AT&T Tries To Claim That Charging Users More For Privacy Is A 'Discount'
from the tomato,-tomahto dept
Last year, AT&T launched the latest sexy trend in broadband -- charging users significantly more money if they want to opt out of their ISP's snoopvertising. It basically works like this: users ordering AT&T's U-Verse broadband service can get the service for, say, $70 a month. But if you want to opt out of AT&T's Internet Preferences snoopvertising program (which uses deep packet inspection to study your movement around the Internet down to the second) you'll pay at least $30 more, per month. With its decision, AT&T effectively made user privacy a premium service.As the FCC has started pushing for new privacy rules (precisely because of ISP moves like this), AT&T's luxury-privacy option has been under heightened scrutiny. Speaking at a recent Consumer Federation of America panel, AT&T regulatory affairs executive Jacquelyne Flemming feebly tried to defend AT&T's policy, likening it to a "discount" that bestows "reciprocal benefits" to consumers:
"We, AT&T, have a broadband Internet access service that we market to customers that if you agree, if you opt-in, to the use of your data for various reasons, then you get a discount,” Flemming continued. “That doesn’t mean that other people who don’t get the discount are paying for privacy. I wouldn’t say that,” she explained, even though that is in fact actually the case."So, you see it's not that AT&T's charging you more just to protect your data, it's that you're getting a "discount" by letting AT&T snoop into your online behavior. It's much the same way that ISPs aren't charging you aggressively more money for buying just broadband, they're giving you a "discount" if you sign up for phone or television service you may not actually want. Flemming then amusingly proceeds to argue that hey, at least not all ISPs are doing this:
"I think that there is a benefit to the customer,” Flemming finished, “and it’s not as if we’re talking [all] broadband Internet access services, of which there are a wide range of them that are available to customers. In this particular instance, if you like to get this benefit, then there is a reciprocal benefit to the customer and the company."Right, except most users don't have the choice of more than one or two broadband providers, and if they're both charging you a premium to opt out, you'd be shit out of luck. Flemming also severely misstates what's happening here. A detailed look at what AT&T is doing shows that it's actually really hard to find how to opt out in the first place. Users have to read numerous instances of fine print to find the option, which isn't really explained clearly. So not only is AT&T making it more expensive to opt out -- they're intentionally making it notably difficult to actually do so.
That, combined with AT&T and Verizon's foray into stealth packet headers, is why the FCC's now exploring broadband privacy rules -- rules that AT&T has breathlessly opposed in several blog posts. And while these posts throw out a wide variety of false claims about how consumer privacy protections aren't necessary because broadband ISPs are harmless sweethearts, there's really one idea driving AT&T's thinking: an empowered, informed consumer with the tools to protect their privacy means AT&T makes less money.
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
Reader Comments
The First Word
“what marketing?
If that's true, then AT&T's advertising should prominently say the "actual" cost of the service. They can advertise the "discounted" price just as prominently, but if there's any truth at all to what she's saying then it should be obvious from the marketing materials. Is it? If not, then it isn't a discount.Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Does this mean they still spy on those who pay more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So which is it?
Who's doing the Hollywood Accounting here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ideas
- $30 to use premium customer service (read: any customer service at all)
- $30 for not throttling the connection during peak times (along with the $30 to remove the caps of course)
- $30 not to throttle you during non-peak times (because hey, why not?)
- $30 not to receive incessant marketing calls and mail about their awesome $30 tiers
- $30 for the privilege of not incurring in hidden fees (transparency fee)
- $30 to avoid rogue technicians from cutting your cable randomly
Go on. At this point why not test the limits on how toothless the regulatory efforts are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Discounts
We aren't charging a premium to remove data caps! We are offering a discount if you allow us to apply them!
We don't charge a premium for equip rental! We offer a discount if you bring your own equipment!
We don't charge a premium if we roll a truck! We offer a discount if you fix your own problems and never call us!
Heck everyone is actually our customers and since we don't even charge a premium to provide internet service! We simply offer a 100% discount if you get internet service from someone else!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
State Actors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: State Actors
Apple shined a light, and the FBI scurried away. Perhaps the term "dark net" needs to be redefined. "dark net" in popular culture isn't really a network. (at least in OSI terms)
However out of band infrastructure used for surveillance certainly IS a real network. When we say "dark net" aren't we really talking about something more akin to room 641A? . Or in more modern terms, networks employing devices like this one on customer traffic without any kind of informed consent?
If nobody knows what a "dark net" is, which is apparent in the polling, then the meme is up in the air. It's probably easier to grasp the idea of network elements used for societal control, than it is to grasp the digitized crackhead street hussles that tend to actually be at the center of this term.
I think TD should try and hijack this term. Much like how marketers hijacked the term "modem" and "router" to describe things that don't modulate, or route. Turnabout is fair play after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what marketing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politician
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lost in Translation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just to be picky
AT&T aren't claiming that those paying more are receiving a discount. They're claiming that the opted-out fees are the normal price. The "discount", as they call it, is for users who don't opt out and who do, indeed, pay less.
I don't know what the rules are over in the US, but in the UK I think they'd be caught under our Trade Descriptions Act if they didn't advertise the standard price correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just to be picky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just to be picky
Super-Fast Speeds
There is no one faster in the markets we serve. Speeds often start at 50 Mbps and are up to 1 Gb in select markets. Plus, our world-class technical team and 24/7 customer support ensures outstanding service. Pick the best plan for your needs.
I pay 35$ a month bundled (free cable w/rent) I get 50 Mbps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just to be picky
Second, consumer protections here in the US are much weaker than in Europe. For any agency to respond, stat, to what AT&T is doing, AT&T would have to be doing something similar to holding your kids ransom until you pay the extra $30.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember phone books?
You had to pay extra to have your name, address, and phone number left out of these books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T probably tested this with their employees first
They couch it in terms of "if you give us federally protected health information, we'll give you a discount on your health insurance that still costs more than you ever paid before".
If you refuse to give up your health information, you pay even more for your benefits, in some cases that "increase" caused by "not getting the discount" equates to 300 a month more for the same substandard insurance plan.
This activity is tantamount to blackmail and coercion, to force employees to hand over data that is otherwise prohibited by federal law for companies to ask for.
They go one step further to "protect" themselves by asking an intermediary company to "collect, sort and analyze" the data.
It's time for multiple class action lawsuits for employees to sue their employers, customers to sue their service providers.
It's also time for the states AG's offices to dig into and block these kinds of blatantly illegal practices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My cheers for FCC trying to slap AT&T for this
1)
Regular price $70
Privacy surcharge +$30
vs.
2)
Regular price $100
Discount if you wave your privacy -$30.
However I strongly believe privacy should be your basic right, not a privilage you have to pay for.
When I pay ISP my money, I expect NOT to be a product myself for ISP to monetirize and sell to advertisers.
So 1) should be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My cheers for FCC trying to slap AT&T for this
In which case their base rate went up and they're presumably lying in their advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, Frabjous Day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, Frabjous Day!
You're only as "safe" as to the extent revenue-aggressive ISP exec boards are, at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, Frabjous Day!
I get uncapped DSL+ performance from one provider - I use that for Freenet (tuned to circa 250GB/month...I might kick that up).
I get uncapped Cable- performance from another provider - I use that for my cable-cutting approach to TV and music consuming habits (circa 150GB/month...I just don't need more, sorry).
The total charges for both is less than the AT&T charge reported here. It's about $10/month more that Comcast would charge for cable capped at 300GB in nearby neighborhoods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn’t say that
Of course she wouldn't say that. She's being paid not to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wouldn't encryption and a trusted proxy be enough
But this problem isn't a computer science problem. It is a "if the shit keeps going in this direction, people are going to start disappearing in the middle of the night" problem.
We are talking about the progressive domestic normalization of law enforcement practices, typically used by countries we once called "enemies of freedom".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another disconnect
I find this incredibly telling because it indicates how deep the disconnect between the purveryors of targeted advertising and normal people are.
Flemming actually expected that the answer to "would you rather have untargeted ads" to be "no". As if no other answer would make any sense.
These people clearly either completely fail to understand the problem, are trying their hardest to not understand the problem, or are just straight-up lying. It doesn't matter which of the three it is, the results are equally bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gaslighting at its finest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shut this spying corporation down ALREADY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Opt-in" means that you have to choose it, as something other than the default.
If they're advertising the rate with the "discount" applied and this "service" active, rather than without, that seems to imply that the with-the-"discount" rate is the default - and thus that it is an opt-out, rather than an opt-in, scenario.
If someone who signs up for new service gets the with-the-discount rate and this "service" unless they go out of their way to request otherwise, that is definitely an opt-out scenario - especially if they don't get proactively asked, during the sign-up process, whether they want the "service".
If a customer who was subscribed before they began offering the "service" gets it and the "discount" automatically without being asked whether they want it, that is definitely an opt-out scenario.
To refer to it as "opt-in", if (as seems likely) any of those things is true, is highly misleading and an abuse of the language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vocab
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]