|
GlennLortscherSecondPaper 5 - 23 Jan 2009 - Main.IanSullivan
|
|
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="OldPapers" |
|---|
| | | Broadband Providers See a Goldmine in Terms of Service Agreements
Still hung over from a brief, drunken courtship with the media giants, broadband providers have awoken to a harsh reality where Internet connections are now a commodity. The "we bring the eyeballs, you bring the content" delusion faded as media conglomerates realized that ISPs have little control over which websites their customers visit. In this paper, I argue that in response to this commoditization of bandwidth, broadband providers are creating a crisis of informed consent by deceptively changing their standard Terms of Service and Privacy Policy agreements, effectively adding invisible asterisks to "Unlimited" Internet plans, deluding consumers and chilling the adoption of innovative web services. | | | But ISPs do still have vast quantities of users who would rather die than wait for the cable/DSL guy in order to switch providers; still other customers have no broadband alternatives. While this might encourage monopolistic complacency, other factors push back. First, shareholder pressure and newfound independence for some ISPs, such as Time Warner Cable, have increased pressure to find new profit sources despite peaking subscriber numbers. Second, there is a clear and increasing usage gap between users of high-bandwidth, cutting-edge web services like Hulu and Bittorrent, and the average Hotmail, MySpace? , and YouTube? user, with the former forcing expensive network upgrades. | |
<
< | Broadband executives have settled on two strategies to face this bandwidth commoditized world: reducing costs by reeling in the most expensive customers, and discovering new profit sources while keeping in mind consumer desire for invisible, unlimited Internet service. To accomplish these tasks without upsetting customer immobility, two solutions have emerged: limiting the connections of high-bandwidth users ("network management"), and enlisting services which sell customer browsing data. One such service, Phorm, claims that its software represents a "privacy revolution" by tracking random numbers instead of IP addresses. (How soon we forget.) | >
> | Broadband executives have settled on two strategies to face this bandwidth commoditized world: reducing costs by reeling in the most expensive customers, and discovering new profit sources while keeping in mind consumer desire for invisible, unlimited Internet service. To accomplish these tasks without upsetting customer immobility, two solutions have emerged: limiting the connections of high-bandwidth users ("network management"), and enlisting services which sell customer browsing data. One such service, Phorm, claims that its software represents a "privacy revolution" by tracking random numbers instead of IP addresses. (How soon we forget.) | | | Certainly these service changes pose no problem in themselves, as long as consumers consent. But Phorm, for its part, seems quite aware that "informed" and "consent" might be mutually exclusive with regard to its service, and seems to be taking a page from Facebook regarding the meaning of "opt-in". Even some providers like Virgin and Charter have conceded, in a way, that privacy and consent problems exist with network management and Phorm-like programs. |
|
|
GlennLortscherSecondPaper 4 - 17 Jul 2008 - Main.GlennLortscher
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Broadband Providers See a Goldmine in Terms of Service Agreements | |
<
< | Still hung over from a brief, drunken courtship with the media giants, broadband providers have awoken to a harsh reality where Internet connections are now a commodity. The "we bring the eyeballs, you bring the content" delusion faded as media conglomerates realized that ISPs have almost no control over which websites their customers visit. In this paper, I argue that in response to this commoditization of bandwidth, broadband providers are creating a crisis of informed consent by deceptively changing their standard Terms of Service and Privacy Policy agreements, effectively adding invisible asterisks to "Unlimited" Internet plans, deluding consumers and chilling the adoption of innovative web services. | >
> | Still hung over from a brief, drunken courtship with the media giants, broadband providers have awoken to a harsh reality where Internet connections are now a commodity. The "we bring the eyeballs, you bring the content" delusion faded as media conglomerates realized that ISPs have little control over which websites their customers visit. In this paper, I argue that in response to this commoditization of bandwidth, broadband providers are creating a crisis of informed consent by deceptively changing their standard Terms of Service and Privacy Policy agreements, effectively adding invisible asterisks to "Unlimited" Internet plans, deluding consumers and chilling the adoption of innovative web services. | | |
The Road to Commoditization | |
<
< | Somewhere along the path from dialup to broadband, the value-add disappeared from Internet service. A decade ago, Internet service providers put at center stage features like webspace, email addresses, and in AOL's case, exclusive portals and chat features. But as broadband began its slow roll-out across the States, these extra features began to mean less next to web services like Hotmail and Yahoo, which had both buzz and portability to their credit. | >
> | Somewhere along the path from dialup to broadband, the value-add disappeared from Internet service. A decade ago, Internet service providers put at center stage features like webspace, email addresses, and in AOL's case, exclusive portals and chat features. But as broadband began its slow roll-out across the States, these extra features began meaning less next to web services like Hotmail and Yahoo, which had both buzz and portability to their credit. | | | | |
<
< | Broadband providers like Time Warner, Comcast and Cox now face a customer base that only wants an invisible, fast Internet connection, effectively reducing provider differentiation to zero, and cutting revenue sources to just the monthly subscription fee. The industry-wide panic that has ensued can be seen in what players in similar industries are doing to avoid the same fate. Wireless carriers are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to their own outdated add-ons-- carriers still lock out custom ringtone and SMS applications, even though phones have been capable of user-generated ringtones and instant data delivery for years. Indeed AT&T removed text messages from the standard iPhone 3G plan, the thought being that the SMS-addicted public will gladly pay the extra $5/month as an add-on. Broadband companies only wish they had such control over customer computers. | >
> | Broadband providers like Time Warner, Comcast and Cox now face a customer base that demands an invisible, fast Internet connection, effectively reducing provider differentiation to zero, and cutting revenue sources to just the monthly subscription fee. The industry-wide panic that has ensued can be seen in what players in similar industries are doing to avoid the same fate. Wireless carriers are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to their own outdated add-ons-- carriers still lock out custom ringtone and SMS applications, even though phones have been capable of user-generated ringtones and instant data delivery for years. Indeed AT&T removed text messages from the standard iPhone 3G plan, the thought being that the SMS-addicted public will gladly pay the extra $5/month as an add-on. Broadband companies only wish they had such control over customer computers. | | |
New Profit Sources | |
<
< | But ISPs do still have vast quantities of users who would rather die than wait for the cable/DSL guy in order to switch providers; still other customers have no broadband alternatives. While this might encourage monopolistic complacency, other factors push back. First, shareholder pressure and newfound independence for some ISPs, such as Time Warner Cable, have increased pressure to find new profit sources despite peaking subscriber numbers. Second, there is a clear and increasing usage gap between users of high-bandwidth, cutting-edge web services like Hulu and Bittorrent, and the average Hotmail, MySpace? , and YouTube? user: power users force expensive network upgrades. | >
> | But ISPs do still have vast quantities of users who would rather die than wait for the cable/DSL guy in order to switch providers; still other customers have no broadband alternatives. While this might encourage monopolistic complacency, other factors push back. First, shareholder pressure and newfound independence for some ISPs, such as Time Warner Cable, have increased pressure to find new profit sources despite peaking subscriber numbers. Second, there is a clear and increasing usage gap between users of high-bandwidth, cutting-edge web services like Hulu and Bittorrent, and the average Hotmail, MySpace? , and YouTube? user, with the former forcing expensive network upgrades. | | | | |
<
< | Broadband executives then face two tasks in a bandwidth commoditized world: to reduce costs by reeling in the most expensive customers, and to discover new profit sources while keeping in mind consumer desire for invisible, unlimited Internet service. To accomplish these tasks without upsetting customer immobility, two solutions have emerged: limiting the connections of high-bandwidth users ("network management"), and selling customer browsing data to advertisers through services like Phorm. Phorm claims that its software represents a "privacy revolution" by assigning random numbers instead of IP addresses. (Random numbers? How soon we forget.) | >
> | Broadband executives have settled on two strategies to face this bandwidth commoditized world: reducing costs by reeling in the most expensive customers, and discovering new profit sources while keeping in mind consumer desire for invisible, unlimited Internet service. To accomplish these tasks without upsetting customer immobility, two solutions have emerged: limiting the connections of high-bandwidth users ("network management"), and enlisting services which sell customer browsing data. One such service, Phorm, claims that its software represents a "privacy revolution" by tracking random numbers instead of IP addresses. (How soon we forget.) | | | | |
<
< | These service changes pose no problem in themselves, as long as consumers consent. But Phorm, for its part, seems quite aware that "informed" and "consent" might be mutually exclusive with regard to its service, and seems to be taking a page from Facebook regarding the meaning of "opt-in". Even some providers like Virgin and Charter have conceded, in a way, that privacy and consent problems exist with network management and Phorm-like programs. | >
> | Certainly these service changes pose no problem in themselves, as long as consumers consent. But Phorm, for its part, seems quite aware that "informed" and "consent" might be mutually exclusive with regard to its service, and seems to be taking a page from Facebook regarding the meaning of "opt-in". Even some providers like Virgin and Charter have conceded, in a way, that privacy and consent problems exist with network management and Phorm-like programs. | | | Hidden in Plain Sight | |
<
< | But most ISPs continue to bury these changes in their Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, while refusing to update the way they advertise their plans. Such service agreements, unless crafted carefully, fail to alert users to potential outcomes. They often employ indefinite wording (i.e. "...network management activities may include..."), leaving users, who often lack both alternatives and bargaining power, unaware of the real facts. Comcast deceptively lists the first three reasons for network management as preventing "spam, viruses, [and] security attacks"; Cox Communications requires users to ensure their activities "do not improperly restrict, inhibit, or degrade any other user's use of the service," although they don't specify how often one should call the neighbors to check on their connection. Time Warner Cable reserves that they "may" use means such as "suspending or reducing the Throughput Rate of the [Internet] Service" and "monitor [users'] usage patterns to facilitate the provision of the [Internet] Service." | >
> | But most ISPs continue to bury these changes in their Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, while refusing to update the way they advertise their plans. Such service agreements, unless crafted carefully, fail to alert users to important outcomes. They often employ indefinite wording (i.e. "...network management activities may include..."), leaving users, who often lack both alternatives and bargaining power, unaware of the real facts. Comcast deceptively lists the first three reasons for network management as preventing "spam, viruses, [and] security attacks"; Cox Communications requires users to ensure their activities "do not improperly restrict, inhibit, or degrade any other user's use of the service," although they don't specify how often one should call the neighbors to check on their connection. Time Warner Cable reserves that they "may" use means such as "suspending or reducing the Throughput Rate of the [Internet] Service" and "monitor [users'] usage patterns to facilitate the provision of the [Internet] Service." | | | | |
<
< | The problem is that ISPs want to have their cake and eat it too, by advertising service plans based solely on maximum transfer rates, then manipulating those rates based on an undisclosed formula. But American providers are hesitant to switch to the aggregate-usage plans that are so popular abroad. The reason may be that, as illustrated by the Netflix model of business, American consumers tend to bite off more product than they can consume. It's the "better Supersize that" and "get the 5-disc plan just in case" mode of thinking, encouraged by high-quantity discounts. Companies from Comcast to Netflix thrive on this phenomenon, which allows them to sell more than consumers use. So many users who don't need "unlimited" Gigabytes per month still prefer to have it, and will pay a higher rate than they would for a finite limit. | >
> | The problem is that ISPs want to have their cake and eat it too, by advertising service plans based solely on maximum transfer rates, then manipulating those rates based on an undisclosed formula. But American providers are hesitant to switch to the aggregate-usage plans that are so popular abroad. The reason may be that, as illustrated by the Netflix model of business, American consumers tend to bite off more product than they can consume. It's the "better Supersize that" and "get the 5-disc plan just in case" mode of thinking, encouraged by high-quantity discounts. Companies from Comcast to Netflix thrive on this phenomenon, which allows them to sell more than consumers use. Thus many users who don't need "unlimited" gigabytes per month still prefer to have it, and will pay a higher rate than they would for a finite limit. | | | The problem here remains one of informed consent. The vocal minority has had only limited success in changing provider policies, and one of the few relevant private sector organizations has essentially admitted helplessness: "[TRUSTe CEO] Ms. Maier said that the TRUSTe would not attract companies into its program if it required them to get the affirmative consent of every user for any use of personal data." By attempting to maintain the status quo, ISPs are chilling the development of innovative, high-bandwidth web services, and tricking users out of their valuable personal information. Regulation of service agreements or broadband providers may therefore be necessary to ensure users are giving informed consent. | |
<
< | Word Count: 998 | >
> | Word Count: 999 | | | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, GlennLortscher |
|
|
GlennLortscherSecondPaper 3 - 17 Jul 2008 - Main.GlennLortscher
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Broadband Providers See a Goldmine in Terms of Use Agreements | >
> | Broadband Providers See a Goldmine in Terms of Service Agreements | | | | |
<
< | *DRAFT*
Still hung over from a brief, drunken courtship with the media giants, broadband providers have awoken to a harsh reality where Internet connectivity is now a mere commodity. The "we bring the eyeballs, you bring the content" delusion faded as media conglomerates realized that ISPs have almost no control over which websites their customers visit. In this paper, I argue that in response to this commoditization of bandwidth, broadband providers are creating a crisis of informed consent by deceptively changing their standard Terms of Service and Privacy Policy agreements, effectively adding invisible asterisks to "Unlimited" Internet plans, deluding consumers and chilling the adoption of innovative web services. | >
> | Still hung over from a brief, drunken courtship with the media giants, broadband providers have awoken to a harsh reality where Internet connections are now a commodity. The "we bring the eyeballs, you bring the content" delusion faded as media conglomerates realized that ISPs have almost no control over which websites their customers visit. In this paper, I argue that in response to this commoditization of bandwidth, broadband providers are creating a crisis of informed consent by deceptively changing their standard Terms of Service and Privacy Policy agreements, effectively adding invisible asterisks to "Unlimited" Internet plans, deluding consumers and chilling the adoption of innovative web services. | | |
The Road to Commoditization
Somewhere along the path from dialup to broadband, the value-add disappeared from Internet service. A decade ago, Internet service providers put at center stage features like webspace, email addresses, and in AOL's case, exclusive portals and chat features. But as broadband began its slow roll-out across the States, these extra features began to mean less next to web services like Hotmail and Yahoo, which had both buzz and portability to their credit. | |
<
< | Broadband providers like Time Warner, Comcast and Verizon now face a customer base that wants an invisible, fast Internet connection, effectively reducing provider differentiation to zero, and revenue sources to the monthly subscription fee. The industry-wide panic that ensued can be seen in what players in similar industries are doing to avoid the same fate. Wireless carriers are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to their own outdated add-ons-- phones have been capable of user-generated ringtones and instant email for years, but providers still lock out custom ringtones or SMS applications. Indeed AT&T removed text messages from the standard iPhone 3G plan, the thought being that the SMS-addicted public will gladly pay the extra $5/month as an add-on. Broadband companies only wish they had such control over customer computers. | >
> | Broadband providers like Time Warner, Comcast and Cox now face a customer base that only wants an invisible, fast Internet connection, effectively reducing provider differentiation to zero, and cutting revenue sources to just the monthly subscription fee. The industry-wide panic that has ensued can be seen in what players in similar industries are doing to avoid the same fate. Wireless carriers are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to their own outdated add-ons-- carriers still lock out custom ringtone and SMS applications, even though phones have been capable of user-generated ringtones and instant data delivery for years. Indeed AT&T removed text messages from the standard iPhone 3G plan, the thought being that the SMS-addicted public will gladly pay the extra $5/month as an add-on. Broadband companies only wish they had such control over customer computers. | | |
New Profit Sources | |
<
< | But ISPs do still have vast quantities of users who would rather die than wait for the cable/DSL guy in order to switch providers; still other customers have no broadband alternatives. While this might encourage monopolistic complacency, other factors push back. First, shareholder pressure and newfound independence for some ISPs, such as Time Warner Cable, have increased pressure to find new profit sources despite peaking subscriber numbers. Second, there is a clear and increasing usage gap between a user of high-bandwidth, cutting-edge web services like Hulu and Bittorrent, and the average Hotmail, MySpace? , and YouTube? user-- power users force expensive network upgrades.
Broadband executives then face two tasks in a bandwidth commoditized world: to reduce costs by reeling in the most expensive customers, and to discover new profit sources while keeping in mind consumer desire for invisible, unlimited Internet service. To accomplish these tasks without upsetting customer immobility, two solutions have emerged: limiting the connections of high-bandwidth users ("network management"), and selling customer browsing data to advertisers and advertising firms.
What ISPs Are Doing
Network Management
The most important network management methods are bandwidth throttling (reducing speeds of top users), capping (limiting quantity transferred per month) and shaping (throttling certain types of data). Broadband companies contend that network management is legitimate and necessary. The problem is that companies want to have their cake and eat it too, by advertising service plans based solely on maximum transfer rates, then manipulating the ability of users to achieve those rates based on a predetermined but undisclosed formula.
Selling Consumer Data
The subject of much recent discussion, ISPs are partnering with firms like Phorm to monetize user browsing habits. Phorm claims that its software represents a "privacy revolution" by assigning random numbers instead of IP addresses. Random numbers? How soon we forget. Phorm seems quite aware that "informed" and "consent" might be mutually exclusive with regard to its platform, and seems to be taking a page from Facebook with regard to the meaning of opt-in.
Hiding in Plain Sight
Some may see no problem here, since ISPs are disclosing these new activities in the various Terms of Service agreements. But these documents often fail to alert users to potential outcomes, instead employing indefinite wording (i.e. "...network management activities may include...") instead of making users aware of real facts. This is especially potent for broadband where consumers lack both alternatives and bargaining power, making Terms of Service agreements a perfect place to hide controversial policies. Comcast deceptively lists the first three reasons for network management as preventing "spam, viruses, [and] security attacks"; Cox Communications requires users to ensure their activities "do not improperly restrict, inhibit, or degrade any other user's use of the service"-- they provide no guidance on how one might go about this. Time Warner Cable reserves that they "may" use means such as "suspending or reducing the Throughput Rate of the [Internet] Service" and "monitor [users'] usage patterns to facilitate the provision of the [Internet] Service."
But why bother hiding bandwidth limits? The average YouTube? user has no reason to flinch at 200GB. Wouldn't only the power users jump to less managed services like Verizon's FiOS? ? The reality is illustrated by the Netflix model of business-- American consumers tend to bite off more product than they can consume. It's the "better Supersize that" and "get the 5-disc plan just in case" mode of thinking, encouraged by high-quantity discounts. Companies from Comcast to Netlflix thrive on this phenomenon, as they are in fact unable to provide the level of service purchased to all subscribers. So only some of the users who might leave due to network management are actually hitting the bandwidth ceiling.
Conclusion | >
> | But ISPs do still have vast quantities of users who would rather die than wait for the cable/DSL guy in order to switch providers; still other customers have no broadband alternatives. While this might encourage monopolistic complacency, other factors push back. First, shareholder pressure and newfound independence for some ISPs, such as Time Warner Cable, have increased pressure to find new profit sources despite peaking subscriber numbers. Second, there is a clear and increasing usage gap between users of high-bandwidth, cutting-edge web services like Hulu and Bittorrent, and the average Hotmail, MySpace? , and YouTube? user: power users force expensive network upgrades. | | | | |
<
< | The commoditization of bandwidth and a complacent customer base has incentivized broadband providers to seek profitability in rather enterprising ways. Ideally, broadband companies would simply inform consumers of these plans, and like consumers in most other countries, Americans could choose from a variety of plans based on level of use. Some might even opt-in to Phorm in exchange for lower rates. But that's not the deal that's been offered-- the broadband companies want to hold onto customers paying high rates for minimal usage while reeling in power users, and somehow believe that users "consenting" to have their usage tracked wouldn't refuse unless they got a cut. By attempting to maintain the status quo, ISPs are chilling the development of innovative, high-bandwidth web services. Privacy policies and terms of use must be regulated to better ensure that users are giving informed consent. | >
> | Broadband executives then face two tasks in a bandwidth commoditized world: to reduce costs by reeling in the most expensive customers, and to discover new profit sources while keeping in mind consumer desire for invisible, unlimited Internet service. To accomplish these tasks without upsetting customer immobility, two solutions have emerged: limiting the connections of high-bandwidth users ("network management"), and selling customer browsing data to advertisers through services like Phorm. Phorm claims that its software represents a "privacy revolution" by assigning random numbers instead of IP addresses. (Random numbers? How soon we forget.) | | | | |
<
< | Virgin acknowledges traffic shaping & misleading ads | >
> | These service changes pose no problem in themselves, as long as consumers consent. But Phorm, for its part, seems quite aware that "informed" and "consent" might be mutually exclusive with regard to its service, and seems to be taking a page from Facebook regarding the meaning of "opt-in". Even some providers like Virgin and Charter have conceded, in a way, that privacy and consent problems exist with network management and Phorm-like programs. | | | | |
<
< | Charter won't track customer's web use | >
> | Hidden in Plain Sight | | | | |
<
< | AT&T Bandwidth considers a surcharge for high bandwidth use | >
> | But most ISPs continue to bury these changes in their Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, while refusing to update the way they advertise their plans. Such service agreements, unless crafted carefully, fail to alert users to potential outcomes. They often employ indefinite wording (i.e. "...network management activities may include..."), leaving users, who often lack both alternatives and bargaining power, unaware of the real facts. Comcast deceptively lists the first three reasons for network management as preventing "spam, viruses, [and] security attacks"; Cox Communications requires users to ensure their activities "do not improperly restrict, inhibit, or degrade any other user's use of the service," although they don't specify how often one should call the neighbors to check on their connection. Time Warner Cable reserves that they "may" use means such as "suspending or reducing the Throughput Rate of the [Internet] Service" and "monitor [users'] usage patterns to facilitate the provision of the [Internet] Service." | | | | |
<
< | Time Warner tries metering Internet usage | >
> | The problem is that ISPs want to have their cake and eat it too, by advertising service plans based solely on maximum transfer rates, then manipulating those rates based on an undisclosed formula. But American providers are hesitant to switch to the aggregate-usage plans that are so popular abroad. The reason may be that, as illustrated by the Netflix model of business, American consumers tend to bite off more product than they can consume. It's the "better Supersize that" and "get the 5-disc plan just in case" mode of thinking, encouraged by high-quantity discounts. Companies from Comcast to Netflix thrive on this phenomenon, which allows them to sell more than consumers use. So many users who don't need "unlimited" Gigabytes per month still prefer to have it, and will pay a higher rate than they would for a finite limit. | | | | |
<
< | -- GlennLortscher - 16 Jul 2008 | >
> | The problem here remains one of informed consent. The vocal minority has had only limited success in changing provider policies, and one of the few relevant private sector organizations has essentially admitted helplessness: "[TRUSTe CEO] Ms. Maier said that the TRUSTe would not attract companies into its program if it required them to get the affirmative consent of every user for any use of personal data." By attempting to maintain the status quo, ISPs are chilling the development of innovative, high-bandwidth web services, and tricking users out of their valuable personal information. Regulation of service agreements or broadband providers may therefore be necessary to ensure users are giving informed consent. | | | | |
>
> | Word Count: 998 | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, GlennLortscher |
|
|
GlennLortscherSecondPaper 2 - 16 Jul 2008 - Main.GlennLortscher
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Broadband Providers See New Goldmine in Terms of Use | >
> | Broadband Providers See a Goldmine in Terms of Use Agreements | | | *DRAFT* | | | But ISPs do still have vast quantities of users who would rather die than wait for the cable/DSL guy in order to switch providers; still other customers have no broadband alternatives. While this might encourage monopolistic complacency, other factors push back. First, shareholder pressure and newfound independence for some ISPs, such as Time Warner Cable, have increased pressure to find new profit sources despite peaking subscriber numbers. Second, there is a clear and increasing usage gap between a user of high-bandwidth, cutting-edge web services like Hulu and Bittorrent, and the average Hotmail, MySpace? , and YouTube? user-- power users force expensive network upgrades. | |
<
< | Broadband executives then face two tasks in a bandwidth commoditized world: to reduce costs by reeling in the most expensive customers, and to discover new profit sources while keeping in mind consumer desire for invisible, unlimited Internet service. To accomplish these tasks without upsetting customer immobility, two solutions have emerged: capping or slowing down the connections of high-bandwidth users ("network management"), and selling customer browsing data to advertisers and advertising firms. Both these plans risk inciting customer ire by rendering ISPs less than invisible. But providers seem to have decided that, by simply modifying the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, the risk of customer complaint is acceptably low. | >
> | Broadband executives then face two tasks in a bandwidth commoditized world: to reduce costs by reeling in the most expensive customers, and to discover new profit sources while keeping in mind consumer desire for invisible, unlimited Internet service. To accomplish these tasks without upsetting customer immobility, two solutions have emerged: limiting the connections of high-bandwidth users ("network management"), and selling customer browsing data to advertisers and advertising firms. | | | | |
<
< |
What ISPs Are Doing | >
> | What ISPs Are Doing | | | | |
<
< |
Network Management | >
> | Network Management | | | The most important network management methods are bandwidth throttling (reducing speeds of top users), capping (limiting quantity transferred per month) and shaping (throttling certain types of data). Broadband companies contend that network management is legitimate and necessary. The problem is that companies want to have their cake and eat it too, by advertising service plans based solely on maximum transfer rates, then manipulating the ability of users to achieve those rates based on a predetermined but undisclosed formula. | |
<
< | But why would broadband companies bother hiding such limitations? If the average user's most bandwidth intensive activity is YouTube? , why would he or she flinch at a monthly limit of 200GB? Wouldn't only the power users jump to higher-quality services like Verizon's FiOS? ? The reality is illustrated by the Netflix model of business-- consumers, especially American consumers, tend to bite off more product than they can consume. It's the "better Supersize that" and "get the 5-disc plan just in case" mode of thinking, encouraged by high-quantity discounts. Companies from Comcast to Netlflix thrive on this phenomenon, as they are in fact unable to provide the level of service purchased to all subscribers. In other words, broadband companies hide their network management because a subset of the "Youtube & Hotmail" crowd might nonetheless flee for greener, higher-bandwidth pastures. | | | Selling Consumer Data
The subject of much recent discussion, ISPs are partnering with firms like Phorm to monetize user browsing habits. Phorm claims that its software represents a "privacy revolution" by assigning random numbers instead of IP addresses. Random numbers? How soon we forget. Phorm seems quite aware that "informed" and "consent" might be mutually exclusive with regard to its platform, and seems to be taking a page from Facebook with regard to the meaning of opt-in.
Hiding in Plain Sight | |
<
< | But is the lack of complaint due to uninformed consent? In fact, that might be the only way such new policies could work. Enter the standard Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Acceptable Use Policy documents. These documents often fail to alert users to potential outcomes, instead employing indefinite wording (i.e. "...network management activities may include...") that is not very useful because it fails to alert users to concrete information on what is or has been true. and answering the few questions that matter to users: "What will happen to my data? What has happened to other users data in the past? Is there anything here that would surprise me?" This is especially significant in the broadband world because consumers know they have few or no other options, and have no bargaining power over the terms of such agreements. In other words, these agreements are the perfect place for broadband providers to hide new activities that might disrupt a complacent base of customers.
Real World Examples | >
> | Some may see no problem here, since ISPs are disclosing these new activities in the various Terms of Service agreements. But these documents often fail to alert users to potential outcomes, instead employing indefinite wording (i.e. "...network management activities may include...") instead of making users aware of real facts. This is especially potent for broadband where consumers lack both alternatives and bargaining power, making Terms of Service agreements a perfect place to hide controversial policies. Comcast deceptively lists the first three reasons for network management as preventing "spam, viruses, [and] security attacks"; Cox Communications requires users to ensure their activities "do not improperly restrict, inhibit, or degrade any other user's use of the service"-- they provide no guidance on how one might go about this. Time Warner Cable reserves that they "may" use means such as "suspending or reducing the Throughput Rate of the [Internet] Service" and "monitor [users'] usage patterns to facilitate the provision of the [Internet] Service." | | | | |
<
< | Here are some sample provisions:
Time Warner Cable: "TWC may use technical means, including but not limited to suspending or reducing the Throughput Rate of my HSD Service ... to ensure that its service operates efficiently"; "have the right to monitor my usage patterns to facilitate the provision of the HSD Service"
Cox Communications: "you must ensure that your activities do not improperly restrict, inhibit, or degrade any other user's use of the Service"
The first three reasons Comcast gives for managing its network are "spam, viruses, security attacks" | >
> | But why bother hiding bandwidth limits? The average YouTube? user has no reason to flinch at 200GB. Wouldn't only the power users jump to less managed services like Verizon's FiOS? ? The reality is illustrated by the Netflix model of business-- American consumers tend to bite off more product than they can consume. It's the "better Supersize that" and "get the 5-disc plan just in case" mode of thinking, encouraged by high-quantity discounts. Companies from Comcast to Netlflix thrive on this phenomenon, as they are in fact unable to provide the level of service purchased to all subscribers. So only some of the users who might leave due to network management are actually hitting the bandwidth ceiling. | | | Conclusion |
|
|
GlennLortscherSecondPaper 1 - 16 Jul 2008 - Main.GlennLortscher
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Broadband Providers See New Goldmine in Terms of Use
*DRAFT*
Still hung over from a brief, drunken courtship with the media giants, broadband providers have awoken to a harsh reality where Internet connectivity is now a mere commodity. The "we bring the eyeballs, you bring the content" delusion faded as media conglomerates realized that ISPs have almost no control over which websites their customers visit. In this paper, I argue that in response to this commoditization of bandwidth, broadband providers are creating a crisis of informed consent by deceptively changing their standard Terms of Service and Privacy Policy agreements, effectively adding invisible asterisks to "Unlimited" Internet plans, deluding consumers and chilling the adoption of innovative web services.
The Road to Commoditization
Somewhere along the path from dialup to broadband, the value-add disappeared from Internet service. A decade ago, Internet service providers put at center stage features like webspace, email addresses, and in AOL's case, exclusive portals and chat features. But as broadband began its slow roll-out across the States, these extra features began to mean less next to web services like Hotmail and Yahoo, which had both buzz and portability to their credit.
Broadband providers like Time Warner, Comcast and Verizon now face a customer base that wants an invisible, fast Internet connection, effectively reducing provider differentiation to zero, and revenue sources to the monthly subscription fee. The industry-wide panic that ensued can be seen in what players in similar industries are doing to avoid the same fate. Wireless carriers are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to their own outdated add-ons-- phones have been capable of user-generated ringtones and instant email for years, but providers still lock out custom ringtones or SMS applications. Indeed AT&T removed text messages from the standard iPhone 3G plan, the thought being that the SMS-addicted public will gladly pay the extra $5/month as an add-on. Broadband companies only wish they had such control over customer computers.
New Profit Sources
But ISPs do still have vast quantities of users who would rather die than wait for the cable/DSL guy in order to switch providers; still other customers have no broadband alternatives. While this might encourage monopolistic complacency, other factors push back. First, shareholder pressure and newfound independence for some ISPs, such as Time Warner Cable, have increased pressure to find new profit sources despite peaking subscriber numbers. Second, there is a clear and increasing usage gap between a user of high-bandwidth, cutting-edge web services like Hulu and Bittorrent, and the average Hotmail, MySpace? , and YouTube? user-- power users force expensive network upgrades.
Broadband executives then face two tasks in a bandwidth commoditized world: to reduce costs by reeling in the most expensive customers, and to discover new profit sources while keeping in mind consumer desire for invisible, unlimited Internet service. To accomplish these tasks without upsetting customer immobility, two solutions have emerged: capping or slowing down the connections of high-bandwidth users ("network management"), and selling customer browsing data to advertisers and advertising firms. Both these plans risk inciting customer ire by rendering ISPs less than invisible. But providers seem to have decided that, by simply modifying the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, the risk of customer complaint is acceptably low.
What ISPs Are Doing
Network Management
The most important network management methods are bandwidth throttling (reducing speeds of top users), capping (limiting quantity transferred per month) and shaping (throttling certain types of data). Broadband companies contend that network management is legitimate and necessary. The problem is that companies want to have their cake and eat it too, by advertising service plans based solely on maximum transfer rates, then manipulating the ability of users to achieve those rates based on a predetermined but undisclosed formula.
But why would broadband companies bother hiding such limitations? If the average user's most bandwidth intensive activity is YouTube? , why would he or she flinch at a monthly limit of 200GB? Wouldn't only the power users jump to higher-quality services like Verizon's FiOS? ? The reality is illustrated by the Netflix model of business-- consumers, especially American consumers, tend to bite off more product than they can consume. It's the "better Supersize that" and "get the 5-disc plan just in case" mode of thinking, encouraged by high-quantity discounts. Companies from Comcast to Netlflix thrive on this phenomenon, as they are in fact unable to provide the level of service purchased to all subscribers. In other words, broadband companies hide their network management because a subset of the "Youtube & Hotmail" crowd might nonetheless flee for greener, higher-bandwidth pastures.
Selling Consumer Data
The subject of much recent discussion, ISPs are partnering with firms like Phorm to monetize user browsing habits. Phorm claims that its software represents a "privacy revolution" by assigning random numbers instead of IP addresses. Random numbers? How soon we forget. Phorm seems quite aware that "informed" and "consent" might be mutually exclusive with regard to its platform, and seems to be taking a page from Facebook with regard to the meaning of opt-in.
Hiding in Plain Sight
But is the lack of complaint due to uninformed consent? In fact, that might be the only way such new policies could work. Enter the standard Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Acceptable Use Policy documents. These documents often fail to alert users to potential outcomes, instead employing indefinite wording (i.e. "...network management activities may include...") that is not very useful because it fails to alert users to concrete information on what is or has been true. and answering the few questions that matter to users: "What will happen to my data? What has happened to other users data in the past? Is there anything here that would surprise me?" This is especially significant in the broadband world because consumers know they have few or no other options, and have no bargaining power over the terms of such agreements. In other words, these agreements are the perfect place for broadband providers to hide new activities that might disrupt a complacent base of customers.
Real World Examples
Here are some sample provisions:
Time Warner Cable: "TWC may use technical means, including but not limited to suspending or reducing the Throughput Rate of my HSD Service ... to ensure that its service operates efficiently"; "have the right to monitor my usage patterns to facilitate the provision of the HSD Service"
Cox Communications: "you must ensure that your activities do not improperly restrict, inhibit, or degrade any other user's use of the Service"
The first three reasons Comcast gives for managing its network are "spam, viruses, security attacks"
Conclusion
The commoditization of bandwidth and a complacent customer base has incentivized broadband providers to seek profitability in rather enterprising ways. Ideally, broadband companies would simply inform consumers of these plans, and like consumers in most other countries, Americans could choose from a variety of plans based on level of use. Some might even opt-in to Phorm in exchange for lower rates. But that's not the deal that's been offered-- the broadband companies want to hold onto customers paying high rates for minimal usage while reeling in power users, and somehow believe that users "consenting" to have their usage tracked wouldn't refuse unless they got a cut. By attempting to maintain the status quo, ISPs are chilling the development of innovative, high-bandwidth web services. Privacy policies and terms of use must be regulated to better ensure that users are giving informed consent.
Virgin acknowledges traffic shaping & misleading ads
Charter won't track customer's web use
AT&T Bandwidth considers a surcharge for high bandwidth use
Time Warner tries metering Internet usage
-- GlennLortscher - 16 Jul 2008
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|