Given the Beltway reaction to the commendable work by Congress to reverse the FCC’s off-course privacy rules, it’s worth taking a step back to see what’s really going on. First and foremost, all of the rhetoric that asserts – without any factual support – that the CRA vote suddenly eliminated consumer privacy protections is just plain wrong. The reality is that the FCC’s new broadband privacy rules had not yet even taken effect. And no one is saying there shouldn’t be any rules. Supporters of this action all agree that the rescinded FCC rules should be replaced by a return to the long-standing Federal Trade Commission approach. But in today’s overheated political dialogue, it is not surprising that some folks are ignoring the facts.
AT&T’s privacy protections are the same today as they were five months ago when the FCC rules were adopted. We had the same protections in place the day before the Congressional resolution was passed, and we will have the same protections the day after President Trump signs the CRA into law. The Congressional action had zero effect on the privacy protections afforded to consumers.
It is also flatly untrue that the Congressional action eliminated all legal protections governing use of consumer information. For example, AT&T and other ISPs’ actions continue to be governed by Section 222 of the Communications Act just as they were for the nearly two years that passed between reclassification of internet access as a Title II service and the passage of new rules last fall. Former FCC Chairman Wheeler wasn’t shouting then that consumers’ privacy was at risk because we had no rules. The statute itself protected consumers. And it will continue to do so until the misguided Title II reclassification decision is rescinded, at which time the FTC will resume regulating consumer broadband privacy, just as it has done since the internet was created decades ago.
Just to remind everyone, there was never any suggestion by the Obama Administration that the FTC’s privacy regulation was somehow inadequate or ineffective to protect consumers on the internet. Quite the contrary, the Obama Administration spent a good deal of time arguing (particularly throughout Europe) that the FTC was an equal or even more ferocious privacy regulator than the European Data Protectorate. The adequacy of the FTC to police privacy has never been questioned before this fact-free debate.
Query then why former FCC Chairman Wheeler decided to reject the FTC approach when adopting FCC rules in this area. That decision did little, if anything, to enhance the protection of consumer internet information. Instead, those rules were simply another example of putting the Administration’s hand on the scales to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.
In truth, companies that collect and use the most customer information on the internet are not the ISPs but other internet companies, including operating system providers, web browsers, search engines, and social media platforms. And the FCC rules had nothing – literally nothing – to do with these companies or their practices. Indeed, in fashioning the rules, the Wheeler FCC gave consumers a false sense of security by limiting how ISPs – and ISPs alone – use internet data while knowing that other competitors in the internet ecosystem had access and freedom to use the same data across whatever platform the consumer used to access the internet.
AT&T was one of the first companies to move away from a privacy policy that looked like a legal document and towards a policy that communicated our practices to our customers in words that the consumer didn’t need a lawyer to help decipher. In the same vein, we have long advocated the approach supported by the Obama Administration before the FCC acted last fall – a consistent framework that focuses on the sensitivity of the data, not the service or entity that obtains the data.
If the government believes that location data is sensitive and requires more explicit consumer disclosures and permissions, then those protections should apply to all players that have access to location data, whether an ISP or edge player or search engine. If the government bans the ISP from that data but allows, for example, OS providers, app developers and everyone else who has software running on your phone to collect your location and internet data, use it, share or sell it, that does not protect but rather confuses the consumer.
AT&T’s approach, which is to focus on the nature of the data and have a consistent framework on collection, use and sharing, was actually the Obama Administration policy for nearly eight years until the Wheeler FCC did a sudden about-face. Hopefully, this week’s action by Congress gets us back on the path to a more rational and consumer-friendly framework. I am also hopeful that facts actually work their way back into the debate.
But I am a Cubs fan, and I always hope in March or April that this will be the year! Oh wait a minute; it really happened. Maybe a fact-based debate really can actually happen here after all. Bring on the goat!
While I certainly do not agree with anything that was written here, at least it read like a human wrote it rather than the usual lawyer talk.
You speak of abiding by the laws, but most of those local laws were pushed and written by YOU! It was no coincidence that when you sued our city to keep competition out, you were no longer interested in customers, but keeping a monopoly in place and boost your profits.
Actions are greater than words and your actions as a company tear gaping holes in any statement you make.
Why have you been lobbying for this change if it does nothing?
The difference is, services like Facebook and Google provide their services for free, in exchange they get to use our data. Provide your services for free and people will probably not mind that you collect and use their data. The fact that people pay for it, demands quality service and security.
Mr. Quinn’s basic argument is that AT&T should be allowed to sell consumer data the same way as other internet companies such as Google do. The problem with that is, I have a choice in the search engine I use- if I don’t like how Google uses my data, I can switch to Bing, Yahoo, or one of hundred of other options. With an internet service provider, my only choice locally is either AT&T or Comcast, and in some apartment buildings, AT&T has entered into a revenue sharing agreement with the building’s owners so they have an effective monopoly as an ISP.
I’d have no problem with letting AT&T sell my data if it was possible to fire them as an ISP. But thanks to the lobbying efforts by Mr. Quinn and others, consumers don’t have a choice.
Sorry but I do not use any operating systems that collect personal information. AT&T is a tunnel to the Internet and anyone that uses your service cannot opt-out of data collection from your organization. And your organization has the ability to collect everything a person does on the Internet vs Google and Facebook only has the ability when using their services.
AT&T is the enemy of privacy!
Self serving nonsense. You charge customers a premium fee for your service. Now you want to have us believe that this new law is “consumer friendly” and represents privacy protection? Did you blush when you wrote that?
My family and I have been loyal customers for years but I will figure out our options. Me think you doth protest too much. But in any event I know of absolutely no ordinary citizen who is in favor of what you’ve “achieved”. How could they be? You are charging people for the privilege of being spied on. There is and will continue to be blowback.
I do have a choice. I can buy internet through my cable provider. I have not read this law. But so far don’t like what I’ve heard. Would I be safe from the affects of this law if I switched from att to cox cable for internet?
Stating that others track user information and violate privacy does nothing to support your case. I have a choice whether to use invasive operating system technologies that support tracking. I do not use Siri, Alexa or Windows 10. There are web browsers that support privacy. There are search engines that do not track. I can choose not to use social media. I should not have to use a VPN to protect myself from my ISP.
For an executive as high up as this guy is he should know better than to stoke the fires of the resistance with his conservative ideology and Obama-bashing. Instead of being conciliatory and reassuring your customers in a non-political fashion, you have now turned many of us off even more than the act itself. I wasn’t going to cancel my account until I read this partisan rant. For future reference try respecting your customers a bit more like they did in the supplied link.
“We don’t collect or sell your sensitive information, but it’s unfair that others get to, so we should be able to as well.” That’s the entire substance of your argument. If you have no intention of doing this, then there is exactly zero legitimate reason why the law should be changed to allow you to. That’s the simple truth of the matter. And comparing the level of exposure of our personal information that you represent to that of Google or Facebook is ludicrous. Facebook doesn’t have access to my SSN, banking information, tax returns, or medical history. But because all of that stuff is now communicated on-line, you do, and it should be illegal for you to collect that information or share/sell it without our explicit and separate written permission to do so.
Shame on At & T for their stance on this new anti-privacy bill. I really just want affordable health care AND my privacy.
There is a fundamental flaw in the argument provided about fairness of access to edge stake holders (OS, Search, etc …) and access providers. Mike and Matt eludes to this point. The key observation is that ATT customers pay for a access.
The others whom provide a service, do so with the expectation of monetizing the data. If the services is paid for, there should be an expectation that the customers data is no longer the product. Unless ATT starts offering a free teir with ads to capitalize on Ad revenue from meta data analysis (something that was tried before but failed because it was not worth while), they have no grounds for making a claim of fair access.
“We don’t collect or sell your sensitive information, but it’s unfair that others get to, so we should be able to as well.”
What a brilliant argument. Others can collect a limited amount of our information and even then we have a choice to go someplace else like duckduckgo can be used as a search engine which does not collect data. Well since the situation is like this, I am installing tor and purevpn on my devices. I wonder what right gets taken way next with another ridiculous reason
I don’t care one bit for your tone at all either. Just the thought of lobbying to be able to sell my private and sensitive information fails to pass a smell test too. If you get a data breach, how confident can we be that you won’t shruggie your way through it? Thank God you’re only my cell phone provider… or should I rethink that decision too?
Hey buddy, the bottom line is that many consumers do not want you to collect their information, period. We don’t want you to profit out of what belongs to us! As for government picking winners and losers? A lot of you corporate types are delusional, you pretend as if the current party in power doesn’t do that all the time! Seems to me that in this case you are most assuredly the winner and that consumers are the losers. Especially, given the fact that the current Federal watch dogs have a very cozy relationship with industry!
Already out of contract with one of our lines, the other ends in a couple of months at which point we’re taking our services elsewhere. Luckily we live in Austin and have many other, better, choices.
Bob Quinn, your sanctimonious bs has helped us make the decision to switch companies and drop your service.
Later.
I’ve been a loyal family plan customer for years but this absurd response, as opposed to the more professional one from Comcast, makes me think I need to look elsewhere. I find your disregard for people’s valid concerns disgusting, I find you to be immature and ignorant, and that makes me question giving my money to att. Even Verizon was more professional in there response while still making the same illogical claims as you. Pathetic.
Bob,
Your understanding of the law is wrong and the AT&T ISP statement that the title II classification as common carriers is misguided clearly shows that neither you nor your legal team are competent and you are flat out lying to your customers. ISPs are common carriers just like telephone companies. Customers are paying at&t to carry (I.e. Transport) their data from their home/device to a destination. You provide no value beyond transport. That is the definition of common carrier.
This law strips away your customers privacy rights and allows at&t to sell a customer’s data and web browsing history to the higest bidder.
The law never would have occurred had your company, NCTA your lobbyist, and the large quantity of cash you gave to legislators. You bought the votes in congress to get this law passed. You and your company along with Verizon and Comcast are lying scum.
If at&t ever sells my personal data related to my use of the internet from my cell phone I will sue at&t under class action status.
Your company lied to congress, the head of the FCC Ajit pai (your industry stooge) lied to congress, and you are lying to your customers.
You and your company are disagrace. Perhaps we should buy some at&t stockand file a shareholder motion to remove all at&t senior mgmt and replace them ones that actually tell the truth and care about their customers that are salaries.
What a silly statement. Bob Quinn’s statement is full of AT&T self-serving hot air. As many have noted in these comments, if “nothing changes” in a material nature, then why are changes needed in the first place? Remember when the banks went to Congress in the late 90’s and said “we need to get rid of Glass-Steagall so we can make as much money as those other guys”? This is kind of the same thing: ISP want to try to match revenues of Google, Microsoft, etc. in the big data space. I’ve already switched off of AT&T wireless, internet is next! Good luck Bob!
I have no problem with anyone seeing my browser history. What I do have a problem with is seeing more corporate vampires amassing huge profits by using me as an avenue to do so. This will be mean more advertising, more spam, more mass mailings taking up my time to manage and dispose of. When I am ready to purchase something I will do so, not when Corporate America tells me to do so. Capitalism is leading our country to its demise.
Comparing Facebook and Google to AT&T or any other cable company is a false equivalency. They aren’t the same thing. I can choose to not use FB or Google and I can choose to clear my cookies and I can choose to browse in incognito mode. That is my choice and something I can do myself. I cannot choose to not use internet in my own home. Internet access has become like a sort of “utility”, like water or electricity. I can’t decide to not use water in my home just like I can’t decide to not use cable internet. And don’t mention choice (that we can choose to not use a certain cable company) – Many Americans don’t have much choice of cable internet provider in their neighborhood (often only 1 or 2).
Your statement doesn’t pass the smell test. Just do the right thing. We all know what that is.
I totally disagree with everything you wrote. What I have a severe issue with is greedy corporate shills writing laws that benefit only them at the expense of the consumer. ATT and Comcast and similar corporate lackeys have done everything to decimate competition. Now you want more. Sorry Charlie, you are severely pissing people off now and are getting blow-back you so severely deserve. You want to come out swinging… better get ready for a beat down.
1. You have not innovated your product.
2. You charge more and more for the lack of any innovation, increase in speed, etc.
3. You have sued the competition and forced local municipalities not to provide services, even though you chose not to provide decent services in those areas.
4. You are plainly customer hostile. You “Invent” new ways of charging your customer more and more for garbage service.
5. You have not improved the digital divide for those who live in rural areas.
You wonder why people are hostile… A long time ago I left Comcast. I voted with my wallet and they have lost over ten years of income from me. I am lucky enough to live in area where I have choice. I chose Sonic.net. So now I lift your company one year ago for a company who chose to provide better customer service. Can you hear me now! That sucking sound you hear is dollars that you are losing.
I will be looking to abandon ATT and any other provider who can’t guarantee that any data collected and linked to PII can be used without my consent.
This isn’t hard, Bob – what we would like our ISPs to do is provide us with connectivity to various service providers and information sources for a reasonable amount of money without either snooping into what we’re doing or further monetizing our activities. You don’t monitor phone calls and start playing travel ads in the background when I talk to my wife about our vacation plans, do you? Or had you just not thought about doing that yet? Maybe I shouldn’t have brought it up.
And I share the concerns of others that when companies rail against regulations that keep them from doing things they claim they wouldn’t do anyway, they’re not especially credible.
Mr Quinn you are So FULL of HOT AIR and other stuff that usually yellow or brown. Enjoy your money
peace&love,
Stephen W Noble
Mr Quinn,
There are some comments that bring up good points not addressed in your article. Can you please respond?
Many thanks,
As a paying customer, I do not want any of my information to be collected for marketing. Period. Not for your or your friends. No one. If you offered free services some would be ok with it, but I pay to be here and -do not- want marketing.
One does wonder if AT&T writes this in an actual attempt to assure people that they won’t track every detail they can get their hands on and sell it for a profit, or if it’s just CYA in case of a lawsuit.
Either way, it’s funny. If anyone at AT&T reads this – rest assured, your lies are met with deafening laughter, and no more.
ISPs are not the only ones with access to our information and they have neither comprehensive nor unique access to information about users’ online activity. Rather, the most commercially valuable information about online users . . . is coming from other contexts, such as social-media interactions and search terms. Streamlining internet privacy enforcement through the FTC is not only fair for the industry but also important so consumers have a one-stop shop when it comes to raising concerns with the government.
Don’t be so foolish. Google sees far more than your internet provider.
I am confused by all the comments here. Are people really that naive to think that Google and Facebook and all the billion dollar companies in California don’t collect every bit of data from your online activities every second of every day? That is why they are in existence, what justifies their entire business model! And what about the true privacy violators- Google was just caught mining non-gmail email content…not to mention their apps like Waze track everything you do on the road… and hello– Android??! You think they cannot see everything you do on your mobile phone to the precise location? I cannot even find an opt-out for Google. At least it is easy to opt-out of your ISP. People are blindly reading headlines forgetting that they seemingly had no issue with Facebook or any of the many platforms it owns, or the websites it tracks, yet they all of a sudden have an issue with an ISP offering even more privacy protections than those companies out west? Time for a little education…
Wow. The spin is nauseating. You should feel bad for writing this as you are selling out not only the people, but your family and friends. I hope you burn in hell.