AT&T May Soon Return To Charging Broadband Subscribers More For Privacy
from the privacy-is-now-a-luxury-option dept
Last year, you might recall that AT&T came up with an ingenious idea: to charge broadband customers significantly more if they actually wanted to protect their own privacy. It basically worked like this: users ordering AT&T's broadband service could get the service for, say, $70 a month. But if that user wanted to opt out of AT&T's Internet Preferences snoopvertising program (which used deep packet inspection to study your movement around the Internet down to the second) users were forced to pay upwards of $800 more each year. With its decision, AT&T effectively made user privacy a premium service.
AT&T backed off this idea after massive backlash, in part because the former, Wheeler-run FCC had started raising a stink about the practice, but also because it wanted regulatory approval for its $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner.
But after successfully lobbying the GOP to kill FCC broadband consumer privacy protections (which would have let the FCC crack down on these kinds of practices on a case-by-case basis), AT&T is apparently considering bringing the program back.
Speaking last week on C-SPAN's The Communicators program, AT&T Senior Vice President Bob Quinn acknowledged that AT&T's first attempt to charge more for privacy didn't go over all that well:
Quinn suggested that the company may try again to roll out that type of pricing structure. "We got an enormous amount of criticism from privacy advocates when we rolled out, in Austin, Texas, an ad-supported Internet service... Privacy advocates screamed about that," Quinn said.
But that was then, and this is now. With FCC privacy protections dead, AT&T lobbyists have shifted their gaze toward killing net neutrality, and shoveling all regulatory oversight of broadband duopolies to an over-extended and ill-equipped FTC. An FTC, we should reiterate, AT&T lawyers have been making very clear they believe has no real authority over AT&T's businesses.
With pesky regulatory oversight now likely out of the way, Quinn makes it clear in the interview he'd like to now revisit the idea of a privacy surcharge, which he claims would somehow provide users with more control over their privacy:
"He added, however, that he believes attitudes will change in the future. "As the privacy revolution evolves, I think people are going to want more control, and maybe that's the pricing model that's ultimately what consumers want."
Right, except again, consumers have made it repeatedly clear they don't want this. AT&T has consistently tried to claim that this is all just "ad-supported internet service" and that charging users more money to protect their privacy was somehow a "discount," since users who were opted in to snoopvertising by default ultimately paid less than consumers that didn't. But as people noted at the time, finding the option to opt out was obnoxiously cumbersome, and the fact you'd pay $800 just to not be tracked was heavily obfuscated by the company.
Yes, many consumers would likely happily pay less money for broadband if ISPs offered a genuine discount for being tracked and monetized. But that's never been what AT&T offered, and since it faces limited competition in many markets -- it has minimal incentive to actually offer it. What AT&T is effectively doing here is making privacy protection a luxury option. And with every indication that AT&T's about to face weaker regulatory oversight than ever -- there's zero incentive for AT&T to offer any program that truly provides consumer benefits. It should, however, be amusing to watch AT&T try and pretend otherwise.
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, fcc, premium service, privacy
Companies: at&t
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Extortion
This feels like extortion."That's some nice privacy you've got there. It would be unfortunate if something were to happen to it".
Well, at least you can pay for "protection" on that privacy.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't want to deal with their crap anymore. And i see, Karl, your article at DSLReports so... thanks for that also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if the situation is similar in other countries, as it seems that email, for instance, has stricter privacy regulations (more akin to paper mail) in some European countries than it does in the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People own the copyright on the things they type on the internet, after all.
If you use ANY level of encryption, even https, then the sort of deep packet inspection AT&T got caught using would seem to violate Section 1201 of the DMCA, since it would be a circumvention of a technological protection measure.
Even just a little light packet sniffing might be such a circumvention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This isn't Deregulation, it's just Backwards Regulation!
Or whatever my incomprehensible excuse is this week.
Every Nation eatst the paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't wait til USPS, UPS, and Fedex try this next...
Deep Packet Inspection (or Deep Postage Inspection in this case) is opening it up to find out what exactly Bob is sending to Alice. Everyone should be shocked and abhorred by that. Not to mention it also opens up the possibility that a nefarious ne'er-do-well could use that against Bob or Alice in the form of blackmail *gasp*.
This issue should be looked at seriously... but... money talks and us constituents are boned by the lack of options...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't wait til USPS, UPS, and Fedex try this next...
Verizon 4G Professional with Pay-Per-View ToS
BP Mega-Ultimate Gasoline - Oatmeal Free!
Lower Fecal Coliform Dasani 2XPremium Bottled Water
Domino's Pepperoni Pizza - $12
With Box - $15
With Pepperoni - $24
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or they could say, "I can't see your traffic, any traffic I can't see(inspect) is blocked" which is the same thing.
In those rare markets where there is competition you might get an ISP who doesn't do this. The problem is the monetary incentive to do it will force their hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extortion
"That's some nice privacy you've got there. It would be unfortunate if something were to happen to it".
Well, at least you can pay for "protection" on that privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extortion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extortion
Uh no thanks AT&T.
Thanks for wanting to sell your customers down the river.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At&t thinks my information is worth $30/month?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ohh kayyy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now let's just think about this
Example: I avoid Facebook and Google because they are so hostile to privacy. I've always told people I'd be willing to pay them an annual fee to use their services if they would just respect my privacy along the way. Here, AT&T is offering that sort of bargain, and in that sense, it's a good thing.
Now, it IS a problem that ISPs are legally permitted to invade its users' privacy. And it IS frustrating that AT&T decided to monetize user data, although one could argue that, as a public company, they're obligated to do so as a means of increasing shareholder value.
And it would have better optics if AT&T marketed this as a discount if you permitted them to invade your privacy, rather than a surcharge for you to opt out. Further, the surcharge they chose seems rather high.
But before you all decide that AT&T is doing something wholly objectionable, think about the fact that other ISPs might just quietly mine their customer's data without providing any opt-out whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now let's just think about this
AT BEST, that would mean AT&T's idea would be less bad than some other action that could be taken. This is an unreasonable defense of extortion.
How much is privacy worth? I would reasonably call it priceless. AT&T (and many other entities) treats Contempt-of-Customer™ as profitable.
The normal and/or reasonable pricing should be the privacy positive one. Otherwise, those with less wealth become fodder for voyeurs. How much is the presumption of privacy worth? Whatever the answer it is probably measured in one's soul.
Moral and ethical reasoning graded on the curve. Perhaps the ISPs can collude amongst themselves to up the ante, then anything would be acceptable. Maybe an ISP's relationship with investors should overwhelm its relationship with those it serves. Just chase dollars in the absence or meaningful restraint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insane prices for a lousy service
$70 a month, for what often gets described as a really shitty service. This staggers me. I'm currently paying ~20 Euros / month for near gigabit fibre (Boutique Orange) on an open plan. They chuck in discounted SIMs, free wifi and all kind of goodies. They'd get their nuts kicked in if they even hinted at dishing up ads, or inspecting our packets.
That lack of competition sure does suck...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]