[mlmlmasd]

> ISP are providing access/transit, not content.

If you want to go that route, then none of the advertising companies, or companies that make money from advertising are providing the content either. There are several steps before the content comes from some person's mind to your computer, the ISP is one of those steps.

> Care to explain how this is backwards progress and lifts pressure on the industry?

You want me to explain how an initiative to not block a subset of ads alleviates the pressure from blocking all ads? Seems pretty trivial to me.

> This is a company and extension that only makes it harder for the existing ad networks to continue.

Nope. They did make it harder before, when they weren't taking money from advertising companies to not hide ads, and weren't launching initiatives such as the topic of this thread.

[manigandham]

Those companies are contracted and put in place by the content producers and owners to monetize their content, in exchange for giving it to you for free. Some content producers dont do this and charge you directly instead.

There will not be an internet without ads. So that is not a logical or reasonable goal.

The very vast majority are fine with advertising but the current situation is out of hand - so yes, working on standards that everyone agrees on and moves forward with will create progress.

[sgdread]

Just because it's done this way at the time, it doesn't mean it's right.

To be fair, the monetization of "free" content should be done different way: utility payment model is the way to go. YouTube Red got it right, they just haven't pushed it all the way - eliminate ALL ads. Apple Music and Spotify got it right too.

As a customer, I have fixed amount of hours to spent in a day to consume content, so content providers have to compete for this time to get compensated. If you pay flat fee at ISP level, then it can distributed to content owners minus platform service fee. This way you don't stuff people with gazillions of non-relevant ads and there's natural flow to get higher quality content to attract customers to your site.

Ads are not needed to get "free" internet.

[manigandham]

Right for who though? The important thing is to have choice as a consumer, both ads and paid or ideally a spectrum between both extremes.

Advertising is the most egalitarian method because everyone regardless of money can access the same things. This is an important issue in a world full of great wealth and power disparity.

Also what you're asking for is basically a cable bundle for the internet. It's in the works by a few companies, we'll see if it goes anywhere.

[sgdread]

First of all it's not like cable bundle - you pay flat fee to access EVERYTHING like utility (probably % of your ISP bill). Call it content tax, if you will (BBC in UK is funded this way). Internet is NOT free anyway. Then whatever you paid goes to authors in a share proportional to content value consumed (I don't want to go into weeds on how to evaluate fair price for the content, but it's possible).

It is right for content consumer: no annoying ads, no interruptions, no more punishment for using "free" content by being blasted with non-relevant junk.

It is right for the content creator: you rewarded for high quality content, not for ads shows (natural flow of interests) -> no need to beg visitors to disable adblockers (this is what some youtubers do). BTW, IMHO, this is also a very good and organic way to "embrace" piracy - just redirect torrents income share to copyright holders - nobody will ever fight torrents after that point.

Ad companies is unnecessary middle-man in this relationship. And this middle-man will be eventually eliminated for good. I understand that you represent one, but there's still market for ad companies in other areas - where ads are relevant to context (like when I'm searching to get a new car or fix my fridge). Ads should help users, not annoy them.