Not everybody objects ...
"Everyone posting comments here keeps neatly ignoring the issue of who is going to pay for websites if not advertisers. "
No, several people have pointed out that they are perfectly happy with static adverts in reasonable proportion to the information content -- much the same as in a newspaper.
Static adverts have financed newspapers and magazines for many many years without problems. The cover price usually represents only 20% of a publication's income and in many cases the item is free anyway. It's a tried and trusted formula, and it WORKS.
So, the way forward is :
b) KEEP THEM TO A SENSIBLE SIZE. 20% of the page (measured by both display area and download size) should be enough unless the information on the page is exceptionally valuable and expensive to maintain.
c) ADS should be relevant to the CONTENT of the page, and should not require spyware techniques.
d) ADS probably shouldn't need to be displayed at all on sites which have other sources of income (eg EBAY, banks, online order sites).
If you follow those rules (and they probably ought to be enshrined in national law) then your ads are much less likely to be blocked and you stand a chance of covering the server costs -- which are pretty low anyway, compared with most other forms of information distribution.