While there are similar practices that Google and Facebook have (eg. tracking your activities outside of their website), this is much more problematic and sinister for a couple reasons:
Access: Many people in this country do not have a choice as to which ISP they use. They are locked in due to anti-competitive practices, rural homes, or some other reason. You can make the choice much more easily not to use a certain website that tracks your behavior.
Cost also comes into play here, as you pay your ISP to deliver service. Google and Facebook are free, because they subsidize their services by selling and collecting data. Your ISP charges you a large amount of money already, and are increasing their own margins through this practice. It would be different if they did something akin to what Amazon did with their Kindles, where you provide the same service with and without tracking, and charge appropriately. The way things are now, you don't have a choice.
Lack of notification: Your data is being collected and sold through an implicit agreement with your ISP, likely entombed in a bunch of fine print that no one ever reads, nor anyone but a lawyer could decode. While this is the case with Google and Facebook, it's pretty much common knowledge that they do this. The carriers and ISPs implemented their tracking under-the-radar, and provided no way for anyone to opt-out.
I'm sure there's a lot more arguments out there, but that's what I have on top of my head right now.
You can choose not to use any particular site or service. However, there's little to no effective market for ISPs in many localities, so if the one or two ISPs in your area don't provide effective privacy, then you're screwed.
In a market where everyone has a wide variety of ISPs available and people can start one without massive infrastructure work (for instance, with widely available fiber infrastructure and a choice of who to light it), then we don't need as many restrictions on ISPs can do; people can handle that by selecting an ISP that meets their requirements.
But until we can make ISPs less of a monopoly, and make it possible for others to easily enter the market, then it's reasonable to restrict what those monopolies can do.
> How big a difference is this to what Google and Facebook are doing currently?
ISPs' and carriers' data would cover every single person with a phone or Internet connection. It would be a universal database of locations, and a virtually-universal database of browsing habits tied not only to an IP, but an address and social security number. Will all of that be disclosed? Unlikely. But with an incentive to warehouse it, more ISPs and carriers will, and that makes for a juicy target.
Google and Facebook's privacy policies put fairly strict limitations on how your data will be used, and shared.
If their privacy policies change to something that you are unwilling to tolerate, the cost to you of switching to a competitor is... Neither low, but not insurmountable.
These companies are well aware of this - which is why they care about how they use your private information.
For most Americans, if their ISP, (Or their ISP, and their only competitor) adopt anti-user policies, there is nothing that they can do.
I can put up with some discomfort by switching to DDG for my websearches. I can't afford to be a peer to a T3 ISP.
Well, Facebook doesn't have access to your browsing history. At least not most of it, though it's probably still, you know, more that enough to cause a lot of pain.
Google does have access in some situations (chrome + linked profile), but as far as I know they don't sell that access.
Of course, both offer some subset of information for users.
Unless you are using an ad-blocker to block the rather commonplace facebook widget, and their other tracking mechanisms, they may well have more of your browsing history than you realize.
Hell, I do use ad-blockers and block assets coming from known Facebook domains, and they probably still have more information about my browsing history than I realize.
While not quite accurate... if you imagine what Google/Facebook might know, then imagine a carrier who watched you enter/leave those pages, and potentially interact with any of those pages. The network footprint of a modern webpage interaction is more like an event stream than people realize.
Access: Many people in this country do not have a choice as to which ISP they use. They are locked in due to anti-competitive practices, rural homes, or some other reason. You can make the choice much more easily not to use a certain website that tracks your behavior.
Cost also comes into play here, as you pay your ISP to deliver service. Google and Facebook are free, because they subsidize their services by selling and collecting data. Your ISP charges you a large amount of money already, and are increasing their own margins through this practice. It would be different if they did something akin to what Amazon did with their Kindles, where you provide the same service with and without tracking, and charge appropriately. The way things are now, you don't have a choice.
Lack of notification: Your data is being collected and sold through an implicit agreement with your ISP, likely entombed in a bunch of fine print that no one ever reads, nor anyone but a lawyer could decode. While this is the case with Google and Facebook, it's pretty much common knowledge that they do this. The carriers and ISPs implemented their tracking under-the-radar, and provided no way for anyone to opt-out.
I'm sure there's a lot more arguments out there, but that's what I have on top of my head right now.