If I cannot use an ad-blocker, then I should be able to have a perfect measurment of what % of my bandwidth, for which I pay for, is consumed by ads, and then charge them a fee for resource utilization, convenience fee, fcc annoyance fee, corrupt-packet fee and dropped-packet waste of resource fee, and congestion fee.
If you're consuming content on ad supported services and sites, then why would anyone be reimbursement you for bandwidth costs that they have no control over?
You could be on a network paid for by your employer, one very frugally negotiated, or a redundant yet costly satellite link you have for vanity reasons.
The point was, I think, that they're giving more than what was asked for. With an ad blocker a user can opt out of expensive parts of the content and if they're denied that then they're being forced to consume the content they didn't want. A website makes a bunch of files available publicly. My user agent picks a few of those files it wants and ignores the rest. If my UA is forced to acquire all the files or the specific set the site requires, they're forcing me to spend my resources downloading, processing, and displaying files I don't want, at great expense both to my wallet and my time, and my mind. I have a tool that manages this for me and they're telling me I can't engage with some of their content because I won't engage with other of their content.
It's like a buffet that requires you fill your plate only the way they want it filled. It's a buffet. It's not a prefix.
>The point was, I think, that they're giving more than what was asked for.
They're not. You just turned out to not actually want what you asked for.
>I have a tool that manages this for me and they're telling me I can't engage with some of their content because I won't engage with other of their content.
Yes, because they provided the former free of charge solely on the basis that you'd accept the latter as well.
