Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising The Almighty Buck The Internet United Kingdom

Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year 611

Posted by Soulskill
from the monopoly-money dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • $230 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21, 2014 @09:31AM (#47719759)

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

    • Re:$230 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tim the Gecko (745081) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @09:44AM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LordLimecat (1103839) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @10:34AM (#47720447)

        Its not the big bad ISPs who generally do the ads (though they do sometimes participate on the side with DNS shenanigans). Its the people making the content you like.

        Got a youtube channel you like with annoying ads? Dont blame the nasty corporations, blame the channel operator who chose what types of ads you received.

        • Its not the big bad ISPs who generally do the ads (though they do sometimes participate on the side with DNS shenanigans). Its the people making the content you like.

          Got a youtube channel you like with annoying ads? Dont blame the nasty corporations, blame the channel operator who chose what types of ads you received.

          From what I can tell, youtube doesn't seem to do non-annoying ads, so the channels have to choose between "annoying" and "none".

          TBH I find the youtube ads so intrusive that I do block them. I don't feel particularly bad about this because I figure that if the channels are particularly hurting from the blockers they can go shift their channel to another website that has more sensible advertising policies.

          (Really - I wouldn't mind seeing the youtube preroll ads if I was watching an hour video, but when I'm w

          • Re:$230 (Score:5, Informative)

            by almitydave (2452422) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @01:22PM (#47721915)

            Totally with you. FWIW, YouTube offered to let me "monetize" my videos - I assume by showing annoying ads - but I've declined because I hate YouTube ads so much, and also because it'd probably net me a whopping $0.05/year.

            Anyway, I created a toolbar bookmark in all my browsers with the following in the URL field:
            javascript:window.location=String(window.location).replace("watch?v=","v/");
            If you click it while watching a video on YouTube, it causes the video to fill your browser window (for better resizing control, also to get [nearly] full-screen Flash in Linux), but also has the unintended but welcome side effect that it skips the preroll adds. Obviously this won't work if the "v" parameter in the URL doesn't come first, but that's rare enough that doing it by hand isn't a nuisance.

            • Re:$230 (Score:5, Informative)

              by Mousit (646085) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @06:58PM (#47724641)
              Also FWIW, Adblock Plus by default blocks YouTube ads. Has for a long, long time. I haven't seen a YouTube ad in so many years I literally tend to forget it even HAS them.

              Occasionally jars me when I see people complaining about how horrible YouTube ads are and it reminds me "oh yeeeaaah.." :)
      • Re:$230 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by GeekWithAKnife (2717871) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @11:19AM (#47720829)

        Are you kidding? $1000? $230??

        I just installed Adblock Edge. Fuck ads.

        I'll be willing to pay Adblock $5 a year for a 99% adfree experience & screw the lot of them.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gnupun (752725)

        $1,000 is way too much, because $230 is already expensive. Let's do the math:

        Current CPM (cost per thousand ad impressions/views) is $3.10 [monetizepros.com]

        Therefore $230 will buy you (230 x 1000) / 3 = 74193 page views / year.

        And that happens to be 74193 / 365 = 203 page views / day.

        Few people, other than web addicts, browse more than 200 pages / day.

      • (2) Ads you don't see will still count against your bandwidth cap,

        Actually, given the prices practised by some ISP, if this number is correct
        ads cost you, the end user, *MORE MONEY* (in terms of bandwidth, specially the "video" kind of ads) than earn money back to the ad-supported website.

        And then you wonder why I prefer using Adblock/Noscript, etc. and donating a few bucks (bitcoin,etc.) to website I like the most.

    • 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 desi
      • 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".

    • 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 co

      • by TWX (665546)
        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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gsslay (807818) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @12:16PM (#47721331)

        Why is your computer on and browsing, with the speakers on, in the middle of the night when you're not using it?

        If you're going to do this, you deserve all you get. Along with what it does to your bandwidth and electricity bill.

        • I know you're trying to push an eco friendly agenda there but let me ask you a question. Is it better for the environment to waste $10 of electricity a month to keep a system on but idling or is it more eco friendly to throw my blown up system in the trash and have a factory construct me a new one? Remember constructing circuit boards and semiconductors is a nasty business. I am an electrical engineer. I know from years of experience that pretty much any time a system I was responsible for failed, it wa
      • by kryliss (72493)

        Slashdot has ads? Oh.. wait.. Yep.. Adblock is on. Wow, when did Slashdot start with the ads?

    • $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?

      • by tepples (727027)
        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.
    • by goombah99 (560566) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @10:01AM (#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.

    • ...OK...where do I sign up?

      Well yes, I'd probably sign up too. However, I imagine this would work more like cable/satellite:

      1. Look at all this great stuff you can get *with no ads*! All you have to do is pay a subscription fee!
      2. I've got a great idea! We could make stacks of money if we put advertising on the subscription channels as well as charging a subscription fee!

  • That's it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by peragrin (659227) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @09:33AM (#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.

    • 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? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BarbaraHudson (3785311) <`votezbarbie' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday August 21, 2014 @09:58AM (#47720035) Homepage Journal
        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."

        • Good point, I'm sure the cost of all that coordination was completely left out of the estimate.
        • by TWX (665546)

          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 wort

        • by jeffmeden (135043)

          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 se

        • by Barny (103770)

          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? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zocalo (252965) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @09:51AM (#47719967) Homepage

      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.

    • by xorsyst (1279232)

      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?

      • by tepples (727027)

        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.

    • by Z00L00K (682162)

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

  • 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).
    • by Austerity Empowers (669817) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @10:10AM (#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.

  • missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdo ... g ['ish' in gap]> on Thursday August 21, 2014 @09:35AM (#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.

    • by Zocalo (252965) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @09:58AM (#47720041) Homepage
      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?
      • by tepples (727027)

        No actual content of value would be lost (although some might only continue to exist in the Wayback Machine)

        Until the subscription sites put up a robots.txt file to instruct the Wayback Machine to refuse to deliver already-archived content. For other archives that don't honor robots.txt retrospectively, a subscription site could send a notice of claimed infringement under OCILLA.

    • sure it would (Score:4, Insightful)

      by frovingslosh (582462) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @10:18AM (#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.

      • How to obtain a good list of major ad-sources?
      • Re:sure it would (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @12:34PM (#47721501)

        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.

        The idea that Amazon, or any of e-commerce, would disappear in the absence of ads on the web is really really strange. Do you know that Amazon makes their money off selling things and content, not ads? They buy goods for lower prices then they sell them, and make money on a "markup". And the same is true of all e-commerce sites?

        Like, eBay takes a cut of transactions. It doesn't show ads.

  • Last time I seen AdBlock was free
  • Bad Study (Score:5, Interesting)

    by visualight (468005) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @09:38AM (#47719837) Homepage

    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.

    • 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

  • 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?

  • by Dorianny (1847922) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @09:41AM (#47719879) Journal
    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.
  • by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @09:49AM (#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.
    • 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) fig

  • Stealing attention (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SirDrinksAlot (226001) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @09:51AM (#47719953) Journal

    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.

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

    by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmh@@@gmail...com> on Thursday August 21, 2014 @09:51AM (#47719957) Journal

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

  • by QuietLagoon (813062) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @09:53AM (#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.

    • by causality (777677)

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

      That's not covered by the fee you paid to run Windows?

  • Ads not needed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jmyers (208878) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @09:58AM (#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.

    • by akume325 (1397865)
      People pay to use the internet but that money doesn't go towards the creation of sites. That money goes straight to the ISP. As much as I hate it, some sites rely on ad-revenue to exist. So that $230 is for those sites to stay alive.
  • by organgtool (966989) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @10:02AM (#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.
  • 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]

  • 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.
  • 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 webs

  • by freak0fnature (1838248) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @10:13AM (#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.
    • by Megane (129182)

      I don't know when and where it was that you had "ad free" cable TV, but cable TV was originally (in the '70s and earlier in the US) for people who didn't want to put up an antenna and mess with it to get a good picture for local channels (with the commercials intact). Then around 1980 or so, my family got hooked up to a cable TV system that wasn't just an antenna redistributor, and had cable-only channels. I was surprised to find that most of the channels had commercials. So at least in the US, ads on cable

  • by TheBilgeRat (1629569) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @10:17AM (#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.

  • While properly crafted ads are not bothersome at all (Text only, no motion pictures, video ads that don't autoplay or are at least muted, etc). I would play that $230 per month to guarantee that I wasn't being tracked. Now THAT would be a way to make the Do Not Track token work better, because then you can say there was some harm to you as a consumer if you were tracked.
  • by stikves (127823) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @10:25AM (#47720345) Homepage

    What would possibly happen is that they will charge you $250 (+20 for various fees), and then still find a way to incorporate ads in the future. Remember how cable subscription you already pay for includes ads in the programming? In fact it already started, even large news outlets are including "adveterials" (sponsored stories), which are even worse than ads (it takes a second to realize they are not in fact real editorial content).

  • Bring it on (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday August 21, 2014 @10:27AM (#47720357) Homepage Journal

    Advertising is pissing on your brain through your eye sockets.

    Bring on the advertising-free web. The signal-to-noise ratio will improve tremendously.

  • As soon as you would try to make such a model, everyone would come, create some alibi website and tell the world, he needs one dollar of your 230 USD per year. If there is money, people get greedy.

  • by l3v1 (787564) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @10:40AM (#47720491)
    " each user would have to pay about ã140 ($230) to make up for the lost revenue"

    This sounds crazy, I hope someone realizes that. "Lost revenue" in a businness which only has any revenue at all, because soeone somewhere thought that choking the Internet in a tide of ads must be a good businness model... "Losing" that "revenue" would be lost to those companies who built on this idiotic assumption, also this businness is one of those who drive the whole web into sh*t in the long run.The Internet would function fine, their only problem is that they've grown used to the high revenue stream and reducing or losing it would hurt them. But saying that they couldn't live with a reduced ad revenue and they'd need to push all that revenue's source onto customers to survive is also idiotic - who says they need to have the level of revenue they actually have, or that they actually need to survive at all? :)) I wouldn't mind seeing some of them disappear, they are no friends of mine, that's for sure.
  • by Art3x (973401) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @04:50PM (#47723803)

    Just $20 a month? And that's from someone biased towards it?

    Anyway, now let's see a study of how much advertising has cost each of us from:
    - clicking, scrolling, and squinting for the actual content
    - giving up, quitting, clicking back, and missing something
    - buying, setting up, and using antivirus and adblocking software
    - buying some of the frivolous things advertised, after at last being worn down by it, even a bit
    - waiting for the page to load
    - waiting for computer to run at all, given the heavy load some of our protective software puts on our computers

Order and simplification are the first steps toward mastery of a subject -- the actual enemy is the unknown. -- Thomas Mann

Working...