Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Wants To Charge Broadband Users More For Privacy (dslreports.com)
Comcast believes it should be able to charge its broadband users who want to protect their privacy. FCC, on other hand, has indicated that such practices should not be there. In a new filing with the FCC, Comcast says that charging consumers more money to opt out of "snoopvertising" should be considered a perfectly acceptable business model (PDF). DSLReports: "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 the filing. The company proceeds to claim that banning such options "would harm consumers by, among other things, depriving them of lower-priced offerings." In short, Comcast is arguing that protecting your own privacy should be a paid luxury option, and stopping them from doing so would raise broadband rates. But as we've noted for years it's the lack of competition that keeps broadband prices high. It's also the lack of competition that prevents users upset with broadband privacy practices from switching to another ISP. That's why the FCC thinks some basic privacy rules of the road might be a good idea.
No need to go full-socialist... just regulate them like any other utility, with the same controls on pricing and service levels, and that should be sufficient.
Threaten any recalcitrant ISPs with loss of DMCA Safe Harbor, and, wait... how the fuck is Comcast able to snoop your packets yet claim common-carrier-like status?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
...A bargained-for exchange of customer's safety and well-being for higher prices is a perfectly acceptable and widely used model throughout the U.S. economy,...
He left out one important caveat --- when there is adequate competition present so that the consumer has a choice, when the company in question does not lobby legislative bodies to reduce or eliminate that competition.
From the article:
"In short, Comcast is arguing that protecting your own privacy should be a paid luxury option, and stopping them from doing so would raise broadband rates. But as we've noted for years it's the lack of competition that keeps broadband prices high. It's also the lack of competition that prevents users upset with broadband privacy practices from switching to another ISP. That's why the FCC thinks some basic privacy rules of the road might be a good idea.
So, unfortunately, instead of actually solving the real problem - the lack of competition, the FCC thinks "basic privacy rules might be a good idea." I mean, while I agree with that, it's just papering over the real issue. I understand that the FCC itself can't do anything about that, but I just can't see anything changing for the better in any significant way until we manage to break Comcast's near stranglehold on many areas of the market.
Also, Comcast's arguments about trading services for user information neglects to mention one tiny little fact: Most of the services that provide users a service in exchange for harvesting user information are providing a completely free service, like G-mail or Facebook, and many users seem to be fine with that. Comcast is "double dipping" - charging a significant amount for a paid service AND also trying to earn more by snooping on their customers. That's a completely different thing, and Comcast will have a hard time convincing anyone that they need to do this to remain profitable or that this is forcing them to keep rates high. The notion that allowing them to snoop on users would actually end up lowering rates is laughable. Users don't have any choices in many cases, so there's no pressure on them to keep rates competitive.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Actually, to be relevant, the explosives have been there for years. People discovered the explosives and called Comcast out on it. Comcast responded by charging extra to disable the explosives (they're still there, but they're disarmed. Honest!)
There is no option for "cheaper" Comcast. You get to pay what you're currently paying to live with the explosives, or you get to pay more and live with the hope that the explosives really are disarmed.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.