Something I was thinking of alterative ADs for YouTube and etc

[NadiaMayer]

I've been wanting to share this on WAN but not caught the show live.

Biggest thing people don't wanna play ads but internet cant make money without selling our data or putting ads up

This may be a bit of a hot take that of us will hate.

but what if we added a legal way to for server(Netflix Youtube fb random news sites) ISPs to bill "Client" isps (offices home internet moblie phones).

This would allow services to be build into internet plans the lizards get paid and we don't see ads.

I know the idea in the form I showed this will be ruin very fast. but could LTT forums workshop this idea.

[Kilrah]

What's the point of having it go through ISPs and be billed through the internet plan? Subscribe to ad-free versions to the services you use directly.

[NadiaMayer]

21 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

What's the point of having it go through ISPs and be built into the internet plan? Subscribe to ad-free versions to the services you use directly.

Would you sub to every website you go the goal is remove ads globally meaning all sites need a system to allow for verifying bandwidth usage and allow form a channel for money to flow.

There was way being made by brave browser that was BAT but it was having issues being adopted also run on crypto that was controlled by brave.

ISP have all the data needed to track who and what data is flowing from servers to servers. They also already have agreements with all other ISPs meaning it can we worked to each other. this would adoon to said agreement ISP can talk with users on the options for their clients if are Facebook or or your home internet.

the biggest issue I could see too high of fees for services. but if anyone could use any app with a warning on how much data getting and the corps could make you pay more then you did before.

If everything is collected as single bill at the end of the month with itemised  list like "you watch 120 hour Netflix at 5c and hour you viewd 50 articles for 5c or you view 5 patron videos for 10 dollars"

they might need some legal limits for max rates as well as warning/counter how much your pulling.

The internet as well know it can not be supported by ads anymore and we need to accept said fact as sad as it can be.

look at reddit twitter YT even news sites many of them are running off investor money and the ads are getting worst and worst.


sorry for the typing and if sound blunt I don't talk well




 

[Kilrah]

I get the point, but I'd have a hard time believing companies wouldn't just take that and leave ads too unless pricing was completely outrageous.

Just like you buy a magazine or newspaper, yet there are still ads in them. Or you pay (sometimes a lot) for a TV subscription, yet TV is riddled with ads.

[jaslion]

7 minutes ago, NadiaMayer said:

Would you sub to every website you go the goal is remove ads globally meaning all sites need a system to allow for verifying bandwidth usage and allow form a channel for money to flow.

Yes!!!!!!!

10000000000% I decide what to sub to

 

The amount of misuse, accidental billing,.... would be insane.

 

We only have to look at like 15 years ago with limited data phoneplans with facebook free, twitter free,... included as options. However all that stuff has external links and whatnot and that peoplr needed to pay for.

 

This is so hardcorely abuseable AND isps tried to fo something like this already for high badnwith sites where you had to pay THEM more to use them which was then blocked.

 

I get your idea but once you factor in the awfullness and greed of people in power this thing will be a disaster

[NadiaMayer]

3 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Yes!!!!!!!

10000000000% I decide what to sub to

 

The amount of misuse, accidental billing,.... would be insane.

 

We only have to look at like 15 years ago with limited data phoneplans with facebook free, twitter free,... included as options. However all that stuff has external links and whatnot and that peoplr needed to pay for.

 

This is so hardcorely abuseable AND isps tried to fo something like this already for high badnwith sites where you had to pay THEM more to use them which was then blocked.

 

I get your idea but once you factor in the awfullness and greed of people in power this thing will be a disaster

hence I ask would there be a way to workshop it into something useable.

As of now the ad systems breaking and failing.

How about this change you can keep viewing said ads but you can click a button to remove then in one click with a warning how much it costs to remove the ads on the page.

A transaction must be shown like 1> cent per view  varying on said item

From what I remember from word from Rossman was donating one dollar a year would be far more effective then every video you watch of him for over ads.

I would love to be able to sub for a year to many people sites and services for ad free or such things. the issue is if i did a ton of 1 dollars to people it would be eaten almost completely in transaction fees for every dotation and then the banks make all the money. 

If we could give websites small payments for a dollar or less for lets say 1 hour of add free on a news site for 0.02 cents being 10 dollar for month.

[Spotty]

52 minutes ago, NadiaMayer said:

everything is collected as single bill at the end of the month with itemised  list like "you watch 120 hour Netflix at 5c and hour you viewd 50 articles for 5c or you view 5 patron videos for 10 dollars"

Why does an hour of Netflix watching a blockbuster Hollywood film that cost $150M to make cost 5c an hour to watch but a 5 minute long patreon video shot on an iPhone in somebody's living room cost $2.00?

120 hours of Netflix a month is a lot. That's watching 60 feature length movies a month, or two movies per day. You expect that to cost only $6 (or the equivalent cost of watching 3 patreon videos)?

[NadiaMayer]

4 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Why does an hour of Netflix watching a blockbuster Hollywood film that cost $150M to make cost 5c an hour to watch but a 5 minute long patreon video shot on an iPhone in somebody's living room cost $2.00?

120 hours of Netflix a month is a lot. That's watching 60 feature length movies a month, or two movies per day. You expect that to cost only $6 (or the equivalent cost of watching 3 patreon videos)?

Sorry that was poor example I was trying think of movie deals all that such my numbers way above my pay grade.

[ToboRobot]

31 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Why does an hour of Netflix watching a blockbuster Hollywood film that cost $150M to make cost 5c an hour to watch but a 5 minute long patreon video shot on an iPhone in somebody's living room cost $2.00?

120 hours of Netflix a month is a lot. That's watching 60 feature length movies a month, or two movies per day. You expect that to cost only $6 (or the equivalent cost of watching 3 patreon videos)?

Distribution and production costs are two different things.  And the economic models are different.

 

[Kilrah]

2 hours ago, NadiaMayer said:

If everything is collected as single bill at the end of the month with itemised  list like "you watch 120 hour Netflix at 5c and hour you viewd 50 articles for 5c or you view 5 patron videos for 10 dollars"

The thing is that everything like Netflix is moving to "subscribe to the service, get access to as much as you want" because it's much less friction for people to just pay a fixed fee they know doesn't change rather than having to decide whether to buy access to each thing individually which is "painful" and they're in the end much less likely to do.

 

Also that model relies on people who watch 1h in a month and are thus "overpaying" for it to offset those who watch 50h. If that can't be relied upon and people pay for exactly what they watch you'll be back to paying $15 for a single movie like it used to be, which is what you'd pay for a whole month of an unlimited subscription now...

[Echothedolpin]

Cable TV was originally billed as being nearly commercial/ad free in the exact same way.

 

It’s not really a viable model as it leaves very easy money on the table.

[Kisai]

7 hours ago, NadiaMayer said:

I've been wanting to share this on WAN but not caught the show live.

Biggest thing people don't wanna play ads but internet cant make money without selling our data or putting ads up

This may be a bit of a hot take that of us will hate.

but what if we added a legal way to for server(Netflix Youtube fb random news sites) ISPs to bill "Client" isps (offices home internet moblie phones).

This would allow services to be build into internet plans the lizards get paid and we don't see ads.

I know the idea in the form I showed this will be ruin very fast. but could LTT forums workshop this idea.

That's what ISP's always wanted to do, and guess what happens? They want their pound of flesh.

 

The 2G era was especially nasty as Americans would be tricked into paying premium text messages all the time and guess what most of who worked at AT&T Wireless did?  Nothing. Only maybe 2 people in any particular call center knew how to "undo" text message subscription data charges. No, usually you'd be told to "send stop" to the number you're getting the premium messages from. There was always a tool to charge-back these premium numbers. 

 

Never again. ISP's will not help you. They do not want to, it costs them money. ISP's want to have their hand so deep into your pocket for as long as possible. Do not let them have that.

 

The happy-middle-ground is that Netflix (which does have this kind of arrangement with both Shaw and Telus IIRC) has a direct billing arrangement where basically netflix appears as a line item on your bill and you can activate that "affiliate netflix" that Telus and Shaw get kickbacks for. 

Or you can use your existing Netflix on their STB's and they get nothing, you're still paying the same.

 

Just to be clear, you are gaining nothing by letting the ISP bill you for it. The ISP just gets their affiliate kickbacks when you go through them. You save no money except when the ISP decides to use that as leverage.

By any account this is still a rip off. And you have to pretty much cancel and switch to shaw every two years to keep getting "discount" offers.  Or Telus and Shaw will just increase the price on you.

 

I don't hate Telus, but I also look at the prices and wonder why I'm even paying for "live TV", especially during the writers strike and there's no new content on anything. If I'm paying for unmetered internet, I'm damn well going to use it.

[LogicalDrm]

The actual solution would be to go back to early days of Youtube. Banner ads, non-intrusive ads. Anything where viewers would get ads, but wouldn't have excessive need to get something to block them.

 

If you think of roots. Why do companies buy ads? To get their message, products and services shown to new customers. Why do companies sell ads? To get money and to keep content free or cheap. What you are suggesting would split the revenue gained from ads between ISPs who serve you bandwidth and services who would gain from showing the ads. While the companies that "need" ads to expand their customer base don't actually gain anything.

[Sarra]

A company that not only pays it's bills, but also makes trillions of dollars in profit can survive on fewer ads, and non intrusive ads.

 

If google actually innovated anything, I might feel slightly differently, but I refuse to watch ads that are insultingly bad for products or services I would never use just so goggle can dump another trillion dollar line on goggle's graveyard.

 

The vast majority of ads make me so angry that I actively avoid the products they are slamming in my face.

[NadiaMayer]

On 7/2/2023 at 4:04 AM, LogicalDrm said:

The actual solution would be to go back to early days of Youtube. Banner ads, non-intrusive ads. Anything where viewers would get ads, but wouldn't have excessive need to get something to block them.

 

If you think of roots. Why do companies buy ads? To get their message, products and services shown to new customers. Why do companies sell ads? To get money and to keep content free or cheap. What you are suggesting would split the revenue gained from ads between ISPs who serve you bandwidth and services who would gain from showing the ads. While the companies that "need" ads to expand their customer base don't actually gain anything.

They don't sell tho most sites live off investors money or chock full of ads that some sites like reddit and asking crazy apis fees so they can control users to see more ads.

Also since ad providers are one paying google we are product not client. if we could pay a few less then one cent per video it would greatly help.

In general a universal nano transaction system that is regulated would help stabilised the internet and if anything people can still use ad services as a fallback.

 

[Zarrotox]

I feel like this idea leaves too much money on the table and no corp believes in doing that.

[LogicalDrm]

1 hour ago, NadiaMayer said:

They don't sell tho most sites live off investors money or chock full of ads that some sites like reddit and asking crazy apis fees so they can control users to see more ads.

Also since ad providers are one paying google we are product not client. if we could pay a few less then one cent per video it would greatly help.

In general a universal nano transaction system that is regulated would help stabilised the internet and if anything people can still use ad services as a fallback.

 

You aren't making much sense. Plus you are still forgetting those who actually buy ads to, well, advertise their products and services. Your solution, and actually all your fears, only revolve around ISPs, website/services that serve ads and middleman like Google who sell ad spots. You can't suggest solution without taking account ALL who are part of your original problem. And that includes advertisers. If there wouldn't be anyone who wanted or needed to advertise, we wouldn't be having this discussion as there wouldn't be anything to show to us.