Just install an anti NebuAD plugin for firefox, it will be available soon enough I am sure.

I agree. Get firefox and get a noads plugin. It shouldn’t bother you beyond that. Avantbrowser also comes with an ads blocker.

I think it is good that blogs such as techcrunch are raising awareness of software like this. Until now, it has been unheard of for ISPs to directly edit the content that travels through their network. Advertising is found on enough sites that users would never realize they were being cheated by their own ISP. This is definitely a major red-flag. How will ISPs edit pages next? Fail to render parts of competitor’s sites? Allow partners to portray their competitors in a negative way?

Sounds pretty bad, actually.

“Real Evil” compared to what though? *smiles*

Just kidding Duncan. This isn’t a particularly kosher method of increasing exposure rates on ads. What if competitive advertising starts appearing on publisher’s pages?

ISPs should really think twice about subscribing to things like this.

The solution already exists as addons for for Firefox:
Adblock Plus: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865
Filterset.G: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1136

Steve
I’m not going down that path, but lol none the less

This is an interesting concept. What is the legality of this? If an end user is paying an ISP for internet access what kind of contractual agreement do they enter into relative to the content being offered?

This is just a waste of time. Soon someone is gonna be hit hard and do something…like takem to court where they will have no chance against the class action.

the firefox plugin fix that will no doubt be built if this becomes reality will only be useful for tech savvy people with the understanding of how to install plugins.

For the many millions of ordinary people that browse the web, they won’t know to install this plugin.

I take great care in delivering a good user experience, now ISP’s are gonna take that away from me!

If this happens, and i highly doubt it, then ill be going down the legal courts avenue!

Where exactly do the ads show up? I would be interested in seeing a screenshot of where they are inserting them.

It seems like this would also screw up the formatting for a lot of sites.

I’m waiting for microsoft to install ad blocking on explorer by default. “Why should explorer be the billboard for advertisers without getting compensated for that”.

Yes, 20-25% can just use a different browser, but most of those (e.g., firefox users) are blocking ads anyway.

Most important question: Where do I surf to to see this in action?

The web is all atwitter about this, but I have yet to be affected, I think.

I want to see this in action. I want to see what it does to the sites I create for my clients.

I actually met these guys, as we looked at implementing a mesh network in a city I worked for a year ago.

They are SOOOO full of shit and complete idiots. I felt like someone had picked my pickets after every meeting with them.

Needless to say we didn’t use them..

There needs to be in place protection for content providers, others placing ads on content that has taken effort and cost to create just feels wrong. I think this issue needs to and will be clarified. I’m surprised the companies involved in this do not feel any moral injustice.

As someone who is working to monetize new marketing channels, I think businesses like this give all of us in the advertising industry a bad name. It’s really appalling.

How could this be related or effected by net neutrality?

This can’t be legal

IANAL, but I believe that everything is automatically copyrighted, without having to register with the Copyright Office. I’d argue that the ISP is creating an illegal derivative work for profit of every page they serve. Check your access logs… if you get a visit from this ISP, you could sue. Unregistered copyrights are eligible for actual damages, but if you register with the Copyright Office, you become eligible for statutory damages as well (regardless of actual loss of profit).

According to the article, the ISP can’t disable the ads on certain URLs. I can’t wait for them to show up in my access logs. I love sending cease & desist letters, and they can’t desist without turning it off completely.

Having used AdBlock and FF consistently for ages now I am really offended and insulted whenever I see ads online these days, they’re much more impactful in terms of annoyance. If I was getting ads like these inserted that way, I would flip out.

I don’t like this ISP, but I think that I, as a web user, can choose to load my browser up with whatever HTML I choose. If that HTML is TechCrunch with all the ads blocked, that is my right (and I’m enjoying it right now, haha). If that HTML is TechCrunch with the ads replaced by other ads, or pictures, or text, or whatever I feel like, that’s OK, too.

By default, web content creators are publishers who can push me whichever ads they want. That is only because most people don’t change the HTML before they look at it. But if I feel like only reading part of the HTML (either by physically avoiding it with my eyes, or by using AdBlock to rip chunks of it out), that is fine. It is no different from purchasing a book and only reading Chapter 3. Unquestionably a fair use.

For me, the real issue with this ISP’s behavior is that it is duping its customers (presumably, anyway, although I haven’t seen their service agreements). Of course, probably only about 25% of people would care, anyway, and those people will be using Firefox and AdBlock, haha.

What I’m really looking forward to is when the patent on this scheme issues…

I believe Adzilla (http://www.adzilla.com/services_serviceprovider.html) has been providing this service to ISPs for several years now, so I believe the Texan ISP is not the first one out there.

lol, it is like the USPS opening your daily newspaper before delivering and inserting their ads. doesnt sound viable to me. texas cowboys ISPs have to understand that they are nothing more than the digital mail man.

I liken this to a video rental company removing previews and replacing them with their own advertisements.

What if I put a disclaimer on my site stating that any redistribution or modification of the content requires written permission? NubeAd then replaces my content with advertisements, in an attempt to defraud customers into thinking the ads have originated from my website.

Doesn’t that violate my terms (hypothetically, of course). What does Mr. Arrington have to say about this?

Duncan,

I think you need to get a screenshot from a subscriber… My understanding of NebuAD is that it’s more like Adzilla and only modifies the ads on pages where they have an existing relationship with the ISP _AND_ the publisher. Not just any random page.

I could be wrong but….

David
the shot above is said to be from a subscriber, haven’t been able to find a full screenshot to date.

Look… they’re running a business here, and have payroll to make. They run ads to make that payroll.

Robert Dewey,

Those terms you describe are called “copyright.”

… and drug dealers sell drugs to make their payroll too…

??

Marshall;

But of course

But still, it takes “modification” to a new level. Generally, when thinking about copyright, it’s usually in the form of someone stealing your work - not altering the way it looks or feels while at the site itself.

David, sounds like blocking their domain would be another great feature for OpenDNS. - Owen

@Noah.

I’d have to disagree with your view on ads. My salary is paid purely out of ad-generated revenue. The site I works for provides a free service that wouldn’t survive without ads.

Almost every website out there would fail if the majority of users started blocking ads. There would be no motivation for anyone to develop new sites and services.

Some ad providers pay per view rather that per click, so the argument that you don’t click on ads doesn’t hold water. By clocking ads you’re sending a big F***-You to people who spend their time creating content.

Wow - that’s equivalent to a local bookstore or newstand taking magazines from the publisher, and gluing their own ads in. Or actually, it would be equivalent to the trucking firm that ships magazines from publisher to newstand getting into the advertising business by slicing & pasting in magazines that they ship.

Crazy.

Last month while attending Railsconf, I was amazed to find Portland’s Metrofi free wifi did something like this. While somewhat more distinguishable from these ads, it did insert ads directly into the top of pages. Additionally, every few requests would bring up a full page ad with a link to continue to the actual page.

Granted, the service was free. But, it still has the same issues of altering content during transmission without the consent or knowledge of the content creator.

Screw getting a screen-shot, I want source so that I can build in my delayed javascript call to seek and destroy that ad once it shows up.

Or, maybe replace it with a free ad for a competitive service.

This is similar to Gator’s adware serving competitors pop ads based on what website you were viewing. Visiting 123Widgets.com? See pop-ups for WidgetDepot.com and so on..

That was a good racket for Gator for a while but their were eventually stopped by the courts (If I recall).

On the scumbag scale I’d say it ranks below Gator and just above Nigerian 419 scams. What a bunch of buffoons.

This is not a copyright issue. It’s a terms of use issue. Contract law, not copyright law. There’s a difference. (Michael, where the hell are you? Can you babysit Duncan.)

The problem is that with contract issues, you have to spend the money to sue them. With copyright, you have the DMCA. And with Web site terms of use contract issues, you need to get the court to enforce a browsewrap, which is a bit touch and go.

@Josh

I have to respectfully disagree.

Your usage is subject to the Texas law known as “tough titty”. As in, any business, however established, which is basically a bunch of hot air (albeat well-established) floating on parasitic behavior, needs to be ready for constant seismic shifts in its business.

Claiming unfair on the *consumer* is a crock. Imagine a full-page ad in the New Yorker which reads “throwing away those advertising insert cards without reading them? Shame on you!” Yeah, I didn’t think you would imagine that, because you, like, me, my mom, and everybody else is already throwing them away without care.

Adblock is that same agent, for web sites. (If only there was an adblock for my paper subscriptions.)

Don’t blame crappy economics on the person you claim to be giving free stuff to. Stop giving them free stuff, and give them a reason to pay for better quality not-free stuff. Or just figure out how not to include them in the financial equation at all (like we’ve been doing all along without admitting it) and let them have a free ride because the VCs like it.

But blaming the ad-blockers for re-establishing control over what they have rightfully paid/not-paid for is ludicrous.

(If you don’t agree, I’ll happily send you some of my homemade biscotti under no obligation. And then I’ll bitch and moan to no end when you refuse to pay for the biscotti you have eaten. Just send me your address and we’ll get this real-world analogy rolling.)

“This is not a copyright issue. It’s a terms of use issue. Contract law, not copyright law. There’s a difference.”

Are you sure that a company modifying _my_ source code and redistributing the modified version to third parties for it’s own profit isn’t copyright violation?

It certainly wouldn’t be considered fair-use (whereas user installed ad-blockers may well be).

How is it not copyright violation? Please explain it, Mr Condescending Smarty Pants….. (Looking at you Stephen)

majornetworknews and derrick,

Sure, savvy web users will find a solution to block those ads with plug ins or such, but the real victims here are the users who don’t even recognize that the ads are not part the the website they’re viewing. And the content providers who are getting robbed out their ad revenues or reputation if they’re not running ads (e.g. Wikipedia)

I’m sure this will die soon, it has to, because it just ain’t right!

As an affiliate marketer myself, I’m very familiar with parasitic software out there who robs legit affiliates out of their commission (eBates, Upromise, Mypoints etc.)

This has already been widely used in China’s ISPs, including China Telecom. China Internet users almost get used to dealing with those evil things include (but not limited to) :

* DNS hijack: hijack your DNS, in most case it will redirect when the domain name have difficulty to be resolved. It’s useless to set your own DNS since they hijack from the packet level and will send you faked DNS reply packet.

* Packet hijack: hijack from packet level, the HTTP packet, DNS packet can be hijacked. They inject code in HTPP replies so you could get popups from any website!

* Great Firewall: don’t need to say more…

I would say if they would ask the customer: “should we replace the ads for you” and he aggress, it is ok (judical). For example nobody would sue Firms who offer tuning services for cars, only beacause they change the appearance.

But if a Firm modifies a car and then sell it as a “original product”, i would say that isn’t allowed.

The only weapon for the content provider could be exclude Customers who don’t view their ads.

This being an ISP, I wonder if the customer agreement explicitly calls this out. If so, then it may be totally legit. The real question is whether this sort of action is legitimate, whether in a customer agreement or not. But if its in a customer agreement and the customer has agreed to it (I’d think that most people just dont read the customer agreement), I guess there’s nothing illegal about it.

I wouldn’t wanna use this ISP myself, but then again, may be the rates are better/cheaper due to these ads.

Am I the only one who finds the “look, over there, there is a 3-day old Jaiku post about people do much evil advertising stuff then we are” whilst keeping the payola controversy Techcrunch is involved in restricted to shooting-the-messenger posts on Crunchnotes inappropriate?

Is Techcrunch now competing with Valleywag by stooping to the same level?

The license on my blog includes “The contents of this blog is licensed under a non-commercial share-alike license. This means (among other things) that you may not put my content on a web page that contains Google AdWords or any other similar advertising.”

I issue DMCA take-down notices when my license is violated. I have had one web site removed from the net because of this (their ISP cancelled their account and so far they have not got a new account) and had another company stop mirroring my blog.

If someone finds adverts being illegally inserted into a modified copy of my blog then please send me some screen-shots and I’ll send DMCA take-down notices to the relevant people.

This is ludicrous. I get annoyed enough because I see an ad page for Orange services every time I mistype a URL (hijack advertising by ex-Wanadoo boss).

To think that an ISP could potentially be placing ads inline with the sites I’m looking at is scary, to say the least!

I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really hope that this isn’t the start of a trend.

Back in the early 00’s I used an ISP which forced ads on you, so this isn’t new. The difference was that the ISP at the time was free, unheard of at the time. They also placed the ads in a toolbar across the top of the screen, and not on the sites themselves, so they were far less intrusive.

I’m just waiting for the javascript which blocks users of this ISP and pops up an explanation as to why. Let’s face it, no one but the ISP benefits from this, and the ISP is the one who is getting paid anyway!

I have a friend paying $300/mo for a T1 from these guys and they still cram ads down the pipe.

while i don’t like ads myself (search is good enough to find what i want, when i want it), i can’t help noticing all the google ads plastered on the page you write this on…i suppose you have “approved” each of these ads as well?

to me, ads = evil - they are an interruption and messy alternative to an otherwise clean design, and contrary to previous posts, i DO hope everyone in the world uses ad blocking software to force the genre into more intelligent and less obnoxious formats. the world would be a better place if we weren’t so bombarded and distracted by information we have no intention of pursuing.

Why dont ISPs partner with OPENDNS and get some search ad $$$ ?
Better than injecting display advertising…

How long until I start seeing BestBuy ads in my browser as they bought the ISP Speakeasy? Maybethey won’t do something that idiotic, but I’m sure to get some junk real mail from them.

The more I think about this, people who read this blog are more likely to stop using this ISP if they continued this approach…

what about the rest?

Is there a way to distinguish between the ads that this ISP inserts in comparison to what the content provider inserts? If the ISP’s ads aren’t more intrusive, the avg internet user probably wouldn’t go through the hassle of making the switch…