• You've been granted Beta access to this site, allowing you to explore some of the new features while they're still under construction. More information can be found in the Beta forum.

Comcast Says It Wants to Charge Broadband Users More For Privacy

pete_c

Guru
Comcast Says It Wants to Charge Broadband Users More For Privacy
by Karl Bode
Wednesday Aug 03 2016 10:56 EDT
 
Comcast this week informed the FCC that it should be able to charge broadband users looking to protect their privacy more money. The FCC has been crafting some new privacy rules for broadband that would force ISPs to disclose exactly what they're collecting and selling, while also providing working opt-out tools. But the FCC also wants to take aim at efforts by some ISPs to make privacy a premium option. AT&T, for example, charges its U-verse broadband customers significantly more if they want to opt out of snoopvertising.
 
cc.gif

In a new filing with the FCC (pdf), Comcast argues that charging consumers more money to opt out of snoopvertising should be considered a "perfectly acceptable" business practice.

"A bargained-for exchange of information for service is a perfectly acceptable and widely used model throughout the U.S. economy, including the Internet ecosystem, and is consistent with decades of legal precedent and policy goals related to consumer protection and privacy," Comcast said in the filing. The company proceeds to claim that banning such options "would harm consumers by, among other things, depriving them of lower-priced offerings."

In short, Comcast is arguing that protecting your own privacy should be a paid luxury option, and stopping them from doing so would raise broadband rates. But as we've noted for years it's the lack of competition that keeps broadband prices high. It's also the lack of competition that prevents users upset with broadband privacy practices from switching to another ISP. That's why the FCC thinks some basic privacy rules of the road might be a good idea.

AT&T was the first major broadband provider to charge users more to protect their privacy when it launched its gigabit broadband service in Austin in late 2014. Users have to pay AT&T a $30 or more monthly premium if they want to opt out of AT&T's "Internet Preferences," a deep packet inspection program that tracks your browsing behavior around the Internet -- down to the second.

But opting out of Internet Preferences can be a difficult option to even find if you're a new customer, quite intentionally buried in a labyrinth of website menu options. And few are likely to choose it given it dramatically raises a customer's monthly bill from between $531 and $800 the first year. AT&T has repeatedly tried to argue that they're not charging users for basic privacy, they're offering a "discount."

The FCC reclassified ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act last year. After defeating the broadband industry's court challenge of this move last June, the FCC is now looking to update legacy phone privacy rules in the act for the broadband era. Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and other large providers have repeatedly argued that privacy rules governing broadband connections are completely unnecessary.

In contrast, consumer advocates argue that the decision to make privacy an expensive luxury option -- combined with Verizon and AT&T's decision to covertly modify wireless user packets to track customers around the Internet -- make it abundantly clear that the industry simply can't be trusted to self-regulate on the privacy front without significant consumer harm.
 

elvisimprsntr

Active Member
They lost the net neutrality battle which would have allowed them to charge more for some content. I'm surprised it took this long to come up with another scheme to charge a premium for another reason.

Comcast and others like them often have a monopoly. Thus they need to charge what ever they can get before the competition installs infrastructure.
 

pete_c

Guru
Yeah it started a long time ago.  I was in to the BUD stuff and recalled them being banned in many towns because of cable.  Later the same stuff was used such that you couldn't hang a DTV dish outside or even an outdoor aerial.  Later FCC stepped in. 
 
Sometime in the 80's / 90's while surfing with the BUD came across a life television show.  I watched and called up to speak to the presenter while he was presenting his show.  It was a live interesting conversation.  It was the early days of interactive television (different than QVC stuff though) I was just sitting in my family room have a beverage and while he did present an interesting discussion; he assumed it was just one way until I started to state my views to him out loud for his audience ....
 
When is it in history that what you see and hear and read is stifled or removed anyways.
 
Really nobody pays attention unless it is at the tip of their noses these days.  By then it is way too late.  It is all about money anyways.
 
Top