

Very true, and this has already been proven, here in Scandinavia - we are so "LUCKY" that we can Opt-Out of getting ads in the mail (we're talking snail-mail here), this would require a trip to the Post Office, and filling out some forms and finally...put a sticker on the good old mail box that says "No Ads please!".

While most companies respect that (because they're required by LAW to do this and risk hefty fines if they don't), they have (together WITH the actual ...now privatized...Postal Services) figured out a nifty way to circumvent this. The Postal Offices now deliver you something they would like to call a SERVICE. The "Service Folder" contains "useful" information, occasional crosswords, interview with someone etc. But always contains ADS as well, just mixed right in...with logos and special offers. They go to GREAT lengths to convince you that it's not an and...just INFORMATION...that you simply can't live without.

So yep, you're SPOT ON with your theory, it's proven in real life.

Stealing attention (5, Insightful)

SirDrinksAlot (226001) | about a month ago | (#47719953)

My biggest problem with ads is they are designed to steal your attention from the content. I've mentioned this numerous times whenever a website starts crying about Adblocking. If you want me to read your content, don't put full motion video ads on the side right next to the content I'm trying to read. Don't make 2/3rds of the page giant clickable area to redirect me to your sponsor. I'm not visiting your site to see the ads, I'm there for the content that you put so much work into. Ads are typically designed to steal your attention and be obtrusive. Slashdot's ads are pretty much safe, even though I even have the option to disable ads here.

I don't recall who it was but one big site posted a editorial on why they think Adblock is bullshit. It was the same day they had full page sponsorship and basically clicking anywhere that had empty space would direct you to that sponsor and they had every kind of obnoxious ad possible on the site at the same time. If everybody was sensible about ads then I wouldn't use an adblock, I do have the option enabled to allow unobtrusive ads so at least I'm not that big of a dirtbag.

Basically the internet is turning into Idiocracy more and more every day. Animated ads all around and some times with in the content you're trying to read. NOW GO AWAY IM BAITIN.

Re:Stealing attention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720145)

I fully agree. I held back on installing adblock for the longest time but they kept pushing further and further with the intrusive ads. Eventually you just have to say fuck it, the advertisers did this to themselves. Sorry! Find another way to get my money! (yes I do pay for subscriptions to several websites and subbable/patreon for several youtube channels)

I'd pay it but... (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a month ago | (#47719957)

Even if you had the option to pay this, there would still be ads, because greed cannot be satisfied. See: cable TV.

Wouldn't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719961)

Even if content producers were paid to make their content, marketers would work their way in anyway. Where there are eyes, people will want to market their wares, and content producers will smack their lips together at the prospect of making more money. Anyone remember when cable was ad-free because we were paying for the content?

Does this really add up? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47719975)

Since a company wouldn't survive by spending more on advertising than they earn from advertising, This means that the average person in the UK buys significantly more than $230 a year because of those ads. That just sounds high to me, but that's just my opinion.

A quick couple of things wrong with the study... (3, Informative)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about a month ago | (#47719991)

1) it was conducted by a company that is in the business of providing internet ads

.
2) it did not take into account the costs associated with the malware distributed by the various ad platforms.

I already do! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720015)

The cost of my internet access is $230 at around the four month mark anyway. Ads may have provided a way for companies to offset some costs, but it has gotten entirely out of hand. Most content on the 'net is useless anyway, everyone wants to give you an answer for something put charge you for it and then force ads on you. Afterall, how many phones, TVs and penis pills do I really need to know about?

What about no ads and nothing to pay either? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720019)

I use AdBlock Plus and I don't even remember what "ads" look like, I don't see them in any website, not even before youtube's vevo videos. And I'm also not paying anything for that. Furthermore, I couldn't care less about the possible consequences of my behavior in terms of bankruptcies and lost jobs.

Ho, ho, ho.

NO IT WOULD NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720025)

It's like saying add-free TV "would cost ...". It would not be watched UNLESS IT WAS WORTH IT. Just because you put a price tag on something does not make it wanted. Put a price tag on slashdot and only the so-called editors would remain. Except Wall*Mart. It puts price tags on shit and it sells.

this is a STUDY?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720027)

Where does that ad revenue really go? i mean we would get rid of a few advertising companies and some other useless companies that are really only middlemen selling snake oil.

FTA:

"Video ad platform Ebuzzing calculated the average ‘value’ of each web user by dividing the amount of money spent on digital advertising in the UK in 2013 (£6.4 billion) by the number of UK web users (45 million)."

notice its calculated by the amount of money SPENT on advertising. so what they are saying is that it would cost every person a specific amount to pay the people in advertising companies a salary for doing nothing while not taking into account the other economic repercussions of having those people doing something productive in society.

and this is a study? no this is a company saying it would cost everyone 230 a year to get rid of us so we can sit at home and do nothing.. nothing was studied here it was just a survey to bait the headline. move along

I remember when cable TV was going 2 eliminate ADS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720029)

What a joke. Cable now "provides" some of the most commercial ridden TV on the planet. In other words, I've heard these arguments before. It ain't gunna happen people.

Now you kids get off my lawn!

Ads not needed (4, Insightful)

jmyers (208878) | about a month ago | (#47720043)

People already pay for their internet connection, bandwith, web hosting, etc. Maybe the Telegraph could not exist on the web without ads, but that does not mean the internet could not exist. This person seems to belive that the internet exists only because of commercial content producers.

business opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720049)

This says I can sell the installation of an ad blocker for 200$ and be competitive before a year, right?

Breaking news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720055)

People want something for nothing...

False (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720057)

This "study" assumes that the Net requires all those ad's to function. I have been involved in Internet content for many years and ad production for online content, I can tell you for a fact that most of the money spent on ads never makes it anywhere near the infrastructure. Kinda like recording artist fees.

If I had to Guess, I would say that the internet without ads would be free, data mining users is very lucrative and would easily cover the infrastructure. I would be far more worried about the loss of R&D and innovation, people go to great lengths to entice consumers onto their site beyond ad content (Eg Webcomics/games/compelling layouts/connection speed/security) this would be affected far more by the loss of ad revenue than merely paying for the "internet"

it's more like $60 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720059)

If you exclude profits, salary for graphic designers, IT personel, marketing and sales the cost would likely be around $60 if not less.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720077)

Where can I pay my $3/month to remove ads on Slashdot?

Tolerable With Limits (2)

organgtool (966989) | about a month ago | (#47720079)

I am reluctantly tolerant of ads since I realize that they pay the people who provide the content I'm consuming without charge, but if I'm reading a text article and a video ad with sound pops up, I kill the sound by closing the tab. I won't tolerate that rudeness when there are so many other sources of news that don't expose me to such tripe.

Or.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720113)

We could just get rid of the 90% of the Internet that is ad-based.

Assumptions (1)

strikethree (811449) | about a month ago | (#47720131)

That assumes that anyone would want to subsidize every single site that receives ad revenue. I strongly suspect that this is not the case. But even at only $230 a year, that would be a bargain. The viruses, the flash ads, the spam. God, make it all go away please.

But it will not. They want brand awareness, not just click-throughs. Paying it would be rather like paying the danegeld. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]

There are ads on the web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720133)

I honestly forgot how many ads were out there. I keep a host file and block all known ad sites by ad-away, and I also disable javascript globally and only 'edit site preferences' and enable JS for sites that need it. Yes the dead Opera browser prior to v13(before they gave up and became a chrome shell with 1/15th the features. No ads on /., no ads on ebay, no ads on google.com(tho admittedly their google 'shopping' uses some of the same servers their ads are on, so I have to manually select product sites vs click and redirect).. And despite warnings my browser won't work, since the larger sites have started to actively stop sabotaging Opera browser, more stuff is working now than when it was under active development(not for long I'm sure, once proprietary content hits more)..

# [Google Inc]
0.0.0.0 domains.googlesyndication.com #[Parking Service]
0.0.0.0 pagead2.googlesyndication.com #[Google AdWords]
0.0.0.0 video-stats.video.google.com
0.0.0.0 ssl.google-analytics.com
0.0.0.0 google-analytics.com
0.0.0.0 www.google-analytics.com #[Google Analytics]
0.0.0.0 4.afs.googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0 pagead2.googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0 partner.googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0 www.googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0 service.urchin.com #[Urchin Tracking Module]
# [Google][AS15169][108.170.192.0 - 108.170.255.255]
0.0.0.0 bec.px.invitemedia.com #[server down?]
0.0.0.0 conversion-pixel.invitemedia.com
# [Google / DoubleClick][AS15169][173.194.0.0 - 173.194.255.255]
0.0.0.0 enirocode.adtlgc.com
0.0.0.0 dp.g.doubleclick.net
# [Google / DoubleClick][AS15169][209.85.128.0 - 209.85.255.255]
0.0.0.0 analytics-api-samples.googlecode.com #[Google Analytics social tracking]
# [Google / DoubleClick][AS15169][64.233.160.0 - 64.233.191.255]
0.0.0.0 m1.2mdn.net #[a509.cd.akamai.net]
0.0.0.0 rmcdn.2mdn.net
0.0.0.0 rmcdn.f.2mdn.net
0.0.0.0 n339.asp-cc.com
0.0.0.0 ads.cc-dt.com
0.0.0.0 clickserve.cc-dt.com
0.0.0.0 creative.cc-dt.com
0.0.0.0 clickserve.dartsearch.net
0.0.0.0 clickserve.eu.dartsearch.net
0.0.0.0 clickserve.uk.dartsearch.net
0.0.0.0 doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad.doubleclick.net #[MVPS.Criteria]
0.0.0.0 ad-g.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad.cn.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad.de.doubleclick.net #[Tracking.Cookie]
0.0.0.0 ad.sg.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad.us.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad.za.doubleclick.net

0.0.0.0 www3.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 www.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 doubleclick.com
0.0.0.0 www2.doubleclick.com
0.0.0.0 www3.doubleclick.com
0.0.0.0 www.doubleclick.com
0.0.0.0 tpc.googlesyndication.com
# 127.0.0.1 www.youtube-nocookie.com #[affects various videos]
# [Google / DoubleClick][AS15169][66.249.64.0 - 66.249.95.255]
0.0.0.0 ad.rs.doubleclick.net
# [Google / DoubleClick][AS15169][72.14.192.0 - 72.14.255.255]
0.0.0.0 affiliate.2mdn.net
# 127.0.0.1 s0.2mdn.net #[affects video stream]
# 127.0.0.1 static.2mdn.net #[affects Youtube]
0.0.0.0 clickserve.us2.dartsearch.net #[www3.l.google.com]
0.0.0.0 ad-apac.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad.mo.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 adclick.g.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 gan.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 googleads2.g.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 n4061ad.hk.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 securepubads.g.doubleclick.net
# [Google / DoubleClick][AS15169][74.125.0.0 - 74.125.255.255]

0.0.0.0 fls.au.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 log2.quintelligence.com
# [Google / DoubleClick][AS6432][216.73.80.0 - 216.73.95.255]
0.0.0.0 www3.webhostingtalk.com #[ad.3ad.doubleclick.net]

--Tried just pasting the google stuff but it was too long "Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter"/Your comment has too few characters per line.

Zero sum (1)

Captain_Chaos (103843) | about a month ago | (#47720185)

Of course in theory we should then get that back in lower prices of consumer goods, since the manufacturers will of course pass the lower marketing costs from not having to buy advertising everywhere on to us. In practice of course they will keep the money, which is why I say fuck 'em and I refuse to play their game and look at their ads.

Total number of websites (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | about a month ago | (#47720191)

I don't actually browse the entire internet and have no interest in guaranteeing equivalent revenue to everyone selling penis enlargements. My share of the burden is only a dozen or so websites visited regular. But since many of those are content aggregators let's go ahead and say I visit 100 x that many websites, and consider these casual visits as equal to supporting the website for an entire year.

This makes $230 / 1,036,878,123 websites (internetlivestats.com) * 1200 = 2.7*e-4 dollars to cover my website burden. And I feel I probably deserve some credit for subscribing to Netflix and Amazon prime. Obviously bandwidth is a better measure of the 'cost' I need to cover for these websites to remain hosted, but averaging over all websites does (in a difficult to quantify way) account for the fact that many of the websites out there even now are not profit-motivated.

I hope the authors of this study were also sure to deduct the cost users already pay due to web advertisements in the form of malware infections, including the compromise of bank accounts, identity, etc.

That model really helped Cable TV (4, Insightful)

freak0fnature (1838248) | about a month ago | (#47720205)

I remember when Cable TV was ad free because I paid extra for it...now 25-30% of a shows time is dedicated to advertisements, and I get to pay to watch them.

That's a real nice Internets you got there... (2)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | about a month ago | (#47720239)

Shame if someone smeared it all up with advertisements...

Tell you what - for the low low fee of 230 dollars a year, I promise Guido and Nunzio here won't fill your windows up with popups.

slashdot has been reduced some akin to CNN news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47720253)

No where do they mention where they got this number from, I love those articles that come out and seem to pull numbers from there butt, kind of meaningless, just like the BLS employment statistics. This article, even if it is real is only good for the UK, with there densely packed population, pretty much this article is worthless in calculating any kind of cost for someone in the US, or any other country for that matter.

Almost exactly cost of British TV license fee (1)

Oliver Burkill (3793189) | about a month ago | (#47720255)

BBC channels are add free in the UK with a mandatory ã145 license fee. If the Interents could work for similar cost I see a win.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>