Think tanks funded by large broadband providers continue to try and argue that broadband consumers should pay more for the privilege of protecting their own privacy. Last week we noted how Comcast is interested in following AT&T's lead and charging broadband consumers an additional surcharge to protect their privacy. Both ISPs are fighting the FCC's plan to offer new broadband privacy protections that would prohibit ISPs from charging users more to opt out of having their information collected and sold.

The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation" (ITIF) this week released a "study" that tried to claim that charging users more to protect their privacy will somehow lower broadband bills. Now another think tank creatively named the "Technology Policy Institute" is making an even more misleading argument in an editorial over at The Hill: charging a premium for privacy helps poor people.

"'Pay-for-privacy' plans disproportionately benefit lower-income individuals," claims the group, whose donors include AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Google and Verizon. "Indeed, the notion that offering an additional option would be detrimental to any consumers, whatever their income, is misguided."

Just so we have this right: adding a privacy surcharge on to what's already some of the most expensive broadband connections in the developed world...will help the poor? ISPs and think tanks are desperately trying to argue that what they're doing is simply offering a "discount" for users that opt in to data collection and sales.

But AT&T has already begun charging users such a surcharge. Not only is it extremely difficult to find and sign up for, it will add $528 to $792 more each year to your broadband bill if you want to opt out of AT&T's "Internet Preferences" deep packet inspection snoopvertising system. On what planet, exactly, can this be considered a "discount" that helps the poor?

"AT&T is giving the subscriber the opportunity to allow advertisers to pay part of the subscription fee," continues Thomas Lenard undetered by the limits of reason. "What would be the rationale for allowing Google to offer advertising-supported service but not AT&T?"

AT&T has a monopoly or duopoly over the last mile, leaving broadband customers without options to switch to if they despise AT&T (and/or Comcast's privacy policies). Google customers can, in contrast, use another search engine, web e-mail service or phone if they don't agree with how the company does business. The lack of competition in the broadband space makes telecom a notably different space, but ISPs (and the think tanks they hire) would prefer you ignore that.