> The Order prohibits “take-it-or-leave-it” offers, meaning that an ISP can’t refuse to serve customers who don’t consent to the use and sharing of their information for commercial purposes.
So at least they can't cut you off entirely if you don't consent/opt-in. The fact sheet also touches on the "pay for privacy" issue:
> Recognizing that so-called “pay for privacy” offerings raise unique considerations, the rules require heightened disclosure for plans that provide discounts or other incentives in exchange for a customer’s express affirmative consent to the use and sharing of their personal information. The Commission will determine on a case-by-case basis the legitimacy of programs that relate service price to privacy protections. Consumers should not be forced to choose between paying inflated prices and maintaining their privacy.
Not an outright ban on discounting service for opt'ing-in, but looks like they're leaning towards not allowing something like that.
[0] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...
The regulators and legislators pursue and get credit for incremental actions, but there is no agent or body with accountability for overall impact. When regulators impose a new disclosure requirement, they often show that if a consumer reads the document, the individual will learn something; the problem is that when this document is page 53 of a 200 page disclosure, almost nobody reads it.
This issue was pointed out by Chief Justice Roberts when he said that he never read any of the prescription drug warnings that drug-producers have been required to provide (by courts and regulators).
They probably can't advertise service as $49.95, then add an additional $20 charge if you opt-in to the privacy plan.
They probably would need to at minimum advertise both prices in their marketing copy.
probably not a viable option because a VPN offers complete privacy from the ISP, and only costs $5/month.
Why is it hard for the majority of users to use a password manager?
Because most people on the planet are busy and don't give a damn.
It also takes a few minutes to change your smoke-detector batteries...
I'm not sure how you de-incentivise something like that.
I'm more concerned about getting this fixed in healthcare. Recently had to get lawyers involved over a debt dispute for a bill that was never sent to insurance and that the hospital couldn't even verify because it came from a "partner" no one could contact. The chief argument against us: an agreement signed by my wife while in labor that placed all the responsibility for any bills, correct or not, on us with no recourse. I remember disputing it at the time but they insisted it was just a CYA form and they couldn't admit us without it.
So that's an interesting thing that's come up in the European Union, where the "constitution"/"bill of rights"[1] mandates "consent" for processing of personal data, namely does one of those click though I Agree things count as "informed consent".
Let's be honest, vast majority of people aren't actually consenting to things that are in the contract.
[1] For political reasons there is no "European Union Constitution". However there is the "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" which is sorta a "Bill of rights"
Maybe someone who knows can confirm or deny this.
Also: personally I think current EULAs are stupid and "Contents hot" on coffee cups only exist because Americans like to sue each other.
I somewhat naively think that contracts between consumers and companies should be brought down to Creative Commons level.
After all, do you read and act on the privacy notifications other providers give you?
Does this at least require them to provider service irregardless of your consent to share data? If not, this is a pointless law that just makes it look like they did something.