Comcast Says It Wants to Charge Broadband Users More For Privacy

[Damajin]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/C...Privacy-137567

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 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.

These fucking guys. No other comment necessary.

[Templar 331]

"What we need is less government meddling so that the economy can grow!!"

[Dendrek]

It amazes me that Comcast does not care how hated it is as a company for its predatory practices. If it weren't for the anti-competition policies that keep their semi-monopoly going, they'd easily go out of business. My hope is that consumers will eventually become so fed up they'll demand a change in legal policy that will hopefully dismantle that virus of a company.

[Tempguy]

Well I was upset that I wasn't with them. Now I am glad I am not.

Screw that noise. And what would be the point since we all know that once the FBI rolls up they will hand over all your personal info in a heartbeat. They would basically be charging you more for nothing.

[mizeri]

It amazes me that Comcast does not care how hated it is as a company for its predatory practices. If it weren't for the anti-competition policies that keep their semi-monopoly going, they'd easily go out of business. My hope is that consumers will eventually become so fed up they'll demand a change in legal policy that will hopefully dismantle that virus of a company.

they dont care because the customers usually have no where else to go, over where i am its either timewarner or direct TV, and a mile from me its either comcast or direct tv, no other choice at all

[the game]

It amazes me that Comcast does not care how hated it is as a company for its predatory practices. If it weren't for the anti-competition policies that keep their semi-monopoly going, they'd easily go out of business. My hope is that consumers will eventually become so fed up they'll demand a change in legal policy that will hopefully dismantle that virus of a company.

Why would they care? People are still paying for their services.

[zEmini]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/C...Privacy-137567



These fucking guys. No other comment necessary.

Been saying it for years now. But I think the community of internet nerds should all dedicate a day to cancel their cable subscription. Perhaps get some celebrities behind it to help get it out - Reddit, Facebook, ect. If you get millions of people cancelling at once it may cause Comcast too change their ways. We just need a leader and its message to go viral.

[Dendrek]

they dont care because the customers usually have no where else to go, over where i am its either timewarner or direct TV, and a mile from me its either comcast or direct tv, no other choice at all

I know. But they also keep teasing their customers by being openly dickish to them. Charging ridiculous prices and adding fees for no reason. Having terrible customer service. And running an anti-PR campaign by doing stuff like in the OP, where they directly advocate for their right to be dicks to their customers. You'd think they'd be slightly afraid their customers will eventually have enough.

As a comparison, Time Warner is actually a decent company towards its consumers. It does have the same monopoly as Comcast, and yet it upgrades user speeds for free (at least it did for my area, went from 10mbps to 100mbps at no additional cost per month), allows consumers to extend their promotional deals indefinitely (again, in my area: all we have to do is call in after the promotion expires to get it renewed), and actually has very good customer service. TWC isn't actively trying to screw over its customers (at least not in a way that's visible). Comcast is. Comcast absolutely does not give a shit, and it amazes me how brazen they are about it. It's like they're challenging their customers to do something about it. My hope is that their customers eventually will.

[breadisfunny]

It amazes me that Comcast does not care how hated it is as a company for its predatory practices. If it weren't for the anti-competition policies that keep their semi-monopoly going, they'd easily go out of business. My hope is that consumers will eventually become so fed up they'll demand a change in legal policy that will hopefully dismantle that virus of a company.

this is why authoritarian governments are needed so greedy ceo's of companies like comcast can be executed to send a message to the other companies.

[SL1200]

I"m a lot angrier about the new data caps they just threw at us.

[Daerio]

Yes, the data caps recently forced on customers are a bigger concern, but it's all the same problem.

Complete lack of competition and government regulation enforcing their monopoly on the industry has led to this, and it's only getting worse.

[Xeones]

Hey guys capitalism is great because when companies have monopolies like comcast they can do shit like this!

[TrumpIsPresident]

I'm not saying people should go do this but...

...wouldn't it be great if there was a national "slash the tires of every Comcast service truck" day?

[Felicia]

I hate giving Comcast money... but I have no other choice really. It's them or Frontier out where I'm at (Whidbey Island, WA), and... Frontier is WORSE then comcast. We're fortunate enough that Comcast never goes down (only have internet), and the equipment is still alive. 93 dollars for only internet is outrageous... but I paid for more in Texas when I had DSL with a rural company, and cable with TW in San Antonio. All these companies are the same though... it just depends on what icing your cake has :/

[JadedTauren]

thing is no matter what you paid them, they'd still snoop.

[Kapadons]

I hate giving Comcast money... but I have no other choice really. It's them or Frontier out where I'm at (Whidbey Island, WA), and... Frontier is WORSE then comcast. We're fortunate enough that Comcast never goes down (only have internet), and the equipment is still alive. 93 dollars for only internet is outrageous... but I paid for more in Texas when I had DSL with a rural company, and cable with TW in San Antonio. All these companies are the same though... it just depends on what icing your cake has :/

TW in SA is like 29.95 to 59.95 now.

We have ATT uverse net now (fiber) and its $34 per month for 40mbps in SA.

[Lady Dragonheart]

If you have nothing to hide, then it shouldn't matter, I would assume. Capitalism, ftw!

[Poopymonster]

Google Fiber please.

[Dendrek]

If you have nothing to hide, then it shouldn't matter, I would assume. Capitalism, ftw!

While you might be joking, do you feel the same way about advertising/tracking companies knowing everywhere you go on the internet? What if they also added in data about everywhere you go in real life?

Also the "nothing to hide" argument is only relevant if the only concern with being constantly monitored is potential legal liability (which it's not), and if the entities hoping to bring a case against you can be trusted to be completely honest and accurate in their representation of the details of that case (which they can't). You should never be willing to give up your privacy just because you have "nothing to hide." Your privacy keeps your identity and financial details safe. Your privacy protects your freedom of thought, association and expression. Your privacy protects you from harassment. And it protects you from tyranny. Privacy is way too valuable to give up just because you have nothing to hide.

[Deleted]

While you might be joking, do you feel the same way about advertising/tracking companies knowing everywhere you go on the internet? What if they also added in data about everywhere you go in real life?

Also the "nothing to hide" argument is only relevant if the only concern with being constantly monitored is potential legal liability (which it's not), and if the entities hoping to bring a case against you can be trusted to be completely honest and accurate in their representation of the details of that case (which they can't). You should never be willing to give up your privacy just because you have "nothing to hide." Your privacy keeps your identity and financial details safe. Your privacy protects your freedom of thought, association and expression. Your privacy protects you from harassment. And it protects you from tyranny. Privacy is way too valuable to give up just because you have nothing to hide.

And once you give up your privacy, you give it up forever, especially in the age of the Internet where anything public is public forever.

So, even if your personal circumstances change, including more senior jobs or possible government contracts or others like your future family being dependent on you and your privacy, that information is still all out there.

People have no idea what they are giving up already, often for free, and how much third parties will jump at the chance to take far more in future.

The Internet of Things (where things is everything) hasn't even started yet!

Anyway, the problem with the US system is despite a complete and utter lack of competition at local level, somehow these mega corporations have had almost no oversight.

Well, with Title II change, where now they are regulated as utilities by the FCC, hopefully that will change...