Ars Technica:
If you have AT&T’s gigabit Internet service and wonder why it seems so affordable, here’s the reason—AT&T is boosting profits by rerouting all your Web browsing to an in-house traffic scanning platform, analyzing your Internet habits, then using the results to deliver personalized ads to the websites you visit, e-mail to your inbox, and junk mail to your front door.
In a few select areas including Austin, Texas, and Kansas City, Missouri—places where AT&T competes against the $70-per-month Google Fiber—Ma Bell offers its own $70-per-month “GigaPower” fiber-to-the-home Internet access. But signing up for the deal also opts customers in to AT&T’s “Internet Preferences” program, which gives the company permission to examine each customer’s Web traffic in exchange for a price that matches Google’s.
If users don’t push back on this AT&T “service”, you better believe every other ISP that has the capability will do the same “deep packet inspection”. The worse part of it is the surcharge to opt-out of this service. It will disproportionately affect those who can’t afford to protect themselves from AT&T’s snooping.
“The worse part of it is the surcharge to opt-out of this service.” I don’t know about that. You seem just fine with paying for all the other services that google provides for “free” with ads. How is at&t doing it any different?
To restate the obvious:+ When you use a “free” service provided by Google, there is an expectation that the particular service (Maps, Gmail…) will be served by custom Ads based on your usage.
Separately, another reason to kill the large ISP consolidation deals – ATT charges 70% more in areas without another gigabit competitor.
Uh, where’s the pushback against Google?
One more reason to use SSL for all the things.
I find the opt out surcharge to be the best part. This allows it to be accessible to more people. The attitude that people should not be given the option to make this trade-off is paternalistic. Let people make the decision instead of telling people what they should do because you know better than they do and they’re not smart enough to make an informed decision.
I don’t have a problem with it when they do it in a place with Google fiber because competition is all about having choices. Why anyone would choose AT&T tracking over google is beyond me though. Of course in areas with no other choices I guess it is quite annoying.
“if you do choose to use Google services there is the direct benefit of using said services free of any direct costs… Rather than providing a free service they are charging top dollar for basic internet connectivity, and then they are charging a huge premium on top of that to merely limit the degree of tracking and snooping they inflict upon their users”
Does that mean it would be more acceptable if the tracking package was significantly cheaper than the privacy package?
“they are abusing their role as an ISP by using intrusive and invasive technologies to bypass their users’ attempts to block this tracking”
I disagree with this if the customer purposely chose to be tracked for a cheaper rate. They already agreed to it so bypassing their attempts to block it would be just enforcing the contract. Of course, it would be a different matter if the customer didn’t know about it. Of course, something can be said about saving people from themselves.
I guess it could also lead to ISP’s “raising the price” by adding tracking to the current packages and then adding a privacy option for more money. That is a direct result of the lack of competition though.
Last I looked at it – the first time this FUD came around – AT+Ts thing was an opt-in for a discount on service.
Push-back? Please.
The FCC’s net neutrality ruling is but a baby step towards the strict
and extensive regulation and oversight that we must demand of companies
like AT&T and Comcast
God save us from “strict and extensive regulation and oversight” of the Internet.
“Net neutrality” of that sort is a disaster, not a blessing.
I think the question is how clear AT&T makes this to their users. AT&T would want to sign as many people up as possible – they could easily make the “cheaper” option more attractive by hiding or obfiscating what they are giving up for the lower cost…
also what are the other speed options? are there any data caps? Gbps fiber could be great … but I would probably go with 100Mbps or 250Mbps fiber if it were less and I would not be tracked (at least by the ISP I pay). I’ve only just upgraded to 50/50Mbps up/down – and it seems for the 100/100 (or even 75/75) the ISP (Verizon – yuck/cough – Verizon) wants you to sign up for TV service as well… and Verizon is scarey, since they appear to be run by bots, which is why my wireless is not Verizon…. anyway.
Also, these dumb pipe companies are very dumb. I have never seen any redeeming qualities about Verizon, AT&T or anything of them … it is almost like they have that old monopoly attitude if you don’t like that they offer – you have to pay anyway!
I suspect Google Fiber does the same thing. They already read your email and sell that information to third-parties.
In principle I do like the government staying out as much as possible, but attached to a story like this its hard to argue the fix is NOT more regulation.