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:

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.