There is an article on slashdot The Morality of Web Advertisement Blocking that talked about whether it’s right to use ad blocking software. Typical arguments on both sides of the equation.
Personally I don’t buy into the arguments such as ‘waste of bandwidth’ and ’speed’ because, these days people are wasting bandwidth on much more intensive apps like YouTube. Popups, animations and voice are a valid concern and the advertisers should eventually learn to get rid of these.
Anyway, I think, if the problem becomes widespread that no one is able to make revenue out of ads due to ad blocking, two things are likely to emerge.
1. Today, ads are served mainly by using a snippet of javascript that typically creates an iframe. So, the blocking software is actually looking for urls that contain well known ad serving companies. What if the ads are served as part of the content itself and not as separate iframes? This requires fetching content from the ad-network at the server side and combining it with rest of the dynamic content as opposed to letting the client to fetch the ads.
Ofcourse, the actual ad link itself has to go through the ad network. Converting just a link alone doesn’t really get rid of the ad, but will deprive the ad network of it’s revenue. One possibility is to use random ip addresses for this.
2. Even with the above, there is a possibility to look for common patterns and get rid of the ads. So, the second technique that ad networks can try out is to randomize the generated HTML content so that it’s not possible to come up with a pattern that can be easily filtered.
None of the above techniques are robust, but worth exploring. I guess, in the end, the ad-serving and blocking will turn out to be like virus creation and blocking, with the good and bad guys playing the opposite roles, depending on whose side you are 
.
