Comcast Tells The FCC It Should Be Able To Charge Broadband Users A Premium For Privacy
from the stop-trying-to-help dept
A few years back, we noted how AT&T had begun charging broadband users a significant premium if they wanted to opt out of the company's Internet Essentials advertising program. Under that program, AT&T uses deep packet inspection to track consumer browsing behavior around the Internet -- down to the second. By default, AT&T users are opted in to the program. If they want to opt out of this data collection, consumers need to not only navigate a confusing array of options, but they also need to pay $44 to $62 more per month. AT&T, in typical fashion, has actually claimed this is a "discount."With the FCC's Title II and net neutrality rules upheld, the agency is now considering new basic broadband privacy protections primarily focused on two things: ensuring ISPs properly disclose what's being collected and sold, and ensuring that ISPs provide customers with clear, working opt-out tools. But the agency is also considering banning ISPs from turning your privacy into an expensive luxury option.
Needless to say, Comcast isn't too pleased with this decision. In a new filing with the FCC (pdf) documenting a meeting at the agency, everybody's least liked cable company argues that stopping them from charging more for privacy would, amusingly, hurt consumers by making services more expensive:
"We also urged that the Commission allow business models offering discounts or other value to consumers in exchange for allowing ISPs to use their data. As Comcast and others have argued, the FCC has no authority to prohibit or limit these types of programs. Moreover, such a prohibition would harm consumers by, among other things, depriving them of lower-priced offerings, and as FTC Commissioner Ohlhausen points out, “such a ban may prohibit ad supported broadband services and thereby eliminate a way to increase broadband adoption."Yes, that's Comcast actually trying to argue that charging customers more money for privacy is a good thing because it will lower rates and improve broadband adoption. Except as we all know, it's the lack of competition in the broadband space that sets broadband pricing and adoption. And there's yet to be an ISP that has seriously embraced the idea of offering a lower-priced service if consumers agree to have their behavior monetized. All AT&T is doing is taking an already expensive broadband service and tacking a very steep privacy surcharge on top of it.
In addition to trying to argue that the FCC doesn't have the authority to police such behavior (not true, it's simply updating existing Title II privacy rules governing phone network CPNI and applying them to broadband), Comcast said that making privacy a luxury option is simply a "bargained-for exchange of information for service":
"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."Again though, the implementation of this idea at AT&T is unique because in the broadband market, users can't switch providers if they don't like their privacy practices. Meanwhile, AT&T not only makes opting out expensive, it makes it incredibly cumbersome and confusing -- ensuring that the least number of users actually take the option. These ISPs consistently argue that they should be treated just like Google and Facebook when it comes to privacy regulations, intentionally ignoring the lack of competition in last mile broadband.
As they push harder into content and ads, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have all repeatedly tried to argue that there should be absolutely no privacy rules governing broadband because they can self-regulate in the absence of meaningful competition. But as we saw when Verizon was busted for covertly modifying wireless packets to track consumers (one of the things that drove the FCC to take this route to begin with), it's abundantly clear that's simply not the case.
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
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1.
a loud noise or clamor, especially of a disturbing or confusing kind; din; uproar:
Which is probably what needs to be made to stop these assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again Government Overreach
Why shouldn't Comcast be able to charge extra fees for:
* privacy
* service that actually works
* acceptable levels of service
* protection from comcast employees intruding onto your property unannounced and for unspecified purposes
* a premium service agreement without the standard clause allowing comcast to harvest your, and your family's organs
Comcast strongly supports letting the free market forces decide . . . as long as comcast is the ONLY player allowed in that market.
The government should not be trying to tell Comcast how to run its business. After all, Comcast is an award winning company, year after year winning awards for worst service and most hated company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again Government Overreach
Get a clue soon please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
I also hoped it was obvious that regulation is how to fix the lack of a free market. I had hoped the example of organ harvesting made that clear. I suppose if Comcast demanded organ harvesting in exchange for working service, that regulators could possibly do something about that. (Although whether they actually would might depend upon campaign contributions -- which could outweigh the public outcry over comcast harvesting people's organs.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
Regulation will NEVER fix a free market! The very act of Regulation removes free market principles, so the moment you regulate you have shat free market right out the fucking window.
That being said, there is a 'sliver' of regulation that I would agree with which is Anti-Monoploy and Anti-Trust regulation. These regulations in America are only called upon when someone has a political axe to grind, otherwise every other form of terrible and corruption focused "regulation" you can find are at play in this so-call "Free Market".
The term "Regulation" as you are putting forth only gets you one thing. "Government in bed with business"... and that just means that citizens lose even more because now the business has government sanctioned butt fucking of the customers!
The majority of the History of the FCC itself is a standing beacon of proof of this! The FTC is right on its heels as well. There are still tons of businesses just flat out ignoring the regulations, only to be heeled when "enough" people start complaining. And with the number of complaints with telecom and still not much done to them by the FCC and FTC.... yea keep screaming for that regulation.
You will only get just what you wanted to get RID of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
Instead they use it to go after Google for no good reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
If the ONLY tools the government has are those types of regulation they they will use them more often because they will have little else to do. And when government has little to do, they lose funding, so they will do more than they do know to stay relevant!
Are you figuring out how this all works yet? I am guessing you are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
And since I stated that point already, you just set up a straw man argument!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
* fees, extra fees, and more fees
* high prices
* poor quality
* outrageous contract terms
* polluting our air and water, just, because they can! Who's going to stop them?
* requiring your firstborn, buried somewhere in fine print
* harvesting your organs, to increase executive bonuses
It makes me sick when people say no regulation is needed. The behavior of companies in an absence of regulation proves the need for regulation.
It makes me even sicker to hear a politication, like in a state, such as Texas, say something like "we can't have regulation, this is a pro-business state". Here's a clue: behaving as if you are part of the community, instead of trying to exploit it, and it's natural resources -- IS GOOD BUSINESS, for the long term. Not just this quarter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
Free markets need regulation. A good example is making slavery illegal in the labor market. Yes, I know that some people argue that *true* freedom includes the freedom to own slaves. I disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
http://on-t-internet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/pirate-party-talking-points-free-market.html
Howev er, market forces do exist and you ignore them at your peril. Since the game is rigged, we need rules and a referee. That's what regulation is for.
Finally, bear the Twofold Principle in mind when replying to this comment. It'll save a lot of typing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
Sure, if you can find me a saint of a human fucking being immune to the corrupting forces of money and power then I would say regulate like there was no tomorrow.
So instead... 98% of all regulation is regulation that was purchased!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
ftfy, at no charge.
Oh - and btw ... contrary to what I'm sure you believe, the market is not self regulating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
Regulation IS corruption! Yes free market is self-regulation why in the fuck to you think the Businesses want to get rid of the free market? Every BIG business LOVES regulation/corruption because they can BUY regulations that help the big guys succeed while the little guys struggle.
Comcast does not want a free market any more than ignorant folk like you. You all have bought into the "I need Nanny Government to change my diapers and make decisions for me" bullshit.
Does this quote help make you understand?
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
~Thomas Jefferson
In a world devoid of Free Market means you get to attend to the TOO small degree of liberty side. There are now so many laws and regulations that no human fucking being can possibly know them and just like in Gone in 60 seconds... "if you use an aerosol can in a manner other than directed"... Maybe, just maybe one of these days you idiots will figure a few of these things out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
Your definitions do not coincide with those found in dictionaries across the globe.
Your Appeal to Authority is weak sauce.
Apparently a course in economics would be beneficial to you, your "free market" is a mental construct and does not really exist anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
However that is why we refer to them as free market "principles". The problem here is that you call free market a bad guy while calling corruption a good guy.
Neither are inherently good or bad. It's just far easier for corruption to set in with regulation than it is for a free market.
The definitions argument is really a straw man. Regulation by government is 'effectively' the same as corruption despite having different definitions because that is the only direction government moves. Show me all throughout history where a government slowly started to give freedom back to their people without bloodshed and THEN you can say I am wrong.
When a government allows more freedom, it is because "The Citizens" PUSHED BACK HARD ENOUGH!
Here are a few simple maxims that are hopefully not too hard for you to understand.
The Bigger the Government the smaller the Individual!
Too Big to Fail!
How much liberty do you want? How much do you need? How much do you think Government believes you should get?
Do you have rights? Try disobeying a Police Officer!
Regulation = Law, but we use them in different contexts! Every time a new regulation shows up things are fucked up, and then idiots like you go blaming the wrong fucking thing. This is why we cannot have nice things, this is why we are continuing the slide into being a weak nation. YOU are why things will only get worse and not better. You would rather see it all burn instead of getting a clue!
I could on and on, but I don't think you even remotely understand!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
I do not recall typing anything close to what you claim, care to expound upon this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
I think that is what the other dude said - no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again Government Overreach
Everyone should contact Comcast and let them know how angry you are at them for
A: Buying monopolistic laws to gain a monopolistic position
B: Abusing that monopolistic position to harm consumers
Contact their employees, let them know. Let them know every chance you get. If everyone does it it'll have an impact.
After all corporations spread their propaganda far and wide. They spread it to all media outlets, politicians, regulators, and to basically anyone that would listen. We the people shouldn't limit whom we spread our message to. This war needs to be fought on all fronts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
"While I don't have Comcast I am outraged at how service providers such as yourselves buy politicians to limit competition and then you abuse the lack of competition to raise prices, set broadband caps, and spy on your customers. I consider you guys the worst kind of criminals and our 'justice' [word said in a sarcastic tone] system is criminal for allowing this."
Or you can leave a message on an answering machine that says this.
Then hang up.
Again, it would take a whole lot of callers to get the message through but if enough people start directly calling out these corporations for their misdeeds and voicing their opinions the message will get through.
Perhaps protesting their corporate buildings with signs as well instead of just protesting Congress or political buildings, especially since the representatives are usually not at their political destinations when negotiating laws but instead are meeting with corporate lobbyists in private. Heck, you'll be more likely to find your politicians at these corporate buildings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other news...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Short memory much?
The FCC created this fucking mess, they do not get the "out of jail free" card just because they are trying to do something to clean it up. They were not driven to anything!
The FCC has no merit, this article is like saying we should praise a Rich guy for giving a poor man a $250,000 home after he wheeled and dealed with city council members behind the scenes to have his $350,000 home demolished or rezoned!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like Wide Open West is getting into the game again too...
"Location Based Advertising"... meddling with our communications to splice in their own advertisements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the first is not acceptable, why is the second acceptable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VPN FTW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VPN FTW
Whoa. I've been a Sonic customer for years and *NEVER KNEW THIS*. Holy crap. Wish I had. Will start using it now, though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VPN FTW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So they want to get in the VPN business,
I'm sure the FCC swears it's oath to the Constitution. So it doesn't really matter formal regulatory authority the FCC has. It isn't just THEIR duty to rectify this, it is ALL of our duties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is regulation in a nutshell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not privacy if the NSA can still gain access to see what those "paying for privacy" Comcast customers are doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roll it back to zero
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Roll it back to zero
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, so, where's my free internet with no caps then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the problem then?
If they have no plans on violating customer privacy then they won't have anything at all to worry about regarding rules protecting customer privacy. Would be like me complaining about rules against skydiving without a parachute, it's never going to be an issue because I'd never do that so what possible objection could I have with it beyond 'Don't you lot have better things to be doing'?
On the other hand if they do plan on violating customer privacy such that they would be in conflict with rules regarding customer privacy, then I suppose they'd have something to worry about with those kinds of rules.
Given that their argument is rather telling, and not in a way that makes them look in any way good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ads impossible with privacy ?
Apparently showing the same ads to everyone is impossible for some reason ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So What?
If I was with a VPN company I'd be encouraging Comcast to do exactly what it is doing and at the same time see my services to every Comcast customer! lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I pay them for the privacy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They probably don't want to win this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They probably don't want to win this...
Greed knows no bounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I were rich...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And they want sovereignty
First of all, why should anyone want to do business with a company that does not respect our right to privacy. BOYCOTT them instantly. Why in the hell would we want to see these dickheads get sovereignty? Throw out all due process and presumption of innocence and kiss America goodbye when that happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worth noting the only candidacy with a strong Internet privacy position
HRC will say absolutely anything, so can be trusted on nothing. And she has been shilled by pretty much everybody who is antithetical to the current evolution of civil rights debate in this country. And Comcast has probably already promised Trump the use of their DPI to make lists of his critics for an impending political purge.
So it comes down to whether you will watch the country drown, watch it burn, or vote third party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]