Sanders, Warren Urge FCC to Ban 'Pay for Privacy' ISP Schemes

Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have come out swinging against ISPs and cable companies that treat privacy like a luxury consumer option. Over the years we've noted how this has increasingly been the case at ISPs like AT&T, which charges its consumers a very steep premium if they want to opt out of AT&T's deep packet inspection snoopvertising.

For example, AT&T U-Verse users may pay $30 or more per month just to avoid being part of AT&T's "Internet Preferences" behavioral marketing and tracking system.

In a letter (pdf) sent to the FCC, Warren, Sanders and four other Senators support the FCC's push for new privacy rules that would forbid this kind of privacy surcharge.

"Every click a consumer makes online paints a detailed picture of their personal and professional lives, and this sensitive information should be protected by strong privacy standards," the Senators state.

The FCC is doing just that. With ISPs now classified as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act, they're now subject to rules governing CPNI (Customer Proprietary Network Information). Tom Wheeler wants to update these rules, specifically built for old phone providers, so they adhere to the modern era. And again, that would include preventing ISPs from charging consumers that want to opt out of user tracking.

"Not only is a pay-for-privacy standard counter to our nation's core principle that all Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, but it also may disproportionately harm low-income customers, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations," they Senators write.

In addition to requiring clear privacy policies, working opt out tools and banning "pay for privacy" schemes, the FCC would likely ban cable companies from giving lower quality service to low-income customers (something Cable One's CEO recently bragged his company has been doing), or customers who refuse to participate in marketing and monetization schemes.

ISPs and the advertising companies that profit off such schemes (increasingly one in the same ) have unsurprisingly claimed that privacy rules are completely unnecessary and would only act to burden and confuse consumers.