What if an isp provided internet for free, but it relies on ad revenue to remain free of charge to the end user...

What if an isp provided internet for free, but it relies on ad revenue to remain free of charge to the end user? Also ads are hypothetically unblockable
Would you use the free service with unblockable ads, or choose to pay a premium for a service with less/no ads?

Attached: images.jpg (739x415, 40K)

I despise all forms of advertising, so I would definitely rather pay.

>Also ads are hypothetically unblockable
I don't believe that that's actually possible.

I am so sorry for my previous post, I had just snorted a line of cocaine. But still no.

I think people most will choose the free option.

>he doesn't remember netzero and the ability to block their ads
teehee

Yea, but NetZero was dial up. I'm talking about full blown gigabit+ up/down low latency service, and near unrestricted residential use.

well yeah, and it'd still be possible to block ads on modern, fast broadband, just like it was possible back then.

Actually, nowadays the ISP has even less scope to stop you. Back in 1999 not much content was served over SSL, now most sites are, including all the big ones where most people spend most of their time. If you try to MitM it to inject your ads then browsers won't put up with it. Back then they'd just ask if you wanted to add an exception, now they'll tell you that secure negotiation failed and won't let you past. Nowadays there's a bunch of alternative DNS servers you can use, including a lot of ones that specifically attempt to block ads. Basically there's now no way a service provider can reliably ensure that their ads get seen, in the face of someone attempting to block them.

For free, I would certainly give it a chance. Depends on how frequent ads come up, and in what forms.
If handled right and the premium version came with considerably less ads for a reasonable price, I would definitely get it. No reason not to if it's going to be so much cheaper than normal internet.

Do you not understand what a hypothetical is?

Yes, but to have a substantive discussion you have to use a hypothetical that, although it isn't currently true, could conceivably be. "but what if they had a perfect way to totally prevent ad-blocking?" isn't something that exists or something that's even likely to be possible.

They had this already. There was free 56k dialup for like half a decade. It put a constant banner ad on your screen that constantly loaded ads when you were connected.

People just cracked the banner and got free internet.

>argues against the set hypothetical variable instead of answering the question that was asked in the op
Y-your mom has an o-outie.

Attached: loli.jpg (9320x8640, 1.93M)

The real question is, how much value do you place on your privacy?

That wasn't the question at all.

Suppose I started a thread with "Hey guys, what if someone invented faster-than-light travel?" Everyone would just shitpost and rightly so because what is there to discuss about "Hey what if this impossible thing were true?" In other words I didn't directly address OP's question because it's a meaningless question, it assumes as a premise something that isn't going to be possible.

No. If I could get internet for $100 a month that routes money to whatever websites I'm using in order to handle the monetization problem and guarantees I never saw a single ad, I would pay it.

Do you pay website subscriptions now?

I guess my answer to this post would be:
>But you didn't start a thread. I've seen many threads in the past, but your post isn't a thread.

I pay a few for ones I really use a bunch. Certainly not for every website I ever touch. That's the problem. There's only "platinum loyalty tier" and "dirty peasant ad mule tier." If I'm just trying to read a news article on a website I never heard of I'm not going to become a subscriber. And it discourages me from doing it for websites I'm more middle-of-the-road on. Why pay for something everywhere you go if 99% of it is going to still bombard you with ads?

So I just say fuck it and ad block. I'd love to support you proportionally to how I use you, but I also have no intention to look at pure garbage that wastes my time, bandwidth, and sanity.

Would you rather have ads spread around similarly to how it is today, or just watch a 10 minute block every 24 hours?
I vaguely remember a company that tried this 20+ years ago.

best girl by far.

Attached: 9b802f35493a209f9c1d857b78eda5df.jpg (889x1200, 839K)

I don't think I made it clear. I have no intention of ever dedicating even the smallest part of my attention to a single ad ever again. And if I can't do that through financial means I will just do it "unethically."

> ads by an isp

That's called "mitm attack".

Okay so you would pay for premium service then. That's fine.

As long as bandwidth caps exist I will always adblock. Sorry. I'm limited so I'm going to choose to not download those animations.

It's not just advertising
An ISP can also censor the bulk of the Internet or throw you into the slow lane unless you pay up too

You're a retard with zero imagination. At least you're on the right board.