Comcast Says It Wants to Charge Broadband Users More For Privacy Comcast this week informed the FCC that it should be able to charge broadband users looking to protect their privacy more money. The FCC has been crafting some new privacy rules for broadband that would force ISPs to disclose exactly what they're collecting and selling, while also providing working opt-out tools. But the FCC also wants to take aim at efforts by some ISPs to make privacy a premium option. AT&T, for example, charges its U-verse broadband customers significantly more if they want to opt out of snoopvertising.

In a new filing with the FCC (pdf), Comcast argues that charging consumers more money to opt out of snoopvertising should be considered a "perfectly acceptable" business practice. "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," Comcast said in the filing. The company proceeds to claim that banning such options "would harm consumers by, among other things, depriving them of lower-priced offerings." In short, Comcast is arguing that protecting your own privacy should be a paid luxury option, and stopping them from doing so would raise broadband rates. But as we've noted for years it's the lack of competition that keeps broadband prices high. It's also the lack of competition that prevents users upset with broadband privacy practices from switching to another ISP. That's why the FCC thinks some basic privacy rules of the road might be a good idea. AT&T was the first major broadband provider to charge users more to protect their privacy when it launched its gigabit broadband service in Austin in late 2014. Users have to pay AT&T a $30 or more monthly premium if they want to opt out of AT&T's "Internet Preferences," a deep packet inspection program that tracks your browsing behavior around the Internet -- down to the second. But opting out of Internet Preferences can be a difficult option to even find if you're a new customer, quite intentionally buried in a labyrinth of website menu options. And few are likely to choose it given it dramatically raises a customer's monthly bill from between $531 and $800 the first year. AT&T has repeatedly tried to argue that they're not charging users for basic privacy, they're offering a "discount." The FCC reclassified ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act last year. After defeating the broadband industry's court challenge of this move last June, the FCC is now looking to update legacy phone privacy rules in the act for the broadband era. Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and other large providers have repeatedly argued that privacy rules governing broadband connections are completely unnecessary. In contrast, consumer advocates argue that the decision to make privacy an expensive luxury option -- combined with Verizon and AT&T's decision to In contrast, consumer advocates argue that the decision to make privacy an expensive luxury option -- combined with Verizon and AT&T's decision to covertly modify wireless user packets to track customers around the Internet -- make it abundantly clear that the industry simply can't be trusted to self-regulate on the privacy front without significant consumer harm.







News Jump Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 63 comments



GlennLouEarl

3 brothers, 1 gone

Premium Member

join:2002-11-17

Richmond, VA 36 recommendations GlennLouEarl Premium Member FIFY "Comcast Says It Wants to Charge Broadband Users More."



That is all.

tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA 24 recommendations tshirt Premium Member They already have an obigation to protect customer information.... ...so this must be an OPT-IN for much cheaper services along the lines of Net Zero.

Someone at Comcast has fallen off the edge, failed their business ethics in the worse sort of way.



what's next? Doctors selling your medical records? Your bank, sharing your ID and other info?

Like any company you do business with, they will have info about you that may internally help them serve you, i.e. you buy 3 gallons of milk each week but none during the month of August so they can reduce their order by 12+ gallons this month, HOWEVER your transaction and status shouldn't be specifically shared with ANYONE, nor should your info be held hostage.



karpodiem

Hail to The Victors

Premium Member

join:2008-05-20

Troy, MI ·WOW Internet and..

·Comcast XFINITY

18 recommendations karpodiem Premium Member isn't the free market great? can't wait to see Comcast die from muni FTTH buildouts. It may take 50 years, but eventually broadband will become a utility. Watching these companies increase their general level of terrible/customer hostility as we continue down this path is frustrating - there has to be a quicker way to getting them down to utility level margins. The Antihero

join:2002-04-09

Enola, PA 16 recommendations The Antihero Member What's to stop them... What's to stop them from selling your info even after you've paid them not to? How would you know they're even doing it? And even if you did, how would you prove it? dantello

join:2013-08-20

Jarrell, TX 16 recommendations dantello Member I'm one of the unlucky ones... I'm not only forced to use AT&T Gigapower (absolutely no other provider, regardless of type of connection...believe me I tried to escape/avoid AT&T) here in my Austin location, I have to pay more to stay private. And it rubs me the wrong way because back in the pre cell phone days, you didn't have to pay more to have your landline phone calls un-monitored..it was a expectation and legal obligation that without court warrant that your calls were private. And like that, so should your data connections I say. It's time for this to totally be treated like a communications utility, and with that comes all of the legal protections to consumers. I hate the needless gouging.

buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20

Biddeford, ME 10 recommendations buzz_4_20 Member OR... Give that money to a VPN provider and VPN 100% of your traffic. They have nothing to sell or your money.

Anon3155d

@sbcglobal.net 9 recommendations Anon3155d Anon charge for privacy. Sounds more like blackmail to me. SDHank8

Premium Member

join:2005-04-10

Escondido, CA 9 recommendations SDHank8 Premium Member USPS, UPS, FedEx, DHL In other news, mail and package carriers have announced surcharges if you do not agree to allow them to open all your mail and packages.

Harddrive

Proud American and Infidel since 1968.

Premium Member

join:2000-09-20

Mission, TX 9 recommendations Harddrive Premium Member Already being done by AT&T. AT&T Gigapower subscribers already have the option of paying extra for "privacy".

davidc502

join:2002-03-06

Mount Juliet, TN 9 recommendations davidc502 Member Boils down to this..... If we can't sell your usage habits, we will charge to keep it private.



One way or another Comcast/at&t will make additional money on a privacy service that should never have been allowed.

neofate

Caveat Depascor

Premium Member

join:2003-11-11

Birmingham, AL 9 recommendations neofate Premium Member This is getting out of hand. -This thinking is a mistake. We're letting companies 'get away' with things we'd never approve of if it weren't so 'unobvious' to the average consumer. I talk to people all the time and they have NO idea their data / activity is being not only harvested but sold (profited upon).



This , if anything, should be the other way around. Customer can allow ISP to use their data (and profit on it) for free broadband connection. AT&T has already done some 'early' math to determine it's worth $30 per customer to 'not' do this -- ie: They make up the money lost from spying on you (and probably tack on a bit of extra profit) if you pay for them not to spy on you.



It's ridiculous. This is something the government should cut out entirely. It's wrong on all levels -- but at the minimum make it against the law for anyone (including service provider) to "spy" or knowingly monitor down to the specific IP/user/MAC. What goes on post connection no one likes,..and frankly it should be stopped as well (but that's what essentially built google) -- still doesn't make it right.



Our activity is being monitored at 3 critical points now (and profited upon) -- ISP, Operating System, and the Web (Google, websites, the web in general).



Since when did it become 'ok' to profit off the activity patterns/usage of other people? Because it's digital/online doesn't make it any less real.



I think these companies are playing a dangerous game -- letting greed and 'me too' attitude get the best of them. If people actually , en mass, knew how their activity was being collected and profited upon they would be upset,.. and make it quite clear to the government 'en mass' that it's not ok. Government would then make it illegal (or at least make it something for which companies are fined HUGE sums of money if caught doing it.)



But, in the apathy and general ignorance of the average person -- there is no 'squeaky wheel' so to speak. Thus, the government , in bed with these large companies, goes along with it -- and over the years our everyday activity has become a HUGE profitable collection of data . Government is cool with having the private companies handing over information on it's citizens,.. companies are cool with government not really caring for the best interests of the people and thus making even more money on a 90% percent margin service -- meanwhile these services are becoming even more greedy (stepping over the line) to bring this data mining to become an extra 'fee' for their customers.



It's like hey I'm going to spy on you,.. sell the information I learn,.. and oh hey -- You're going to pay EXTRA for me to do it. What? --



This is the mistake I think they are making here -- By bringing the fact they are essentially spying on the customer to the spotlight via finally making it something that makes everyday people aware of it (hitting them in their wallets) -- Could easily backfire on them and cause the aforementioned 'will of the masses' known -- and our government turns a blind eye until 50-100+ Million people unite on something - then they have their hand forced.



I have little doubt that even for people who pay extra to 'opt out' -- that these people are still having their data collected/parsed/allocated for profit. AT&T hasn't even successfully integrated it's regular customer database with Direct TV's database (I'm sure some of you know of 'linking' accounts and how well that goes) -- Do you honestly think they have this sophisticated , working, system that - user by user - eliminates (turns off) the data mining for them? Meh,..



Why do people think Google got into this business of infrastructure? To build a backbone to get on the other end of people's data. Google is a massive spying agency (not for malicious purposes) but for insane sums of money,.. what better way to gather data than to BE the pipeline and the content? They built their empire on just one end, the content end -- With the pipeline they get every single "bit" of data without the need to have them use their products - Chrome, Chromebooks, Youtube, Google.com, massive cookie attachments , and on the list goes (which is still limited compared to being the pipe serving).



Anyhow - it's a massively profitable business -- and it's a 100% SERVICE business. It's long since been shifting from a 'luxury/novelty' into a utility -- Of course these 'service providers' think we should lick their boots, thank them for their 'service' while they are unregulated. By unregulated I mean there is little to no private market regulation due to lack of competition by a huge majority. So we can't extrapolate 'true' price basis for the 'service' of broadband. Do I think $120 for 100/5 connection is right? No,.. it seems high to me. Do I think $60 for the cheapest option is right? No, definitely high. Again, on top of these prices they are bickering about the 'bonus' they get from data mining their users (something that didn't exist X years ago and wasn't the purpose of building the infrastructure) -- it's quite literally a 'sketchy' at best,.. bonus forum of revenue they should, imho, keep under the radar in terms of announcing it to the end user/customer with a big fat fee on a bill. mxyztplk

join:2003-07-24

San Jose, CA 2 edits 7 recommendations mxyztplk Member Should a subscriber have power to waive privacy for others? Apparently, Comcast and AT&T wish the FCC to ignore any distinction between (1) the subscriber to an internet service, and (2) the users of the internet service. Of course, the users of the internet service include third parties who may have no idea that their privacy is being invaded in return for economic gain of the subscriber and ISP. Indeed, they may have no idea what transmission means is being used for any given transmission, in whole or in part, such being the dynamic routing capabilities of current communications devices.



In that light, should the subscriber have the right to waive privacy for everyone in the household? What about for visitors to the home? How about for e-mails of those third parties? Or VOIP phone calls, i.e., those that would otherwise be unknown to the ISP absent "deep packet inspection?" What could it be about internet communications that should cause society to consider treating them with a lessened degree of privacy?



Inasmuch as virtually all forms of communications are now capable of occurring over the internet, it would seem necessary to impose greater, not lesser, privacy protections on that means of data transmission. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO 4 recommendations Skippy25 Member Open Access Tell you what ISPs....



You want to treat privacy as a premium, then open your networks up to ALL companies that want to provide services over them at a regulated rate which does provide you a profit and then you can charge any amount you want for any "service" you want.



If not, then shut up and watch your monopoly/duopoly markets get regulated into you doing the right thing as you have shown over and over and over you won't do it on your own. neelc0

join:2014-03-31

Somers, NY 4 recommendations neelc0 Member This is why "open access" to broadband makes sense Forget what conservative and libertarian think tanks want you to believe. "Open access" to broadband networks is still relevant. Why? It gives people actual choice of broadband providers. So in situations like these, people can say "F**k Comcast and f**k AT&T, I'll switch to SmallLocalPrivacyLovingMomAndPopISP". Artakamoose

join:2015-08-25

Oakland, CA 3 recommendations Artakamoose Member Hello Sonic! My choice of internet provider will become a very simple equation if they start charging me for privacy. Right now, Sonic is only a little more expensive than my Comcast service. The Sonic connection I would get is slower but it will still fit my needs. This means if I have to pay extra for privacy, I will be leaving Comcast.