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.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: at&t

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “AT&T May Soon Return To Charging Broadband Subscribers More For Privacy”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
21 Comments
orbitalinsertion (profile) says:

Pushing me again towards switching, and at least i have that luxury. Gave them another shot since circumstances in my home changed, and they cut down the price, but i really don’t need their bundled junk or the caps and larger cost with internet only. I can go cheaper now even without a contract, although one never knows when rates will increase. But then, AT&T has a habit of nickle-and-diming you monthly anyway.

I don’t want to deal with their crap anymore. And i see, Karl, your article at DSLReports so… thanks for that also.

Anonymous Coward says:

The one thing I’ve never understood is why internet communications have never, legally or practically, been considered anywhere near as private as mail or telephone communications, giving the ISP full rein to port-block, packet-shape, inject page code, auto-forward, claim unassigned addresses as its own, or whatever else an ISP wants to do with the paying customer’s internet traffic.

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.

Bergman (profile) says:

Re: Re:

This.

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.

aerinai says:

Can't wait til USPS, UPS, and Fedex try this next...

If we draw analogs to the current paper mail situation, I can’t imagine a congress-critter allowing any mail carrier in the US to allow FedEx to open up every package so that they could ‘better advertise’ to their clients… I understand if they say ‘hey… Bob always sends Alice something’… fine.. that is great. They can optimize their routes or even give you a flier. It is BASIC ROUTING INFORMATION that has to be public by nature…

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…

Anonymous Coward says:

All of the major ISP’s in the US will end up doing this. There won’t be a way to avoid it unless you use Tor browser or a VPN. How long before those are banned by ISP’s TOS?
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.

Reasonable Coward says:

Now let's just think about this

I was very bothered by this story at first, but then began thinking more about it. If ISPs are permitted to mine your internet activity for profit, then would you prefer that they gave you a way to opt out of that mining, or would you prefer that they do it without giving you any recourse?

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.

OA (profile) says:

Re: Now let's just think about this

I was very bothered by this story at first, but then began thinking more about it. If ISPs are permitted to mine your internet activity for profit, then would you prefer that they gave you a way to opt out of that mining, or would you prefer that they do it without giving you any recourse?

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.

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.

How much is privacy worth? I would reasonably call it priceless. AT&T (and many other entities) treats Contempt-of-Customer™ as profitable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cowardly Lion says:

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…

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...