Your ISP Can Sell Your Data Now.

[bobabode]

"The US House of Representatives voted Tuesday to eliminate ISP privacy rules, following the Senate vote to take the same action last week. The legislation to kill the rules now heads to President Donald Trump for his signature or veto.
The White House issued a statement today supporting the House's action, and saying that Trump's advisors will recommend that he sign the legislation. That would make the death of the Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules official.
The rules issued by the FCC last year would have required home Internet and mobile broadband providers to get consumers' opt-in consent before selling or sharing Web browsing history, app usage history, and other private information with advertisers and other companies. But lawmakers used their authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to pass a joint resolution ensuring that the rules "shall have no force or effect" and that the FCC cannot issue similar regulations in the future." ARS

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...wsing-history/

Thanks Republicans.

[finnbow]

Looking out for the little guy.

[MrPots]

Making america great again....

[whell]

This issue has been around a LOT longer than the current administration. Its the system of internet delivery and revenue that's screwed up. As newspapers and others have found out, its tough to monetize the web when people generally don't like to pay for stuff on the web.

You've already got Google and Facebook, among others, who have built their businesses by hoovering up boatloads of data they collect about consumers’ online activity, both on their own sites and sites where they provide content or advertising. The collection and selling of information accounts for the giant market share those entities have amassed, almost 50% of the global digital ad market. (EDIT: FYI - if you click on a banner ad on Political Chat, Google finds out about it. The "AdChoices" service is a Google ad service.)

Google and Facebook had a cozy relationship with the Obama administration. Their primary goal for that relationship was to lobby to preserve the current rules that disallow ISP's from engaging in the very same data collection that they engage in. So, this rule change will allow ISP's to do what Google and Facebook have been doing all along.

At the same time, there's been a consolidation of ISP's in the market: cable / fiber infrastructure is expensive to roll out and maintain. So, if ISP's do jump into collecting/selling user data, consumers won't have many options to switch to competing providers.

One other trend - consumers are starting to turn to cellular as a broadband option as more service providers roll out unlimited internet options / pricing. Cellular ISP's are already collecting and selling user data. Example:

https://www.t-mobile.com/company/web...spx#howuseinfo

[nailer]

Profit is an inalienable Right.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

This issue has been around a LOT longer than the current administration. Its the system of internet delivery and revenue that's screwed up. As newspapers and others have found out, its tough to monetize the web when people generally don't like to pay for stuff on the web...

The big difference is that you don't have to use Facebook or sign up for a Google account (and thereby agree to their terms of service with regard to your data). OTOH, you have to have an ISP. Moreover, an ISP is able to get a lot more data from you than Facebook or Google can (i.e., they know each and every webpage you view) unlike Google or Facebook.

I think this bill reflects Trump's governing philosophy - the little guy is someone to profit or benefit from, not protect.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The big difference is that you don't have to use Facebook or sign up for a Google account (and thereby agree to their terms of service with regard to your data). OTOH, you have to have an ISP. Moreover, an ISP is able to get a lot more data from you than Facebook or Google can (i.e., they know each and every webpage you view) unlike Google or Facebook.

I think this bill reflects Trump's governing philosophy - the little guy is someone to profit or benefit from, not protect.

Partially true. However, (as an example) you don't need to agree to Google's terms of service when you click on a banner ad from this site. However, if you click on the ad, they pick up your internet "address" and the content you clicked on. They then can push similar ads to you without your consent on this or any other web page that they provide advertising services. They can also sell your browsing info.

Same for Facebook, where you're clicking on Facebook-provided content whether that content is on Facebook's site or elsewhere on the web.

Same for Yahoo, or any other internet marketing / advertising firm. Those entities lobbied the prior administration heavily to preserve the current rule to protect their business.

At the end of the day, just about anywhere most folks go on the web, its very likely that they are being tracked and logged, and that info is being bought and sold. The rules revision simply lets the ISP's into the game (and cellular providers already are in the game). Also, at the end of the day, government rules regulating the internet shouldn't be designed to pick winners and losers.

Do I LIKE this development? No. Do I understand the "leveling of the playing field" rationale behind it? Yes. Is there a political angle here - putting the screws to Google / Facebook? Possibly - wouldn't surprise me, just like Google/Facebook's efforts to lobby and preserve their market share didn't surprise me. Are these data collection rules the disease or the symptom? I'd suggest they are the symptom.

The disease is the screwed up manner in which web services are monetized. For example, if folks had to pay $10 a month to access Facebook, would they do it? If folks were charged per search on Google, would they use Google? Likely not.

Remember when you could dial 411 on your phone and get listing information for free? As soon as telco's started charging for the service, folks stopped using it and it eventually went away. The current revenue model seeks to avoid that by getting folks to go to websites and click adds while their accessing their desired content. So far, its working, but it does have obvious drawbacks.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

...The disease is the screwed up manner in which web services are monetized. For example, if folks had to pay $10 a month to access Facebook, would they do it? If folks were charged per search on Google, would they use Google? Likely not...

Unlike Google or Facebook, the ISP's monetize the Internet already by providing Internet service for a fixed fee (for lousier service at higher cost than nearly any other developed country, BTW). If this new law results in lower-cost (or even free) Internet service because the ISP's will be able to employ a different business model akin to Google or Facebook, then at least the public has something to gain by this change. However, if Internet service remains relatively expensive and they're given further cash flow opportunities at the expense of our privacy, I say fuck 'em.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Unlike Google or Facebook, the ISP's monetize the Internet already by providing Internet service for a fixed fee (for lousier service at higher cost than nearly any other developed country, BTW). If this new law results in lower-cost (or even free) Internet service because the ISP's will be able to employ a different business model akin to Google or Facebook, then at least the public has something to gain by this change. However, if Internet service remains relatively expensive and they're given further cash flow opportunities at the expense of our privacy, I say fuck 'em.

Unlike the ISP's, Google and Facebook have far less infrastructure costs and also don't have to pay to redistribute content (i.e., the fees the ISP's pay to content providers like ESPN, A&E, History Channel, etc.). Seriously the crap programming that you have to pay for in your cable bill just to get the few channels that you might want to watch makes cable TV service VERY unattractive to a growing number of folks, particularly the millennials who want to watch what they want, when they want to watch it. The market share losses that cable TV is losing are significant.

Google and Facebook are not also facing pressure from cellular, and folks who are dropping their cable programming in favor of getting their content exclusively from the internet or terrestrial broadcasters (like our household does).

Again, I'm not trying to specifically defend this. I don't like anyone "hoovering up" my browsing activity. However, the content delivery marketplace is changing and to the extent that this regulatory change is in response to that reality, I guess I understand why its being done.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by whell

Unlike the ISP's, Google and Facebook have far less infrastructure costs and also don't have to pay to redistribute content (i.e., the fees the ISP's pay to content providers like ESPN, A&E, History Channel, etc.). Seriously the crap programming that you have to pay for in your cable bill just to get the few channels that you might want to watch makes cable TV service VERY unattractive to a growing number of folks, particularly the millennials who want to watch what they want, when they want to watch it. The market share losses that cable TV is losing are significant.

Google and Facebook are not also facing pressure from cellular, and folks who are dropping their cable programming in favor of getting their content exclusively from the internet or terrestrial broadcasters (like our household does).

Again, I'm not trying to specifically defend this. I don't like anyone "hoovering up" my browsing activity. However, the content delivery marketplace is changing and to the extent that this regulatory change is in response to that reality, I guess I understand why its being done.

Essentially, pay to play, one way or another.