FCC Proposal: Internet Providers Must Ask To Share Your Data (foxnews.com)

The FCC has unveiled a new privacy proposal Thursday that is sure to appeal to millions of internet users. Internet service providers? Not so much. The proposal would require ISPs like Verizon and Comcast to get your permission before sharing your precious info with advertisers. Fox News reports: The Federal Communication Commission has changed its broadband-privacy plan since it was initially proposed in March. The wireless and cable industries had complained that under the initial plan, they would be more heavily regulated than digital-ad behemoths like Google and Facebook, who are monitored by a different agency, the Federal Trade Commission. The FCC explained its new approach Thursday and plans to vote on it Oct. 27. The revised proposal says broadband providers don't have to get permission from customers ahead of time to use some information deemed "non-sensitive," like names and addresses. The previous plan called for customers to expressly approve the use of more of their information. This time around, customers still need to OK broadband providers' using and sharing a slew of their data, like a phone's physical location, websites browses and apps used, and what's in emails. And customers must be told what types of information is kept and how it will be used, and agency officials said they can still say no to internet service providers using other data, like names and addresses.

Comments

But..

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it allow them to refuse to sell internet to people if they don't agree to this?

if so it doesnt matter, jut another line in the EULA that no one reads

Re:But..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Well I read the EULA and I don't agree so I'll just use a different ISP like....oh... :(

Re:But..

[oh_my_080980980]

Hey Potsy, you're fucking paying for the service.

Privacy Fees

[KingBozo]

Well if the ISP were smart they would come up with a fee, the amount they get from selling the data, and then change that fee to customer that don't want to share their data.

Simple win win for everyone. We know their business model is not so great, but it is currently part of the income they make, to prevent ISP resistance to this proposal they just enable a fee, I know I would be happy to pay a little more for my privacy. Similar to how I will pay for a phone app that doesn't collect/have ads/etc instead of use a free one with data collection/ads/etc.

Re:Privacy Fees

[ZenShadow]

Since when was having a government-granted monopoly not a great business model?

Besides, that's like saying you're okay with extortion, because that's effectively what such a fee would be. "Give me fifty bucks, or I'll give your personal data to SolarCity and they'll harass you."

That data is MINE. If nothing else, it's incredibly disrespectful for any company to sell it on without my consent. It's just sad that this is the norm these days.

Re:Privacy Fees

[Obfuscant]

Since when was having a government-granted monopoly not a great business model?

Which ISP has a government-granted monopoly? I know of none.

Re:Privacy Fees

[Obfuscant]

Comcast, in plenty of places.

No place in the US. Exclusive franchises are against federal law and have been for a long time.

Re:Privacy Fees

[93 Escort Wagon]

I see there are Comcast employees actively participating on Slashdot...

Re:Privacy Fees

[Obfuscant]

I see there are Comcast employees actively participating on Slashdot...

That may be true, but I am not one of them. I am simply someone who has been involved in cable franchising for a long time and have kept up with the changing legal landscape on that topic. And I choose to correct those who claim that exclusive franchises still exist. If you want to bash Comcast or TW, do so for any number of valid reasons; spreading falsehoods about their legal status is neither necessary nor appropriate.

There are federal laws prohibiting exclusive cable franchises, which are how government-granted monopolies in that industry were created. While there may have been a government-granted monopoly in some places (none of the places I've lived has had an exclusive franchise even when they were legal) they have long ago expired and must now be non-exclusive. I have repeatedly challenged claims of current exclusive franchises by asking only that a link to one be provided, and one has yet to be produced. Some have pointed me to franchises that are quite explicit in saying that they are non-exclusive, so it is clear that those people have failed to read what they are using as proof.

And there are, of course, NO government-granted monopolies for ISPs and never have been.

Re:Privacy Fees

[postbigbang]

And each of these clawed-in data providers will go kicking and screaming through court fight after court fight until all is won or lost, because they need the data as an extra layer of revenue.

So, you can weasel-word what you'd like, but most people have no choice in their provider, so it is a de facto monopoly, and in some cases where legislatures were bribed to inhibit/prohibit communities from doing their own networks de jure monopolies.

And once this is through the courts, then what of the DNS data they collect? What of how they actually calculate data caps, and by what means?

Consumers are pretty much f#cked when it comes to cable and broadband "service providers", their lousy services, their monopoly-ingrained mindset, and their revenue-at-all-costs stance.

Re:Privacy Fees

[AHuxley]

The "government" can just be an offer of new funding. Once accepted or offered.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Privacy Fees

[Obfuscant]

So, you can weasel-word what you'd like, but most people have no choice in their provider, so it is a de facto monopoly,

I did not say there were no de-facto monopolies, only that the claim that it is a government-granted monopoly is quite false. You call being accurate "weasle-word[ing]", but I call it being truthful.

and in some cases where legislatures were bribed to inhibit/prohibit communities from doing their own networks de jure monopolies.

The fact that municipalities were prohibited from competing unfairly with a company they have entered into a contract with doesn't make the resulting de facto monopoly into a de jure. It simply supports the existing non-exclusive franchise agreement. When a company makes promises that become part of the franchise agreement in exchange for being allowed to operate in a community, and then the community says "we're going to become a taxpayer supported, non-profit competitor with none of the requirements you agreed to and none of the expenses attached to those promises", that's unfair beyond reason.

And once this is through the courts, then what of the DNS data they collect?

I'm sorry, but how did we get from debating the monopoly status (lack thereof) of a cable TV company into 'DNS data' that someone collects? DNS data is an ISP function, for which zero government-granted monopolies exist.

Consumers are pretty much f#cked when it comes to cable and broadband "service providers", their lousy services, their monopoly-ingrained mindset, and their revenue-at-all-costs stance.

And not a single word of those reasons to dislike Comcast depends on them having a de jure monopoly, which is good because they do not. I have said not a word contradicting any of those reasons, either.

Re:Privacy Fees

[dugancent]

AT&T is ending the program you are referring to.

http://arstechnica.com/informa...

Re:Privacy Fees

[No Longer an AC]

I'm not very knowledgeable about all the details but I believe you're right.

I see the non-exclusive franchise agreements as a double-edged sword though.

From my city's website (which I imagine is fairly typical):

The City has a non-exclusive cable franchise agreement in effect with the local subsidiary of Comcast Corporation. It became effective on August 1, 2015 and expires on July 31, 2025

And it goes on to say they're required to provide service to all residents and that they're granted access to right of way easements.

That actually doesn't sound too bad. It would suck if certain residents were left out of the cable (and broadband) market because they lived somewhere that just wasn't worth it to connect only them. It would also suck if the cable company didn't have access to your non-subscribing neighbor's easement to lay the cable.

OTOH, I imagine that any smaller upstart cable company that wants to get access would also be bound by such requirements to serve all residents and that creates a huge barrier to entry especially considering the market will be split and it is probably easier to keep existing customers than to get new ones.

A friend of mine lives just outside of city limits in a residential neighborhood and he can't get Comcast. He gets some small cable company I can't remember the name of right now.

I'm unaware of any legal barriers keeping Comcast out of his neighborhood so I can only guess they don't see building out more infrastructure to compete doesn't seem profitable enough to them.

But I imagine his cable company might want to compete with Comcast in town if only they could develop it slowly, block by block. I'm just speculating there - maybe they're content to serve only non-city dwellers? Maybe they fear Comcast is too big to compete with and they have an unwritten agreement not to try to venture into each other's territories.

I suppose the city could say that they have a number of years to get around to hooking up the whole city, but is it really realistic to expect the small cable company to penetrate every part of the city while competing with a giant like Comcast even given years? Maybe they could give them access one chunk at a time.

I'm inclined to think we should declare the infrastructure a public monopoly, but do we do that to all technologies which provide broadband service? Maybe. I'm just rambling at this point.

I don't see any really good solutions.

I'll admit that I hate cable companies especially Comcast and so will probably always side against them. Where I live it's either them or DSL and fortunately the DSL provider here is very competitive for internet anyway.

I don't have much of a choice I'm not a big fan of the DSL provider either, but they're faster, cheaper and and more reliable than Comcast.

So is it even possible for there ever to be much more than a duopoly at best in most of the US?

Some people point to Europe as a model to follow. This is only anecdotal, but I was talking to someone from Ireland the other day who was complaining about her internet service as if she had Comcast. She did have choices, but they all went over the same lines which apparently are badly managed.

Re:Privacy Fees

[postbigbang]

Let me disambiguate your response.

Somehow, you have the pomposity to believe your own PR. That's not unusual.

Whether de facto, de jure, de legis, amazingly, you agree that there is a monopoly, so there's hope for you. When the TCA wrested control of communications infrastructure away from the states, who in turn made sure that they could give it up by strangling what was left of Tariff 12 and any other theories of local communications companies, this legislation was bought and paid for. Fie on you for asserting any other theory.... I watched the fleets of lawyers make the rounds of the congressional buildings in DC.

But this is also about the topic of privacy, and where DNS comes in is pretty amusing. There's a lot of $$$ being made selling DNS hit info to the miners of ads, not to mention those that extract ostensible meaningful trend data, or perhaps worse-- dark data. It's revenue based upon the emaciation of privacy, and as onerous as deep packet filtering.

Summary: yes, monopolies, yes litigious, yes they'll go kicking and screaming through the courts dragging things down for decades, no they have no interests in giving up any of their revenue streams because it took a lot of bribery/campaign contributions/"PR" to get their way and finally yes they're claws have even more entanglements whose talons will be exorcised one at a time, causing the great Satans of monopolies to scream.

Re:Privacy Fees

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast, in plenty of places.

No place in the US. Exclusive franchises are against federal law and have been for a long time.

Comcast is not a US Government Granted Monopoly, but a local one when the city that wants to offer Broadband sign a contract with Comcast, that they are the only ones who can do business in that city for cable. This is also the case in many apartments in Baltimore, where the Landlord signs a contract with ISP Of Choice for such and such terms and that locks their tenants into using Comcast and no others. The US Government doesnt have any say in these deals.

Re:Privacy Fees

[oh_my_080980980]

Bozo is right. You are paying for the service. You are not being provided internet access free of charge. You pay a rather handsome price for that service.

Ass.

Re:Privacy Fees

[oh_my_080980980]

Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, Charter...

Re:Privacy Fees

[oh_my_080980980]

Most be news to municipalities because they exist. You need to get out more.

Re:Privacy Fees

[oh_my_080980980]

Actually no you are a fucking troll and like pull shit out your ass. Many if not all municipalities have franchise agreements which prevents other competitors from entering the market.

So you might want to do some actual research and speak to some municipalities.

Re:Privacy Fees

[oh_my_080980980]

Yes douche bag that's what you claimed. The OP said government granted monopoly and you went on some tired about Federal this and Federal that. Somehow you missed the municipal level. Funny how that works.

Re:Privacy Fees

[Obfuscant]

Let me disambiguate your response.

My response needs no disambiguation. You don't need to add words to what I said for me.

Somehow, you have the pomposity to believe your own PR. That's not unusual.

It is pompous for me to believe what I say? Is it pompous when you believe what you say? Calling it "PR" would be like me calling what you say propaganda. I'm not writing "PR", and it would be unproductive to call what you write propaganda.

Whether de facto, de jure, de legis, amazingly, you agree that there is a monopoly,

Stop the bullshit attempt at putting words in my mouth. I have never denied there is a de facto monopoly for cable television, only the de jure. There's nothing amazing about it. I have readily admitted the de facto status regarding cable TV because it is a simple fact. But it is also a simple fact that there is NO monopoly whatsoever for ISP services.

But this is also about the topic of privacy, and where DNS comes in is pretty amusing.

No, I'm sorry, my comment was about the lack of government-granted monopoly status for ISPs. From the posting I replied to, very specific in it's limited context: "Since when was having a government-granted monopoly not a great business model?" That comment has nothing to do with DNS. It has nothing to do with cable television, really, either. It was a comment in the context of internet providers. It claims there is a government-granted monopoly involved, and that is a false statement.

Some places might have had an exclusive cable TV franchise long ago (I don't know of any, and there were none in any of the places I was involved in dealing with franchise issues. And that was from the public side, not the corporate side. They were called "cable commissions", and they were made up of citizens like me.) The fact is that they are illegal today and have been for a long time, and nobody has yet been able to point to one as an example.

Now, I understand you want to thrash to death reasons to hate on Comcast and TW, and talk about how their DNS servers are an invasion of your right to privacy, and all kinds of things like that. Go over to the threads in this discussion where that's being discussed, because that's not relevant to my comment in any way. I have been explicit already in saying there are reasons to dislike them, but them having a government-granted monopoly is NOT one of those reasons.

Re:Privacy Fees

[Obfuscant]

Yes douche bag that's what you claimed.

It is often helpful to the discussion to quote a bit of what you are replying to so the antecedents to pronouns can be properly identified. It appears you think I claimed there are no de facto monopolies, and you are obviously mistaken.

The OP said government granted monopoly and you went on some tired about Federal this and Federal that. Somehow you missed the municipal level. Funny how that works.

Sigh. Just sigh. The FEDERAL level is a LAW that prohibits MUNICIPAL levels from granting exclusive franchises. The municipalities cannot grant exclusive franchises any more, and have not been allowed to do so for such a long period of time that any existing ones will have expired and been renegotiated. And when they were renegotiated, they became NON EXCLUSIVE, and thus NOT a government-granted monopoly.

Federal law trumps municipal law. Funny how that works, huh?

Re:Privacy Fees

[Obfuscant]

Many if not all municipalities have franchise agreements which prevents other competitors from entering the market.

Please provide a link to one such exclusive franchise agreement. I didn't say municipalities didn't have franchise agreements, I said they were all non-exclusive. Municipalities CANNOT prevent anyone who wants to seek a franchise agreement from doing so.

So you might want to do some actual research and speak to some municipalities.

I have. Have you? Do you read the franchises or just complain because they exist?

Re:Privacy Fees

[Obfuscant]

Comcast is not a US Government Granted Monopoly, but a local one when the city that wants to offer Broadband sign a contract with Comcast, that they are the only ones who can do business in that city for cable.

I never referred to a US government granted monopoly. It is not a local government granted monopoly because there is nothing stopping anyone else who wants to be an ISP or offer broadband from doing the same thing. Exclusive franchises are a thing of the past, outlawed at the federal level.

This is also the case in many apartments in Baltimore, where the Landlord signs a contract with ISP Of Choice

Now you're confusing a contract between a private citizen (the landlord) and Comcast with a government-granted monopoly.

The US Government doesnt have any say in these deals.

You are right, the US Government doesn't have any say in the contract between a landlord and Comcast, but they have PLENTY of say over what the cities can do in that regard.

How Will You Know

[zenlessyank]

if they sold it or not? Pinky swear??!! You will opt out and they will sell it anyway. How fucking stupid do they think we are? Liars. The system is already automated to collect and sell. They gonna re-patch it? No way.

Fixed In The Terms Of Service

[Anonymous Coward]

You want service? You authorize data collection and dissemination as ISP desires. It'll be right there in the TOS if it's not (like MS for Windows) there already. The Privacy Policy *might* place some limits on that but usually minor if any - it's limited generally to what's required in the law of the jurisdiction they do business in and occasionally where service is provided. Normally, there's not even an opt-out for any part of it, let alone opt-in. Theoretically, FCC will require that it be opt-in for some things, but the AT&T/Comcastish lawyers will work around that easily enough. Business as usual. Profit!!

BS.

[msauve]

ISPs should be treated like common carriers, and prohibited from collecting any data from the content which flows through the network in the first place.

Thing is, they want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want immunity from responsibility for their customer's content, but also want to monitor it.

While they're at it...

[Solandri]

How about:

• Banks must ask to share your data
• Credit card companies must ask to share your data
• Cell phone companies must ask to share your data
• Websites must ask to share your data
• Retailers must ask to share your data
• Companies you do business with must ask to share your data
• Your data belongs to you, and anyone who is not you must get your permission before they can share your data

Re:While they're at it...

[Mashiki]

Why not update your privacy laws? We already have all of this in Canada. It's covered in either a blanket law or individual country laws in most of the EU too.

Re:While they're at it...

[AmiMoJo]

How is that not the default in your laws already? Most of the world requires permission to store personal data, let along share it.

Re:While they're at it...

[No Longer an AC]

I agree. 25 or so years ago I was young and naive and had never heard of this and I remember being somewhat shocked when it came up during a meeting with one of the execs where I worked.

They were getting 26 cents for each customer (IIRC). They were a regional chain of formal wear stores. Imagine how hungry marketers are to have access to people planning weddings. Or just teenagers needing to rent a limo for prom or whatever.

That's fairly targeted marketing I guess and most of the customers probably didn't mind the direct mail they got as a result, but I'd much rather they be required to get their customers to opt-in to such marketing and not just a clause buried somewhere deep in fine print that no reasonable person should be expected to read - just to buy a wedding dress or rent a tux.

Get them to at least check a box saying they agree to such a thing. I actually probably would agree to it in many cases.

I just had a thought. I wonder how many people buying customer data from them were divorce attorneys looking for eventual business.

Re:While they're at it...

[houghi]

I live in Belgium.
To detect this I use an email alias for every company I deal with. e.g. slashdot.org@example.com. That way if they sell the data, I will know and I know where to go to to send a complaint.
Over a +10 year period this has only been the case with ebay, so no more business with them.
For all the others I never had an issue. The companies I worked for where all very aware of the privacy laws and people will get training in it. People I had contact with about privacy laws where in all parts of the company, be it sales, marketing, legal; accounting, IT; customer support or whomever. Customers are also pretty well aware of this.

It goes so far that in some situations if you call for info about your spouces account, companies are not allowed to give information.

Although it makes work a bit harder, I am happy it is there and I would not mind if things where even a bit stricter.

Re:While they're at it...

[Mashiki]

How cute! You think your laws have more than a cursory impact on multinational data brokers...

Considering that privacy laws start at $100k/day and cap at $30k/customer(these fines are cumulative) and the laws here in Canada(and under writ by parliament they can go as high as $10m/day) are tough enough that they made Facebook and Google back down and get in compliance? Yeah, seems to be working just fine.

Re:While they're at it...

[CanadianMacFan]

If you are connecting to a server outside of Canada or the company has no business in Canada then the fines mean nothing. Sure they won't get as much data as a company like your ISP but it could be important data.

This is a proposal?

[Snotnose]

Jeebus Christo, it should have been the default all along.

AT&T U-verse

[no1nose]

Used to charge $30 USD for this. but recently dropped it.

Re:And if I refuse? They cancel service?

[arth1]

I do not give permission for my emails to be scanned.

Neither do I, which is why I run my own e-mail server. Sure, I have no control over the other end, but at least my side is reasonably safe from interference.
Not that I don't see a boatload of intrusion attempts from China and Virginia (not a lot of difference, these days) against both the e-mail server and DNS... But so far, so good.

To use

[aglider]

Not to share!

Easy

[sumsguy]

Just offer $5 discount upon agreement to allow them to share your data.

someone listened....

[wap3com]

I am not your product. I am your customer. And don't call me a consumer. I have taken those CD coasters and fried them, baked, bar-b-que, and boiled them. They are still tough and chewy. I consume and transform steak and potatoes.

... with advertisers

[eric_harris_76]

I was kinda hoping it would include the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.

Golly, I was so disappointed to have my hopes dashed.