
AT&T Says It May Soon Charge You Extra for Privacy - phr4ts
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Says-It-May-Soon-Charge-You-Extra-For-Privacy-139840
======
wand3r
Cable & Mobile Business Plan

\---

\- Use taxpayer money to build network

\- demand to be a monopoly

\- make gov. also install infrastructure on all public projects

\- underinvest in infrastructure and simply degrade service as needed

\- create extremely complex billing and cost structure

\- (if cable company) also sell advertising and charge networks

\- aggregate customer data. Ignore above point, if not cable company inject
tracking directly. Make huge profit, pay slightly >1 million as a joke after
caught.

\- destroy net neutrality and charge on both sides of equation

\- spy on your customers and leverage the data for profit directly and sell it
on open market

\- if user is privacy centric, do same as above but charge more

So in summary, charge 4 different entities for the same single service and
include extra fees to everyone for the service you already sold them. It would
be like if you were a fruit salesman.

\- government subsidizes farm

\- charge farmer to sell fruit

\- eliminate all competing fruit stands

\- sell fruit for profit

\- charge extra for providing 4 bananas to someone who bought 4 bananas

\- charge extra for unspoiled fruit without insects

------
temp9876789
Why isn't this a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and
disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511)

"except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not
utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or
service quality control checks."

------
DarkKomunalec
It's not "AT&T" doing this. It's their executives and shareholders - people
with names and addresses. Don't pressure AT&T to change, you will never
succeed - pressure it's key people. Do not let them hide behind their
corporation.

~~~
convolvatron
does anyone really believe that companies, their boards and their
institutional shareholders in general apply a higher moral standard than
maximizing returns? or that they could be shamed into doing so?

regulation

~~~
DarkKomunalec
If they were booed and egged any time they showed their faces in public,
perhaps. But regulation and breakup of (near) monopolies should definitely
also be applied, yes.

------
Spivak
I suppose all bets are off with the FCC now, but wasn't 'pay for privacy'
explicitly forbidden a while back?

