AT&T To Match Google Fiber In Kansas City, Charge More If You Want Privacy

An anonymous reader writes: When Google Fiber started bringing gigabit internet to cities around the U.S., we wondered how the incumbent ISPs would respond. Now we know: AT&T has announced they will match Google Fiber's gigabit offerings in Kansas City. Of course, there are some caveats. First, AT&T's rollout may stop as it fights the Obama administration over net neutrality. Not that it would be a nationwide rollout anyway: "AT&T does not plan to offer the ultra-fast Internet lines to every home in the market. Rather, he said the company would calculate where demand is strongest and the investment in stringing new cables promised a decent return."

There are also some interesting pricing concerns. The company plans to charge $70/month for gigabit service, but that's a subsidized price. Subsidized by what, you ask? Your privacy. AT&T says if you want to opt out of letting them track your browsing history, you'll have to pay $29 more per month. They say your information is used to serve targeted advertising, and includes any links you follow and search terms you enter.

Comments

Please note:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"AT&T may collect and use web browsing information for other purposes, as described in our Privacy Policy, even if you do not participate in the Internet Preferences program."

So, there's the $100/month 'Yup, definitely spying on you' tier where "your Internet traffic is routed to AT&T's Internet Preferences web browsing and analytics platform"(good luck finding out exactly what that entails; but it's probably bad); or the $70/month 'Ominous and vague "other purposes"' tier.

How much evil do they manage into their 'browsing and analytics platform' to be $30 worse than their baseline level of spying?

Re:Please note:

[AK Marc]

Will they be blocking Tor for the cheaper service? It's cheaper to opt out with a VPN service than pay AT&T. And how will they capture my search terms on the cheap plan if I use https://www.google.com/ ? Do they have some agreement with Google to pass off search terms from an encrypted session?

It seems like something that would be easy to block, for those that know and care, and those that neither know, nor care, won't care.

Re:Please note:

[pixelpusher220]

On the contrary, apparently AT&T is fully on board with complete Title II provisions and are providing explicit examples of why we need Title II...and frankly splitting up every ISP into actual ISP companies and what the fuck ever else they want to be companies.

Re:Please note:

[postbigbang]

A nice VPN is a great idea. The very idea that your privacy is worth such a pittance is really insulting.

Re:Please note:

[SethJohnson]

I'm thinking you set up your browser with the foxyproxy plugin so all normal http requests for HTML are forwarded via socks proxy. The heavy lifting stuff goes straight out and back in through the open fiber connection. I doubt AT&T wants to parse video files. They want to see and modify the clear-text HTTP stuff.

The weird thing is this type of traditional snooping will be defeated as more content providers are switching over to HTTPS. AT&T aren't technical dummies, so they know that. I'm wondering if their scheme doesn't require a special browser plugin that automates an MITM attack on https....

What's weirdest of all is that until now, federal law has protected the ISPs from liability over the content they transmit:

Section 512(a) protects service providers who are passive conduits from liability for copyright infringement, even if infringing traffic passes through their networks. In other words, provided the infringing material is being transmitted at the request of a third party to a designated recipient, is handled by an automated process without human intervention, is not modified in any way, and is only temporarily stored on the system, the service provider is not liable for the transmission.

The rationale behind that statue was that ISPs can't be held accountable for copyright-infringing material going over their wires because filtering it would be too onerous. If AT&T sets up such a monitoring system, it pretty well defeats the claim they don't know what their subscribers are transmitting / receiving.

Re:Please note:

[amiga3D]

I'll take the cheaper one since they'll still be spying on you regardless. I don't care if they target ads to me because I don't pay attention to ads anyway. Cynical as I am I consider all advertising to be lies and ignore anything they have to say as total bullshit because......that's what it invariably is. I love Pepsi's ads, they blow the lame ones Coke has away, but I don't buy Pepsi because to me it tastes like shit. Ads are bullshit plain and simple. I don't get why gullible people believe and listen to lies like that.

Re:Please note:

[funkymonkjay]

Unlike TOR or VPN, HTTPS doesn't hide everything. They can see where you are going, the hostname/ip and port. That alone says volumes about you.

Thought process

[Kokuyo]

I wonder about the thought process behind this.
Our competitor launched an offering that blows everything out of the water that we offer. Let's provide a product to compete! But here's the catch: Let's make it suck! That'll show 'em.

Are consumers just that dumb or is AT&T just that arrogant?

Re:Thought process

[dAzED1]

so, do you think google isn't doing the same with their fiber installs? https://fiber.google.com/legal...

Re:Thought process

[Anonymous Coward]

yah, but we trust google more than AT&T.

Also, google is likely doing it for their own benefit (google will aggregate and use data for their own business---they're unlikely to resell it), AT&T is doing it for the dubious reason of gathering data to sell to others (not to use it themselves). At that point, you don't know who'll end up with that data...

Re:Thought process

[ArmoredDragon]

Except there isn't anything to indicate that Google is actually spying on you when you use their internet service.

The whole point of this two tiered pricing system on AT&T's part is to make it seem as though Google is doing the same, but that doesn't appear to be the case. The reality is quite simple: AT&T wants to charge you $100 for the service, and if they can't, then they are hell bent and determined on claiming their pound of flesh in some other way.

It isn't exactly a secret that AT&T (and Verizon) has been running a campaign to try to get consumers to value bandwidth at a higher price than they presently pay, because in their mind that is the future cash cow (since they've discovered that text messages, voice minutes, and cable TV aren't "cool" any more, and thus triple play is dying.) Haven't you ever wondered why them (and Verizon) got rid of their unlimited mobile data plans? Hint: It has nothing to do with a lack of spectrum (they have plenty in their possession.) Meanwhile T-Mobile and Sprint (with much lower spectrum holdings) have not.

Re:Thought process

[OldSport]

Consumers are actually that dumb. There are a lot of people out there who will gladly let every iota of their personal information be sucked up in exchange for a cheaper price.

Re:Thought process

[Alpha232]

let me know the next time Google wires up a violence plagued ghetto somewhere.

https://fiber.google.com/citie...
Oh trust me... there are plenty...

Also, I believe the city had some say in where they started, and in what order zoning/permitting was/is being approved.

Now if you want to go and say they are cherry picking markets as in those where it will do well (big cities), let me show you every commercially available communications advance (POTS with > 28.8, DSLAMs, ISDN, Cell Service, 4G, Cable, Broadband)

Re:Thought process

[mysidia]

Our competitor launched an offering that blows everything out of the water that we offer. Let's provide a product to compete! But here's the catch: Let's make it suck! That'll show 'em.

ATT is acting like a monopoly that needs to be broken up by the courts.

Re:Thought process

[ArchieBunker]

At least AT&T is up front about it. Google does everything listed in the summary but they rely on nobody reading the fine print.

Re:Thought process

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read https://fiber.google.com/legal/privacy.html?

Technical information collected from the use of Google Fiber Internet for network management, security or maintenance may be associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber, but such information associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber will not be used by other Google properties without your consent. Other information from the use of Google Fiber Internet (such as URLs of websites visited or content of communications) will not be associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber, except with your consent or to meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request.

Either (1) Google is lying in their privacy policy (doubtful--even if you didn't trust them it'd be a big liability) or no, they're not doing all that AT&T. The only fine print is "100 times faster Internet claim is based on the FCC’s benchmark for broadband of 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload. Go to Google Fiber Help Center for further details. Service not available in all areas."

Re:Thought process

[WaffleMonster]

Except there isn't anything to indicate that Google is actually spying on you when you use their internet service.

This would be redundant. Virtually every website on the planet already reports to Google for one reason or another.

Re:Thought process

[HiThereImBob]

I suspect you are exactly right. What AT&T is doing here is adopting googles policies / business practices and raising them by an order of magnitude. They are pushing it to the point where they are almost certain to get yelled at by the FCC, at which point they will point at Google and cry "but they get to do it, why can't we?".

They hope to make this whole "fast internet" thing unprofitable for Google so they will go away and let them rape the american public in peace. What AT&T understand is that Google isn't in the broadband business for (direct) profit. Google makes their money selling ads. They want you on a fast internet connection so you can run more searches and watch more youtube videos. The bandwidth limiting "caps" and other nonsense the incumbents have been up to lately have forced Google's hand. Much like their current Net Neutrality situation, these idiots did it to themselves.

It's sad to see a large company throw these temper tantrums. Pathetic might me a better word.

Re:Thought process

[MichaelMacDonald]

^ This -- They aren't providing a better alternative, they aren't trying to compete at all with Google, they are simply protecting their by offering a similar product that's slightly worse, and confusing people with it. Their marketing will make it sound very different from this article.

Re:Thought process

[Kjella]

How does this (from TFA):

AT&T says it tracks "the webpages you visit, the time you spend on each, the links or ads you see and follow, and the search terms you enter... AT&T Internet Preferences works independently of your browser's privacy settings regarding cookies, do-not-track, and private browsing. If you opt-in to AT&T Internet Preferences, AT&T will still be able to collect and use your Web browsing information independent of those settings."

equal this:

Technical information collected from the use of Google Fiber Internet for network management, security or maintenance may be associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber, but such information associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber will not be used by other Google properties without your consent. Other information from the use of Google Fiber Internet (such as URLs of websites visited or content of communications) will not be associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber, except with your consent or to meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request.

The last blurb just makes it clear that Gmail's terms of service apply when you use Gmail, this doesn't supersede any other agreement. And if you use Hotmail or Yahoo or your own email server Google won't collect any information on you, but AT&T will.

Re:Thought process

[Ol Olsoc]

Do you have any evidence of that? I mean evidence that they are monitoring the connection in some way and extracting information from your browsing habits.

Not sure if you are thinking of some shady folks in a room watchnig your personal traffic, but you can get the evidence for yourself in this manner:

Install noscript on your browser. Set it to not allow any scripts.

Now start going to random sites. First thing you'll notice is that some dont work correctly.

But now there is a little yellow bar across the bottom of your screen, and with a click or two you can see what is being blocked. First stop, you'll see Google analytics and some often some other google scripts. Then very often Facebook, who is tracking you whether you have a facebook account or not. Some other ad trackers as well - there are a lot of them.

So let's now temporarily allow all the scripts. Click. Now the page will reload. But just to annoy you, there are more scripts being blocked. Look at 'em if you want. More folks collecting data. Allow these ones temporarily, and you'll often find a third layer of scripts. I've found some times 30 or more little scripties reporting back to some place or another.

If you have a high threshhold for boredom, you can even look up who these folks are. There are a couple scripts that are completely innocuous, that deal with font rendering. But most want to know where you were, where you are, and where you are going.

That's just the scripts, not the hidden cookies - which you want something like "Better Privacy" for.

And that's just the ones we know about.

It's pretty obvious that every keystroke, every website we make or visit is monitored by something, Hell, if you try to use the net anonymously, you become interesting to some folks. I mainly use noscript and adblock as a way to make surfing tolerable. Privacy? Ain't happenin', and it's plain weird that AT&T is offering this discount to do what they are going to do to the "premium" subscribers too.

For targeted advertising?

[viperidaenz]

How are they planning on delivering that? Through injecting ads in your traffic, email spam or letterbox spam? They don't have an ad network like Google.

With the trend of more and more https traffic, how do they intend on sniffing that?

Left a Lot of Evil On the Table

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel AT&T really missed the Evil sweet spot with that tepid announcement. Terms like "Mercifully GRANT you WORTHLESS PLEBEIANS a fair and subsidized tariff on Our Internet" were right there for the taking. "Once we conquer the Dusky, Anti-Capitalist Muslim Usurper" - come on, AT&T! It's like you've killed your last white, long-haired cat in a fit of pique and now you really just don't know how to be EVIL. Let alone Evil. Let alone 'evil'.

Companies like Apple and Google consciously build up good will balances - and spend them here and there. Apple's issue is that their customers feel there is a ton of good will in the account - but non-Apple people don't get it at all. With Google, their fiber initiative is a good will bank bonanza (for people who are lucky enough to be in remote, non-ocean-bordering geographically experimental locations). On the whole, I'm not sure where they fall on the Good Will vs. Evil balance.

But AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner are plainly evil, short-sighted Lovecraftian horrors who would consume the world were they not so transparently stupid in their evil. They should seriously fire the entire top 5% of their management structure across the board and have the board outsource their entire strategy and management function to random graduate MBA's from North Korea, Belarus and Eritrea. You'd get a much more focused and higher-quality Evil for pennies on the dollar. PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR, BOARD MEMBERS.

TL;DR: assholes

It's high time for a new consumer protection law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Advertising has gotten out of control. When I visit a website, the operating system may be collecting information and advertising to me, the website may be collecting information and advertising to me, the website's corporate partners may be collecting information and advertising to me, the browser developer may be collecting information and advertising to me, and my internet service provider or cellular phone provider may be collecting information and advertising to me. I'm sure I've left out several ways that different layers of companies are trying to cram advertising down my throat.

FUCKING ENOUGH WITH THE ADS ALREADY.

If I visit your website and consume your content for free, you may attempt to advertise to me. If I pay a subscription fee for your website, shut the ads off. If I use your app, browser, or operating system for free, you may attempt to advertise to me. If I purchase your app, browser, or operating system, shut the ads off. And for God's sake, if you aren't piping internet service into my home at zero cost to me, you have no right to collect my information and advertise to me.

We need a new law that says if a consumer is paying a company for a service, the company is not allowed to advertise to the consumer on that service. Period.

Half and half

[tepples]

We need a new law that says if a consumer is paying a company for a service, the company is not allowed to advertise to the consumer on that service. Period.

In some markets, providing a service costs more than advertisers alone or subscribers alone are willing to pay. Thus in markets such as pay television, an arrangement has been reached where advertisers pay a portion and subscribers pay a portion. If you require either advertisement or subscription and never both, the provider will have to raise subscription rates in order to continue to pay its costs. This will cause the majority of subscribers to stop subscribing, leaving too few subscribers. Good luck sustaining a service like cable TV or Hulu Plus once you've made every channel as expensive as, say, HBO.

Do you think they asked

[Kohath]

"Should we still do this, even if 0.5% of our customers might use a workaround?" Or is the answer so obvious that no one bothered to bring it up at all?

Re:Double Jeopardy!

[jareth-0205]

ATT is acting like a monopoly that needs to be broken up by the courts.

What is "Double Jeopardy!"?

I thought AT&T was already broken up three decades ago for monopoly abuse.

By your logic, if I get convicted of murder once, I can then go around murderin' again as much as I want once I'm released from prison.

It is possible to be convicted of the same crime again if you repeat it...