5 ms·

Why does anyone think allowing ISPs to collect and operate on customer information with impunity is a good idea for the general public, who often have no altern

Why does anyone think allowing ISPs to collect and operate on customer information with impunity is a good idea for the general public, who often have no alternatives?

shmerl 10y ago
They don't serve the general public.
conception 10y ago
I don't agree with the stance, but I suspect the answer would be something like - "This would allow the companies to make more money which grows the economy and shareholder value which is good for the general population."
M_Grey 10y ago
Because there is money/power involved for them.
rayiner 10y ago
It's a proxy war in a battle between industry sectors. > Telecoms unsurprisingly object to the rules. They feel they're subject to more stringent regulation than many of the websites you visit, and believe that an opt-in requirement hurts their ability to target you with personalized ads. Silicon Valley would similarly chafe at the idea of opt-in requirements before being able to use customer data. You can raise the competition issue, and that's fair to a degree. But I have more realistic choices for say my cell phone plan than I do the search engine I use. And I have every little choice in, e.g., whether or not I send emails to gmail/yahoo/etc. users. As for why Republicans take up this particular mantle, there is a cynical take and a charitable one. Telecom companies employ hundreds of thousands of people, and are geographically dispersed. Silicon Valley is highly concentrated and doesn't employ that many people. AT&T, for example, has thousands of employees in Tennessee. Google has a few hundred. Does Facebook have any? IMHO, everybody making Internet infrastructure should be required to get opt-in consent before using private customer information.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  > And I have every little choice in, e.g., whether or not I send emails to gmail/yahoo/etc. users. You could encrypt. (Not that that's really a rebuttal, all things considered, I just felt it worth noting...)
- cpburns2009 10y ago
  That's interesting. I've never heard this description before which sounds plausible for actually giving a reason behind it.
- wlesieutre 10y ago
  > But I have more realistic choices for say my cell phone plan than I do the search engine I use. And I have every little choice in, e.g., whether or not I send emails to gmail/yahoo/etc. users. If I don't want to use Google because of their tracking, I can use DuckDuckGo. If I don't want to use Comcast because of their tracking, my other options are Comcast, Comcast, Comcast, and Comcast. I think you're being a bit disingenuous by focusing on cellular carriers and not mentioning wired broadband providers where we have no competition, no consumer choice, and no market solution to abuses by the service provider. Your criticism of email is somewhat more fair. While there are alternative services available that you could use, the majority of your contacts are going to choose to fork over all of your information to Google. But if you're really concerned about that, you can find other channels to contact them. That's still a better situation than the ISP market that most Americans are stuck with.
  - asddddd 10y ago
    I'll just note that you framed it very narrowly as "wired broadband" so the argument works; someone who takes the opposing view might consider dialup, 4g, satellite, or other services to be competition you could switch to. They likely have more market share than DuckDuckGo compared to Google/Bing.
    - wlesieutre 10y ago
      I guess my criteria is "things I can binge Netflix on." Neither dialup or 4G fits the bill due to low speed or small data caps. Gaming is a slightly smaller niche that rules out satellite on account of the >0.5 second latency. And that "niche" is still enormous. With very few exceptions, every person playing any realtime online games from an Xbox, PlayStation, other console, or PC is doing it over a wired broadband connection and can't consider other services to switch to.
mtgx 10y ago
My wild guess: because lobbying money says so.
st3v3r 10y ago
Because it will make my shares in those ISPs go up a quarter of a point!

Why does anyone think allowing ISPs to collect and operate on customer information with impunity is a good idea for the general public, who often have no alternatives?

shmerl 10y ago

They don't serve the general public.

conception 10y ago

I don't agree with the stance, but I suspect the answer would be something like - "This would allow the companies to make more money which grows the economy and shareholder value which is good for the general population."

M_Grey 10y ago

Because there is money/power involved for them.

rayiner 10y ago

It's a proxy war in a battle between industry sectors. > Telecoms unsurprisingly object to the rules. They feel they're subject to more stringent regulation than many of the websites you visit, and believe that an opt-in requirement hurts their ability to target you with personalized ads. Silicon Valley would similarly chafe at the idea of opt-in requirements before being able to use customer data. You can raise the competition issue, and that's fair to a degree. But I have more realistic choices for say my cell phone plan than I do the search engine I use. And I have every little choice in, e.g., whether or not I send emails to gmail/yahoo/etc. users. As for why Republicans take up this particular mantle, there is a cynical take and a charitable one. Telecom companies employ hundreds of thousands of people, and are geographically dispersed. Silicon Valley is highly concentrated and doesn't employ that many people. AT&T, for example, has thousands of employees in Tennessee. Google has a few hundred. Does Facebook have any? IMHO, everybody making Internet infrastructure should be required to get opt-in consent before using private customer information.

dllthomas 10y ago
> And I have every little choice in, e.g., whether or not I send emails to gmail/yahoo/etc. users. You could encrypt. (Not that that's really a rebuttal, all things considered, I just felt it worth noting...)
cpburns2009 10y ago
That's interesting. I've never heard this description before which sounds plausible for actually giving a reason behind it.
wlesieutre 10y ago
> But I have more realistic choices for say my cell phone plan than I do the search engine I use. And I have every little choice in, e.g., whether or not I send emails to gmail/yahoo/etc. users. If I don't want to use Google because of their tracking, I can use DuckDuckGo. If I don't want to use Comcast because of their tracking, my other options are Comcast, Comcast, Comcast, and Comcast. I think you're being a bit disingenuous by focusing on cellular carriers and not mentioning wired broadband providers where we have no competition, no consumer choice, and no market solution to abuses by the service provider. Your criticism of email is somewhat more fair. While there are alternative services available that you could use, the majority of your contacts are going to choose to fork over all of your information to Google. But if you're really concerned about that, you can find other channels to contact them. That's still a better situation than the ISP market that most Americans are stuck with.
- asddddd 10y ago
  I'll just note that you framed it very narrowly as "wired broadband" so the argument works; someone who takes the opposing view might consider dialup, 4g, satellite, or other services to be competition you could switch to. They likely have more market share than DuckDuckGo compared to Google/Bing.
  - wlesieutre 10y ago
    I guess my criteria is "things I can binge Netflix on." Neither dialup or 4G fits the bill due to low speed or small data caps. Gaming is a slightly smaller niche that rules out satellite on account of the >0.5 second latency. And that "niche" is still enormous. With very few exceptions, every person playing any realtime online games from an Xbox, PlayStation, other console, or PC is doing it over a wired broadband connection and can't consider other services to switch to.

mtgx 10y ago

My wild guess: because lobbying money says so.

st3v3r 10y ago

Because it will make my shares in those ISPs go up a quarter of a point!