AT&T's $30 'Don't Be Snooped On' Fee Is Even Worse Than Everybody Thought

from the ill-communication dept

Mon, Mar 2nd 2015 8:03am — Karl Bode

Last week we noted that while AT&T has been trying to match Google Fiber pricing in small portions of several markets, it has been busily doing it in a very AT&T fashion. While the company is offering a $70, 1 Gbps service in some locations, the fine print indicates that users can only get that price point if they agree to AT&T's Internet Preferences snoopvertising program. That program uses deep packet inspection to track your online behavior down to the second -- and if you want to opt out, that $70 1 Gbps broadband connection quickly becomes significantly more expensive.

While most people thought this was rather dumb, AT&T actually received kudos on some fronts for trying something new. Apparently, the logic goes, AT&T charging you a major monthly fee to not be snooped on will result in some kind of privacy arms race resulting in better services and lower prices for all. While sometimes that sort of concept works (Google and Apple scurrying to profess who loves encryption more, for example), anybody who believes this is a good precedent doesn't know the U.S. telecom market or AT&T very well.

As Stacey Higginbotham at GigaOM notes, it's not as simple as just paying AT&T a $30 to not be snooped on. AT&T actually makes it very difficult to even find the "please don't spy on me option," and saddles the process with a number of loopholes to prevent you from choosing it. In fact, you're not even able to compare prices unless you plug in an address that's in AT&T's footprint, but currently doesn't have AT&T service. Meanwhile, according to Higginbotham's math, even if you're successful in signing up, that $30 privacy fee is actually much more depending on your chosen options. If you just want broadband, opting out of AT&T snoopvertising will actually run you $44:

"Gigabit service costs $99 per month under the Standard Plan plus a $7 monthly fee modem rental fee and a $99 one-time activation fee, that nets out to a monthly cost of $114. The Internet Preference Plan waives the one-time activation and monthly modem fee which means you pay only $70 a month, giving you a true cost of $44 a month if you choose the privacy-preserving option."

It's worse if you want to sign up for television services:

"The Standard Plan has a higher cost of $149 per month plus the $7 monthly fee and a one-time $49 activation fee. Only you also add in a $10 monthly service fee for HD TV and a $16 monthly fee for HBO Go which are included in the Internet Preference Plan. So the comparable plan nets out to $186, which costs $66 more than the $120 you’d pay for letting AT&T sneak a peek at your home broadband web surfing habits."

So no, AT&T isn't opening up some brave new frontier here where consumers have greater control of privacy. It's charging you a huge premium just to opt out of deep packet inspection, and making it as expensive and as confusing as possible to do so.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: broadband, competition, deep packet inspection, internet preferences, privacy
Companies: at&t

49 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Pixelation, 2 Mar 2015 @ 8:09am

Invasion of privacy
Is this really legal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 8:13am

Encrypt everything
Just encrypt everything - job done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 8:13am

Releived
I feel so relieved. I was believing that Internet advertising only netted the ISP's $30 per month. Now I find out that my eyes are actually worth $44 to $66 dollars per month.

Who knew that their eyes had a such a high monthly value?

It's a wonder that all the websites I visit aren't going under.

/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 8:20am

Re: Invasion of privacy
Under Title II, hopefully not. But, I suspect without it it is probably is.

This is one reason why it is so important to take regulatory steps to reign in these abusive monopolies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 8:21am

Instead of paying an extra $30/mo, why not just get a $5/mo VPN? (though can you really trust that the VPN is not snooping on you?) And how can anyone be sure that ATT is keeping its word? Even without DPI, most NDS servers log urls apparently.

I'm waiting for Facebook to offer a "DO NOT SNOOP ON ME" option, which so far, is apparently not available at any price.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 8:38am

I hope net neutrality rules end up prohibiting the practice of injecting ads into people's HTTP connections.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ABjorn, 2 Mar 2015 @ 8:48am

Re:
I would hope that rather than prohibit injection, net neutrality would just make it possible for users to have options that don't use injection. That way the users can decide which they prefer and the market should work itself out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 8:51am

I'm quite curious: how can this practice be considered legal ?
I live in Belgium (Europe) and we had several cases of ISP's (and there are only two major ISP's) using deep package inspection to 'direct' peer to peer traffic.
The result was that the ministry of internal affairs and the privacy watchdog threatened legal action on the ISP's, as it was considered a violation of their user's privacy.
A company is not allowed to open your mail and read it, so why are they allowed to intercept your communication, just because it is done on a computer ?
Is it simply a matter of old and outdated laws, or are there no legal safeguards in place on communication in the USA ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 8:53am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection#United_States

ATT has rooms dedicated to the "lawful intercept" using DPI. According to various reports over the years, *ALL* traffic is recorded and shared.

Am I to understand that if I pay $30, they will simply *NOT* use DPI equipment on my traffic? like - if i pay an extra $30, then I truly must be honest?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 8:56am

Re: Re:
I would hope that rather than prohibit injection, net neutrality would just make it possible for users to have options that don't use injection.

Net neutrality doesn't do anything to improve competition at the ISP level, it just attempts to curb monopoly abuse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 8:56am

Re:
A company is not allowed to open your mail and read it, so why are they allowed to intercept your communication, just because it is done on a computer ?

Presumably because you "agreed" to allow them to do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 9:03am

Re:
Am I to understand that if I pay $30, they will simply *NOT* use DPI equipment on my traffic? like - if i pay an extra $30, then I truly must be honest?
No, the fee just (allegedly) prevents them from using it for marketing purposes you would detect. Their unlawful snooping for the government is totally separate and non-consensual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Avatar28 (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 9:13am

The biggest problem
with this, aside from the principle of the thing I mean, is let's say that, uh, someone who isn't me likes porn and has AT&T for internet. What happens when their algorithm decides that since they like porn so much they should start getting ads for adult sites injected and their kids start getting those ads since it's the same connection?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gordon, 2 Mar 2015 @ 9:14am

Corporatism blows
America desperately needs to be allowed to have competition in the broadband market. Until people can switch over to a provider who doesn't charge a couple of limbs to not spy on you, AT&T has [i]carte blanche[/i] to do this sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 9:14am

Re:
"Is it simply a matter of old and outdated laws, or are there no legal safeguards in place on communication in the USA?"

The US has plenty of safeguards, for those who can afford them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 9:15am

Re: Invasion of privacy
When has AT&T ever worried about the legality of their actions?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kennon, 2 Mar 2015 @ 9:20am

Re:
A $5/month VPN that will support 1Gbps speeds? Post a link?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kennon, 2 Mar 2015 @ 9:23am

As long as they are offering a for-cost option to avoid this level of intrusion I don't see the problem. This is basically Google's entire business model. You can get all these great services for $0 but in exchange we get to snoop all your data. If you don't like that they pay for enterprise email and web hosting. How is this any different?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 9:30am

Re: Corporatism blows
That's part of a bargain between the government and the big providers. "We'll protect you from a free market and in return you'll help us spy on everyone."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl Bode (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 10:02am

Re:
Here it's illegal and horrible if a small company does it (NebuAD), but perfectly ok when a giant company with deep pockets does it (AT&T).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 10:09am

Down with AT&T! But...
All things considered, even $115 is a pretty respectable price for Gigabit internet compared to other ISPs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 10:29am

Re:
With Google, I have a choice to use their services if I think they're valuable.

Just try opting out when AT&T is your only choice for broadband.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 10:30am

Re: Re:
It's still illegal and horrible when a giant company like AT&T does it. It's just with the army of lawyers and lobbyists that they have at their disposal, holding them accountable for it is damned near impossible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 10:38am

VPNs
Will they block access to VPNs, which would block access to Deep Packet Inspection? Or are they using SuperFish, to generate fake VPN certificates?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whoever, 2 Mar 2015 @ 10:56am

Get a VPN
Instead of paying an extra $30/mo, why not just get a $5/mo VPN? (though can you really trust that the VPN is not snooping on you?)

If you have the technical skills, you can rent a virtual private server and run your own VPN for $5/month. Much less chance of being spied upon for commercial reasons if you do this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl Bode (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 11:00am

Re: Re: Invasion of privacy
Sorry to say but I don't see the FCC doing anything about this sort of thing, even under Title II. I think even with tougher rules, offenses are going to need to be aggressively ham-fisted for them to get an ISP in trouble. This sort of stuff, like usage caps and zero rating, is going to be seen as "creative" pricing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl Bode (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 11:01am

Re: Re: Re:
Well that's in large part because when caught, they're actually powerful enough to have the law changed (see: Mark Klein, NSA).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl Bode (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 11:06am

Re: Re:
Yeah letting you opt out of that would require them actually acknowledging that Mark Klein was right...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 11:11am

Re: Down with AT&T! But...
All things considered, even $115 is a pretty respectable price for Gigabit internet compared to other ISPs.

Until you start looking at industrialized countries that are not the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 11:30am

Re: Get a VPN
Where are you going to find a VPS for $5/month? $20/month will get you a tiny, no frills VPS. $5/month gets you a tiny shared hosting account that won't allow you to use it as a VPN because it's on a shared server.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SimonTek, 2 Mar 2015 @ 11:31am

Slippery Slope
Slippery slope to be sitting on. If they do "spy" on people for certain parties, and they are caught doing so, large lawsuit if the end user paid the "Not to be snooped on fee".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 11:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't have to change the law when you have enough government officials in your pocket that they won't enforce it. The lawyers ensure that no one else can succeed at bringing civil action against you for violating it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 12:04pm

"A $5/month VPN that will support 1Gbps speeds? Post a link?"

www.cryptostorm.is

....think it's a bit more then 5 a month though- unless you get an aleph (forever) token, or pay bi-annually (2 year token). still it's close.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jannydarling, 2 Mar 2015 @ 12:09pm

To paraphrase Ma Bell's own Ernestine:
They don't care
They don't have to
They're the Phone Company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 3:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Invasion of privacy
Which just highlights the fact that Title II is a tiny band-aid on the broken leg of lack of competition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 5:29pm

Yeah, turns out the top tier super duper give a damn gold standard privacy plan is an extra 100 ontop of what you pay........good times

Disclaimer
Nsa/gchq backdoor still applies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 6:57pm

AT&T wants extra money in exchange for not violating a customer's privacy. Comcast hands out special cards to privileged people with info on how to get through to a customer rep that's actually able to provide a modicum of help.

At what point did we as a society decide that "not being treated like shit" was a legitimate "premium" upgrade to basic service?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 8:23pm

Re:
At what point did we as a society decide that "not being treated like shit" was a legitimate "premium" upgrade to basic service?

We never decided that, but it's the sort of thing companies decide when they don't have any real competition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 9:50pm

Human right is not a comodity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Howard (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 11:50pm

Re: Invasion of privacy
They ask for money to NOT do something to you you consider unpleasant.
Is it me, or is it awfully sounds like racketeering?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 3 Mar 2015 @ 4:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Invasion of privacy
It was never meant to be a cure, but it is a step in the right direction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 3 Mar 2015 @ 8:57am

Dear AT&T
Your job is to route packets to their destination. Period.

Your job is NOT to snoop on my traffic. Prioritize my traffic. Purposely mis-route my traffic to different servers. Play games with how DNS resolution works. And other evil things.

I understand that doing evil things are in your nature. And therefore, can be impossible to resist. But it is not what you are supposed to be doing with my packets.

Google does NOT do deep packet inspection of my traffic. The information that Google does have about me is information I allow them to have in exchange for a superior experience in using the internet.

Especially since AT&T does not, never has and unlikely never will offer a superior internet experience, for that reason AT&T should definitely NOT be snooping on my traffic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2015 @ 9:42pm

Screw AT&T. I wanted to say that because it feels good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2015 @ 10:50pm

Re: Re:
Good point. But there's still the problem that they also help lower the bar for other industries, even the ones that have competition. Once we're conditioned to being treated like crap in one aspect of our lives, it gets easier to accept it in others.

I'm waiting for the day I'm expected to pay the cashier at the grocery store a service fee to avoid getting kicked in the nads by the bag-boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2015 @ 6:18pm

Re: VPN
This is a no-brainer. Save $25 by using a VPN.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 5 Mar 2015 @ 10:15am

Re: Dear AT&T
"Prioritize my traffic."

Actually, prioritizing traffic is absolutely one of their legitimate jobs. You want them to do this -- if they don't, then the quality of your internet service would be much lower.

The issue is that the prioritization should be based on the realities of network traffic and not on who the traffic belongs to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JBDragon (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 5:17pm

Re: Corporatism blows
This is what happens from years of Government created Monopolies!!!! Should have never happened. I see zero reason why Comcast and TWC and anyone else that wants to can't all be in the SAME City's fighting it out. The more the better!!!

The only way to get people and keep people then is great service and a great price!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another Anon, 10 Dec 2015 @ 12:49pm

Re:
Wire fraud rules should have been enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 10 Dec 2015 @ 2:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention the perverse incentives where the government suggests "If you share that data with us, we won't punish you for collecting it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]