By David Lazarus
Los Angeles Times
A simple proposition: Would you agree to receive marketing pitches in return for a discount on your high-speed internet service?
Comcast made just such a case last week to the Federal Communications Commission. The telecom defended what it called “a bargained-for exchange of information for service,” which it said “is a perfectly acceptable and widely used model.”
And that’s true. You can spend less on a Kindle e-reader from Amazon if you agree to see “special offers” when you turn it on. Your free use of online search engines and email is partly subsidized by marketers who peek your browsing habits.
But privacy advocates worry about a society in which keeping one’s personal info under wraps would be a privilege enjoyed only by those who can afford it.
They cite the example of AT&T’s super-fast GigaPower broadband service, which is being gradually rolled out nationwide. GigaPower costs $70 a month if you agree to let AT&T and its marketing pals look over your shoulder as you traverse the Web. If not, the monthly cost is $100.
“No one should have to give up privacy just because they can’t afford it,” said Dallas Harris at the digital-rights group Public Knowledge.
The FCC is considering privacy rules that would block service providers from sharing customers’ personal information without prior consent, and required them to disclose in plain English what information they collect and how it may be used.
The FCC’s proposed rules stop short of preventing two-tier pricing such as for AT&T’s Gigapower, also known as “pay for privacy.” But FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler suggests that the door still may be open for tightening the regulatory screws.
In its filing, Comcast argued that doing away with pay-for-privacy discounts “would harm consumers by, among other things, depriving them of lower-priced offerings.”
“The FCC’s extreme and unprecedented opt-in proposal … requires us to consider how to create additional choices that would allow us to compete in this ecosystem and benefit customers,” Fitzmaurice said.
A spokesman for Charter Communications, owner of Time Warner Cable, declined to comment. No one at AT&T and Verizon got back to me.
Privacy advocates say that pay-for-privacy doesn’t create additional choices for consumers. It denies some people a basic right.
“This is especially the case when it comes to lower-income consumers,” said Harris. “Many can’t afford to pay an extra $20 or $30 per month to protect their privacy.”
Lee Tien, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said another problem with pay-for-privacy is that it relies heavily on the honor system.
“Even if you pay extra for privacy, you can’t know what they’re actually doing,” he said. “You can’t know if they’re still using your information for some kind of marketing purpose. It’s very difficult to know if you’re getting what you paid for.”
I’m conflicted. I agree with those who say all consumers are entitled to privacy. On the other hand, I was happy to pay less for a Kindle with special offers. I accept intrusive ads in order to splash in the digital wading pools of Facebook and Twitter.
Chris Hoofnagle, an internet law professor at UC Berkeley, said Comcast’s filing should serve as a reminder that the broadband internet companies aren’t selling a luxury. They’re selling a necessity.
“What Comcast is saying is somewhat akin to the water authority offering a discount for less purified water,” Hoofnagle said. “It is time to conceive of broadband as a utility, one that needs to satisfy basic standards for quality, which include freedom from unwarranted surveillance.”
This seems like the right approach. Treated as utilities, broadband service providers would be entitled to a reasonable profit, accommodating industry growth and innovation. But they couldn’t exploit us.
If, as Comcast says, this is about providing additional choices, this would do it. All customers would be guaranteed a basic level of privacy protection, and those open to having their data shared would be able to receive a meaningful discount.
Privacy wouldn’t come at a premium. Marketers would pay for the privilege of accessing your personal info.
“There shouldn’t be different rules for different people depending on who you are,” said Kim Keenan, president of the Multicultural Media, Telecom and internet Council, an advocacy group. “Privacy is privacy.”
— Los Angeles Times
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
