WASHINGTON, DC — Two of the largest internet service providers in the U.S., AT&T and Verizon, will not monitor users’ online behavior unless given explicit permission to do so, the companies told a Senate committee hearing on Thursday.The ISPs decisions fly in the face of what has become traditional behavior for advertisers and publishers: Tracking users across multiple websites allows companies to deliver targeted messages to users. That in turn leads more users to buy goods and services from advertisers who fund the free content available to users.

Or so the behavioral targeting argument goes.

The catch is that consumers seldom are made aware that they’re being followed, because that would defeat the purpose of gathering legitimate information about their surfing habits. Increasingly, consumers are rebelling against the practice because they view covert information collection as a violation of their privacy rights.

On Thursday, AT&T and Verizon sided with the consumer view.

“Verizon believes that before a company captures certain Internet-usage data … it should obtain meaningful, affirmative consent from consumers,” Verizon Executive Vice President Thomas J. Tauke told the committee.

AT&T Chief Privacy Officer Dorothy Attwood took aim at Google when she echoed Tauke’s statement: “Google’s practices exemplify the already-extensive use of online behavioral targeting. We encourage all companies that engage in online behavioral advertising … likewise to adopt this affirmative advance consent paradigm.”

Google, Microsoft and Time Warner Cable all chimed in with prepared statements shortly after the hearing. Google cited its membership in industry group Network Advertising Initiative as evidence it has consumers’ best interests in mind as its DoubleClick division tracks user behavior, even though the NAI’s guidelines don’t mandate members to solicit user consent before tracking them. Microsoft said it is “reviewing” AT&T’s and Verizon’s stance. TWC indicated it was willing to solicit consumer consent if everyone else also was required to behave in the same way.

At issue for Congress is how much and what kinds of information companies should be allowed to glean from consumers’ online behavior without getting consent before they start snooping. In addition, Congress has indicated it may regulate the kinds of techniques — like cookies, beacons and “deep-packet inspection” — that can be used and whether any or all information much be collected and stored independent of any links to a user’s real-life identification.

Advertisers and publishers argue that requiring users to opt-in to tracking could destroy the very fiber of the internet, since advertising is what funds online content and without content, the Web would fold. Most users, advertisers say, would decline to opt-in to tracking if given the choice. As things stand now, only a small percentage of users elect to opt out of tracking, many because they don’t realize the practice exists.

“If Congress required ‘opt-in’ today, Congress would be back in tomorrow writing an Internet bailout bill,” Interactive Advertising Bureau Vice President of Public Policy Mike Zaneis told The Washington Post. The IAB is a trade association. “Every advertising platform and business model would be put at risk.”

Be that as it may, consumers increasingly are concerned about their privacy online. A Consumer Reports National Research Center poll released September 25th indicated 72-percent of Americans are worried about online behavioral targeting and profiling. The poll also discovered that 43-percent of Americans “incorrectly believe a court order is required to monitor activities online.” Another 48-percent “incorrectly believe their consent is required for companies to use the personal information they collect from online activities.”

The Center for Digital Democracy, a watchdog group, is skeptical whatever move Congress and ISPs make will be enough to do any real good. Warnings and opt-in statements would need to be strongly and clearly worded in order to impress most consumers with the significance of the dangers implicit in online tracking, a spokesman said.

“What they should be saying is, ‘We are going to be collecting every move of your mouse on every website on a second-by-second basis.’ But that would scare too many people away,” CDD spokesman Jeff Chester told The Washington Post. “They’re going to craft some kind of proposal that claims to be informed consent but simply gives them political cover while they engage in full-frontal behavioral targeting.”