Somewhere across the Atlantic, inside a European company that runs a wireless network for smartphones and computer tablets, an executive is trying to drop "the bomb" on Google.

That's the word from The Financial Times. According to the paper, this wireless exec is considering a plan that involves blocking Google ads on millions of mobile phones "in an attempt to force the company into giving up a cut of its revenues." His carrier would snuff Google's ads "just for an hour or a day," the exec tells The FT, saying this would be enough to bring Google to the negotiating table.

It's a ridiculous plan. Blocking ads in this ham-fisted way would spark an enormous uproar among public advocates and in the press on both sides of the Atlantic. After all, it would violate the idea of net neutrality—the notion that all internet traffic should be treated equally—and it may even qualify as censorship. But this is almost beside the point. The bigger issue here is that this plan has exactly zero chance of bringing Google to the table. The web's most powerful company is not about to negotiate away the business model that drives its entire online empire

"People pay for mobile internet packages so they can access the apps, video streaming, webmail and other services they love, many of which are funded by ads," Google said in response to The FT story. "Google and other web companies invest heavily in developing these services—and in the behind-the-scenes infrastructure to deliver them." Google would fight this in court, not at the negotiating table.

Tug of War

The more realistic possibility is that this European carrier—and others like it—will install ad blocking tech in their data centers and then give smartphones owners the option of turning it on. In terms of net neutrality, such a thing sits in a (slightly) grayer area. The FT says this is on the way as well, reporting that several European carriers are set to deploy ad blocking tech from an Israeli company called Shine. Shine says much the same thing. "The story is accurate," company spokesman Roi Carthy tells WIRED.

The situation is part of never-ending push-and-pull between the world's internet service providers and the companies (most notably Google) that offer software over the net. Basically, Google believes it should be able to do whatever it wants on the networks operated by the ISPs. The ISPs believe they should be compensated for the use of their network. And each is always looking for an edge in this ongoing debate.

Blocking ads in this ham-fisted way would spark an enormous uproar among public advocates and in the press on both sides of the Atlantic.

Shine believes that its technology can shift the balance in this tug-of-war. In Europe, at least, the company feels that this tech in on solid legal ground. "Net neutrality is about companies treating data differently," Carthy says. "When the user opts into a service, it's a different scenario altogether." Unlike the U.S., the European Union has yet to approve official net neutrality rules, which could explain at least some of Shine's confidence.

But Shine and the carriers will face enormous opposition if they deploy such technology—and not just from Google. "This is incredibly harmful—and not because I think ads are awesome," says Josh Levy, of Access Now, a not-for-profit dedicated to protecting net neutrality in the US, Europe, and across the globe. "Ads are content and service providers should not be blocking any kind of content. Full stop. That's true whether it's an ad or a blog or your Facebook articles or whatever."

Levy acknowledges that some consumers would be happy to eliminate ads from their phones, in part because ads can eat into their data quotas. But he says the Shine setup would set a dangerous precedent. "If you start blocking ads, it's a slippery slope to start blocking other types of content."

Staying Neutral

To get an idea of the furor that will confront the carriers, take a quick look at the complaints Facebook has encountered in rolling out its Internet.org app, an effort to bring internet services, including the Facebook social network, to the developing world. The Internet.org app is free, and though its use is certainly in Facebook's self-interest, it also provides a service that could benefit an enormous number of people by providing Internet access they might not otherwise have. Yet it still may not succeed in places like India because in the eyes of some critics, its free access to a limited number of sites and services is a kind of preferential treatment that violates net neutrality.

The Internet.org debate is very closely linked to the Shine situation, Levy says. If Facebook is getting this kind of heat, the carriers will get much more if they roll out Shine. And the detriment to the carriers will exceed the benefits.

In fact, it's not completely clear what the benefits are. We don't know how well Shine will work (the company is coy about the particulars, and the Googles of the world are always changing their ad techniques). Even if it does work, it will block only a portion of the ads on phones (it doesn't touch ads Facebook and Twitter, for instance). It's not as if the carriers can offer to sell you an ad-free phone. In fact, many of them likely have their own ad programs.

In short, the idea of carriers blocking ads isn't just unlikely; it's also ridiculous.