Fearing a looming regulatory backlash, AT&T has confirmed it will stop the practice of charging broadband subscribers significantly more money if they want to opt out of the company's snoopvertising. For several years now AT&T has charged customers $40 to $60 more every month if they want to opt out of the company's Internet Preferences program, which tracks user behavior around the internet, then pitches ads based on that browsing activity.
Not only did AT&T make protecting your privacy an additional surcharge, AT&T made the option hard to find and sign up for, knowing full well this would reduce the number of users that opted out. This behavior by AT&T had been criticized by consumer advocates for years.
But the company today told Ars Technica that it would be discontinuing the practice.
“To simplify our offering for our customers, we plan to end the optional Internet Preferences advertising program related to our fastest Internet speed tiers," the company said. "As a result, all customers on these tiers will receive the best rate we have available for their speed tier in their area. We’ll begin communicating this update to customers early next week."
In fact, AT&T says it will "sunset the Internet Preferences program beginning in October," but didn't offer more detail.
Granted the move is less about "simplifying" things for customers, and more about getting on the good side of the FCC, which has been pushing for new, tougher privacy rules -- in large part as a response to AT&T's behavior. With the company no longer charging a premium for privacy, it seems likely AT&T's lobbyists will try to argue that the FCC's privacy protections aren't necessary.
The problem with that logic is that for years, broadband ISPs have claimed they can self-regulate on privacy without real consumer protections. But large ISPs consistently prove they're terrible at self-regulation -- whether it's AT&T's decision to charge significantly more for privacy, or Verizon and AT&T's attempt to modify wireless user data packets to track customers around the internet (in place at Verizon for two years before security researchers even realized it existed).
So while it's clear AT&T and other incumbent ISPs would prefer no new privacy protections for consumers, their track record on being able to police themselves without outside intervention remains historically abysmal. And without decent privacy protections in place, the lack of competition (read: the ability for consumers to leave an ISP if it engages in unpopular privacy practices) means AT&T's next "good idea" could be decidedly worse than the program it just dismantled.