Consumer advocates aren't impressed with Comcast's plan to make broadband consumer privacy a luxury option. Earlier this week we discussed how Comcast urged the FCC to avoid prohibiting companies from charging consumers more if they want to opt out of snoopvertising. Note this isn't theoretical: AT&T already charges U-Verse broadband customers a steep $30 to $50 monthly premium if they want to opt out of its Internet Essentials deep packet inspection behavioral ads. AT&T, somehow, claims this is a discount.
But consumer advocates tell
Motherboard that such plans are in no uncertain terms a disaster for consumers.
Malkia Cyril, executive director of the Center for Media Justice, tells the website such plans would (and do) "disproportionately harm low-income people."
“In any ‘pay-for-privacy’ world, there must be a baseline of fundamental privacy protections for every person who subscribes to broadband,” Kate Forscey, associate counsel for government affairs at DC-based consumer rights groups Public knowledge, told Motherboard. “These plans must not disenfranchise anyone, especially communities that already struggle to obtain broadband access.”
“Consumers must not be put in the position to make that Sophie's Choice—to give up the right to privacy in exchange for a right to essential broadband services,” Forscey added.
Banning ISPs from charging a premium for privacy "would harm consumers by, among other things, depriving them of lower-priced offerings." -Comcast |
The New America Foundation offered similar criticism in a
blog post, noting that it's only the lack of competition that even makes such price gouging possible.
"Consumers generally lack competitive choices for internet service, meaning pricing plan options are limited to those offered by the high-speed internet provider in that area," notes the organization. "Stuck with that one provider, a consumer may not be able to justify spending an extra $25 per month to prevent the ISP from using and selling privacy-invasive data."
In its filing, Comcast tried to argue banning such plans would actually be bad by consumers, by preventing Comcast from offering lower cost service tiers.
"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 this week's filing. The company proceeded to claim that banning such options "would harm consumers by, among other things, depriving them of lower-priced offerings."
But because Comcast has no real incentive to lower broadband prices in uncompetitive markets, these phantom price reductions never actually materialize. Comcast's plan and AT&T's existing practice are, by any analysis, simply surcharges for privacy -- placed on top of already expensive broadband service.
The FCC is proposing new broadband privacy rules that would require ISPs clearly disclose what information is being collected and sold, and that ISPs also provide working opt out tools. The agency is also considering banning the practice of making protecting your privacy a luxury option for U.S. broadband consumers that already pay more money for broadband than in most developed nations.