Comcast vs Google isn't Apples to Apples...
a lot of comments are saying that Google has an unfair advantage when it comes to monetizing user data. that's wrong, for a couple of reasons:
- I'm already paying my ISP to provide 'carriage' for my data, if they're not making money they can always shut down ... as it is they keep upping my monthly bill for no improvement of service
- Google make money by making their services attractive. unlike the ISP I have choice when it comes to search or email
- my ISP (potentially) has visibility of every packet in and out of my house, no matter what site I am visiting
- Google (or Facebook or whoever) only get visibility over what I do when I am on their site, interacting with their services or viewing a page that has chosen to include one of their ads in.
by allowing unlimited spying and additional monetization of the traffic I put over my ISP this ruling potentially exposes things I don't want shared with advertisers ... for instance I have just had surgery on my spine so there's a bunch of research I've been doing on the procedure, the recovery, and the various drugs that I'm being prescribed along the way, as well as interactions with the medical staff via their website (nicely SSL'd so less concerned in this case)... I hate to think what spam I'd start getting as a result of this for recuperative products, ambulance chasing lawyers, drug dependency rehab clinics etc...
so, the outcome is this drives users to HTTPS, Encrypted DNS requests, TOR, or VPNs... all of which add overhead but also obfuscate the data on the network even more thoroughly... which in turn makes their efforts to find the terrorists and kiddy fiddlers harder.
another great example of why politicians should not be allowed to make policy!