17 ms·
FTC Seeks to Examine the Privacy Practices of U.S. Broadband Providers
- 0b1wan 8y agoThis doesn't make sense. Where was the FCC about room 641A. Now they're concerned about privacy?
- 0b1wan 8y ago*FTC
- rrix2 8y agoWhat happened? A decade of time and shifting of society's values and their view of the value of communications.
- bitwize 8y agoAs long as the Right People are colluding with corporations and trampling people's privacy, it's totally okay. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Welcome to the one-party state of the USA.
- finnthehuman 8y agoThat’s outside the FTC’s statutory authority, isn’t it?
- cinquemb 8y agoYeah, privacy theatre, not unlike the kabuki performance of EU governments using google analytics and their ilk on their websites… all in a effort to do something™
- bediger4000 8y agoGee, I didn't know there were 7 broadband providers in the USA total. There's Comcast, of course, but who are the other dwarfs after Cox and Centurylink?
- dylz 8y agoATT, ATT Wireless, Verizon, Verizon Wireless WTF?
- heavymark 8y agoAs seen in the second paragraph one of them is just a sub brand of Verizon and another is a sub brand of AT&T, meaning total of 5.
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoThere are plenty of ISPs in the United States. I get 500 Mbps internet from a provider not on this list, despite being the sixth largest provider in the country and operating in ten different states. You may not realize how many there are total because most of them are regional. Things like Spectrum or Charter or Verizon or Cox or CenturyLink are all broadband carriers that were never available where I am, so I only heard about them through others online. Meanwhile, neither you nor this announcement mentioned my ISP. As many of those are not part of this inquiry, presumably the FTC is not worried about the privacy practices of those ISPs at this time, and just targeting ones it has specific concerns about.
- lotsofpulp 8y agoThere are not plenty of ISPs for 99% of people in the US. You have one provider, maybe 2 if you’re lucky, and if you’re really lucky one will offer an uncapped symmetrical fiber connection. But that’s not the case for 99% of people.
- 8ytecoder 8y agoI live in the Bay Area - my options are shitty Comcast for $66 for 60Mbps or $50 for 18Mbps from AT&T. I live in a building with 75+ units. Imagine that. My parents in a third world country have far more options, with better speeds (including Fiber) and far cheaper options too.
- jjulius 8y ago
- rc_kas 8y agoI don't think anyone in America trusts the FTC it examine anything right now. Or at least not to examine it with the best interest of the American people in mind.
- cwkoss 8y agoI generally approve of the FTC. What did they do that should perhaps make me think otherwise?
- crushcrashcrush 8y agoThe current head of the FTC is a Trump appointee who is a corporatist.
- alehul 8y ago> Prior to becoming FTC Chairman, Simons was a partner and co-chair of the Antitrust Group at the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Simons has held two previous positions at the Commission. He served as Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition between 2001 and 2003, during which he was responsible for overseeing the re-invigoration of the FTC’s non-merger enforcement program. In an earlier stint at the Commission in the 1980s, Simons served as the FTC’s Associate Director for Mergers and the Assistant Director for Evaluation. Simons earned the FTC’s Award for Meritorious Service. [0] Where did you get corporatist from? [0] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/05/joseph-simons-sworn-chairman-ftc https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/05/josep...
- whyaduck 8y agoThe "Antitrust Group" at Paul Weiss isn't in the business of trust busting. That's the group that defends businesses accused of antitrust violations. Not my first pick for head of an agency that is chartered with protecting American consumers.
- 8y ago
- makecheck 8y agoIt’s good to check on this of course but...as far as ISPs go, this is actually about #3 on the list of problems I want the FTC or someone to fix. How about the fact that there’s usually only one choice. Or that Internet that everyone wants can be force-bundled with ridiculous things no one wants (like a home phone line and minimum TV bundle), that we tolerate because there is no option. Or prices that go up forever with no improvements, except when they all magically found a way the day after Google Fiber was announced. These companies abuse their positions and need to be checked for that in addition to privacy.
- j4kp07 8y ago"Or that Internet that everyone wants can be force-bundled with ridiculous things no one wants (like a home phone line and minimum TV bundle), that we tolerate because there is no option." Kindly name one ISP that "forces" other services on top of their Internet service. "How about the fact that there’s usually only one choice." Sure. If you travel 100+ miles outside of a metro city; where the ROI for an ISP is lowered to near zero.
- microcolonel 8y ago> How about the fact that there’s usually only one choice. If you think it's so very important that there be more than one already-installed terrestrial or directional radio broadband provider in the middle of nowhere; you are perfectly welcome to find out what that will tend to cost, and start a charity to subsidize it. The government can not force private individuals or businesses to provide new services to any random location in the United States that anyone could technically choose to live. That's a good thing, in my view. As somebody who intends to live further away from urban centers, and knows what distance does to the cost of providing telecommunications services, it is my responsibility to entice others to do business with me, not anyone else's. If somebody is actively conspiring to prevent new business in this sector, that's one thing; but if the local government, geographic, and economic situation of some place is just such that it's not worth extending ISP services there, that's not in the FTCs purview.
- diminoten 8y ago
- jak92 8y agoGood. It's disgusting the contempt that telecom companies have for American's privacy.
- DannyB2 8y agoIt is also quite interesting to observe how the public almost universally despises their ISP, Cable TV and Mobile Phone companies. What other companies get such hate? (excluding: Tobacco, Big Pharma, and Oracle)
- Qwertystop 8y agoLawyers? There's no one firm on the same scale as big telcos, but as a group "lawyers" are pretty low on the public-image-for-major-job.
- inetknght 8y agoOil industry for sure; the larger energy industry as a whole to a lesser extent.
- tdeck 8y agoAirlines.
- sounds 8y ago"The orders were sent to: AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, Comcast Cable Communications doing business as Xfinity, Google Fiber Inc., T-Mobile US Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., and Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless." (In case you wanted to actually know who was named.)
- lintroller 8y agoWhy was Charter Communications excluded? Edit: Both CenturyLink and Cox were also exluded.
- jtuente 8y agoExcept for Comcast as xfinity, they are all closely associated with cellular providers or are cellular providers.
- mbell 8y agoComcast / Xfinity is also a mobile provider: https://www.xfinity.com/mobile/ https://www.xfinity.com/mobile/
- jtuente 8y agoI hadn't realized, well there's the connection at least.
- penagwin 8y agoTo be fair they use Verizon towers for their cellphone service
- mbell 8y agoThey also leverage their 'network' of wifi hotspots (which are just all the home routers they give to cable customers). Either way I imagine they route all the traffic through a gateway on their network so are likely to have just as much opportunity to collect data and/or modify traffic as the tower operator would.
- duxup 8y agoThis will be interesting to see how the FTC handles this vs how the FCC may have.. or just doesn't care.
- craftyguy 8y agoThis is a study, not an investigation. There is literally nothing to see here.
- duxup 8y ago>There is literally nothing to see here. I'm not sure that is the case. There will be something.
- craftyguy 8y agoI never said there would never be anything, just that there's literally nothing right now except the FTC announcing a study and speculation HN folks who never made it past the article title. I fail to see how this is 'news worthy'.
- duxup 8y agoAny study starting is nothing to see right now.... you could say that about anything. Start of an investigation certainly can be news.
- riazrizvi 8y agoGood. When I return from frequent business traveling I immediately get daily spam calls from local area codes. Since I don’t allow any of my apps to have my location (except Google Maps and Apple Maps, and then I have to run them, which is rare) I suspect ATT is monetizing my location data with these spam callers. That would also make sense to me because ATT certainly has the technology to identify spammers and shut them down.
- fosco 8y agoI am not sure this is the ISP here -- (out of the air) I think this might be simpler to answer by saying the spammer is abusing vulnerabilities in the SS7 network. learning about those vulnerabilities can be done by watching public CCC and other similar conference talks
- mrmuagi 8y agoAt the very least a fire should be lit under their arses to try and address/fix the vulnerability.
- ceoddevelopment 8y agoFTC, do not postpone for vote. DOJ out. Make my claim appreciate and I join officially.
- eddieone 8y agoEveryone knows Comcast is shady af. Good to see the FTC step up after years of FCC letdown.
- nartz 8y agoIts hard to believe this is real - considering the ftc's former position on net neutrality. Am I just being paranoid, or could this at all just be a sham investigation to appear as if the FTC is doing something, which will turn out findings that are all 'unremarkable' to further protect isps?
- Shivetya 8y agotheir position never meant turning a blind eye, it was handing the industry a rope and seeing what they would do with it. we survived for many years prior to NN and scare stories the internet has not been absconded with. if anything people are clamoring for censorship by wrapping it up under the mantra of fake news all the while ignoring the fact what someone declares as fake may not be truly fake, merely what they don't want you to believe. industry moves best when regulations are light but the oversight is vigilant
- NoblePublius 8y agoHow about they investigate geographic monopolies, forced rental of modems and routers that are cheaper to buy, arbitrary rate increases, and terrible customer service? I am so frustrated by these regulatory efforts against ISPs that don’t actually help consumers. No one cares about “privacy.” 1/3 of customers are incapable of even understanding the concept. The industry loves these probes into “privacy” so we don’t probe how they rip us all off everyday.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- holri 8y agoTime to install an antenna on your roof and join a wireless community network.
- pluma 8y ago(laughs in European)
- xnyan 8y agoAre you sure you have the copyright to post that from the EU (how did you get past the filter...)? I joke - anyway, not sure if this is why you are laughing but the FTC is well in the pocket of large business and their interests so yes, very likely this will be a joke.
- heymijo 8y agoI would love for someone to write a Robert Caro [0] style book on the hidden history behind the cable and broadband oligopoly in the U.S that has endured to the detriment of the American people. I've seen just enough to surmise that there must be some serious power players a la Robert Moses [1] working behind the scenes to fleece the federal purse while enacting protectionist laws at the federal, state, and local levels. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Caro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Caro [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1111.The_Power_Broker?ac=1&from_search=true https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1111.The_Power_Broker?ac...