If you're going to protect people's privacy, protect our profits, too – US broadband biz to FCC

You appear to have used the words "profit" and "sufficient" in the same sentence. That isn't going to parse with any Telco or media supplier.

Re: Having your cake and eating it

"I wish someone of note would robustly point out every time this drivel is floated that you cannot have both."

Of course you can have both. The ISPs can compete in all sorts of things and innovate in any number of ways if they only stop to think about what those words mean in full instead being blinded by Google and Facebook who's only model is to monetize their users privacy.

They could innovate by introducing decent customer service and compete with better quality of service, just for starters. Oh, wait. We don't have a bullshit icon. These people wouldn't know innovation if it was given to them as an enema.

The FCC is an agency set up to make and enforce rules. That is the obvious and almost certainly correct answer to the question "why would the FCC see the need for more regulation?"

Re: Puzzled

Would we then apply that same line of reasoning to Amazon v. Publishers and bookstore owners?

Just asking.

Re: Puzzled

Although I agree and have upvoted you, there is a difference. The buggy whip makers were out-competed, not out-regulated. But having said that, I'm not sure which regulations are standing in the way of fairly won profits for the cablecos/telcos.

Re: Ridiculous

"it is information the carrier MUST have to do the job we pay them to do"

They must have it *transiently* but they don't need to keep it. Keeping it costs more. Also, the "it" that they must read to do their job is the destination address. Reading the source address is not necessary to do their job, even on a metered connection.

The plea here is pretty obviously "we want to data mine the crap out of our customers". By doing so, the ISPs presumably *are* able to reduce the price to the "customer" (because by the old adage the customer has become a product that they can sell on to another customer). One possible way to resolve this is to allow ISPs to do this if their customer agrees, but compel ISPs to offer a "privacy protected" product where they aren't allowed to do this, and to further compel ISPs to demonstrate in their accounts that the price difference between those two products corresponds to some reasonable fraction (50% ?) of the money they get by selling on the information. In other words, you can data-mine the crap out of me as long as I get 50%. (I still won't take you up on that, but I'm sure others would.)

Re: It's all pointless

Not at all. It is very useful theater, much like the SEC and the financial markets.