Slashdot Mirror
Maine Passes a Net Neutrality Resolution
Spamicles writes "Maine has become the first state in the US to pass legislation on net neutrality. The resolution, LD 1675, recognizes the importance of 'full, fair and non-discriminatory access to the Internet' and instructs the Public Advocate to study what can be done to protect the rights of Maine Internet users. A 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission put in jeopardy net neutrality principles that had been in place since the inception of the Internet." Maine's resolution may be more symbolic than effective. This isn't the first time Maine has been out in front of other states on a controversial issue.
and you thought Maine was only for lobsters!
of course Maine in front of the pack, all that seafood is good for the brain..
(of course the butter and chowders do slow you down a bit in other areas).
Congrats Maine, we (the net) salute you!
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
Your voice means NOTHING if you don't submit it via the proper channels. If you care about your politicians, then VOTE. If you care about FCC decisions, then COMMENT. It's your civic duty. When people argue politics with me, my first question is: "In the last election, did you vote?". If the answer is no, then I refuse to discuss politics, after telling them "I don't care what you think, your opinion doesn't matter!".
I commented to the FCC, and I sincerely hope you did, too. Here's my comment to the FCC, first posted to slashdot here. Here's what I wrote:
Airwaves belong to everyone. Although transmission is regulated,
reception is open and unrestricted. And the only purpose of the
regulation is to ensure that the openness of the medium is preserved
and the utility of the radio space is not compromised.
This is as it should be. Everybody benefits when the utility of a
common resource is preserved. Otherwise, the phenomenon of the
"Tragedy of the Commons" rears its ugly head. Here, overly agressive
private consumption of a public resource causes a compromise of the
utility of the common resource, to the detriment of all, including
the private individuals hogging the resource!
The Internet is, by definition, a shared resource. It's a peering
agreement based on communications protocols which enable all of its
parts to cooperate together, seamlessly, for the public benefit. Any
part can access any other part as though all parts were local. It's
the first, truly open, global communications system whose immense
potential for benefiting humankind has barely begun.
It is now up to you, here, to declare for our progeny, that this
shared, common resource shall remain open and free for the benefit of
all, to ensure its use, utility, and power so that everybody can benefit.
Balkanizing this public medium with an "unequal" internet, where the
common carriers of the traffic are free to degrade access to portions
of the network not in their personal interest, serves only to pillage
the utility of the common good. It provides enhanced short-term
profits for the pillager, but degrades the overall utility of the
network.
Please, please please, follow the forefathers before you who have
declared that this land be preserved for the common good, and those
who declared that the roads be preserved for the common good, and
those who have declared that the nation's power grid and telephone
grid be regulated to preserve their utility for the common good.
The utility of the Internet should be preserved. Please, please, keep it neutral.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Maine's resolution may be more symbolic than effective.
Ya think? Maine can prevent ISPs from being asses with pipes inside Maine. Good for Maine.
Unfortunately Maine isn't exactly the center of the Internet, nor is it really likely to be. And once the pipes leave Maine, there's nothing to prevent the ISP from throttling everything coming to and from Maine to crap.
So good for Maine for taking a stand, even though it probably won't amount to anything. The ISPs will just do their throttling outside of Maine, and do all their business in Maine via a subsidiary company so it remains nice and legal.
You know, more and more we are seeing states resisting things the federal government is doing. (You know, things like the new ID thing.) And more and more, we see the states attempting to take action where the federal government is either ignoring the problem... you know, issues like net neutrality and illegal immigration. (Do open document format issues fit in there somewhere? They should...)
It seems that not only is the federal government not acting with the interests of the people (I know, it's not news to anyone) but the state governments are actually becoming a lot more relevant than ever before.
I know that when we think of politics and elections, many people think of presidents and US house of representatives and the US senate. But clearly, since state level policies and law making are becoming more relevant, people should start paying additional attention to their state government elections as well.
BOOO greedy media and telecom companies...YAY MAINE!!!
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
We do, but it's not all the same ... order chowder in Rhode Island and you'll get a very different product than in Maine.
... those heathen RIers defile theirs with tomatoes.)
(For the record, Maine "chowdah" is the real thing
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Wow, they reject the Real ID act and now this. Where is Texas? I always thought of Texas as the maverick state. Next week Main will secede from the fascist United States.
It's a pity that the economy in Maine is so messed up, because they do seem to have a state government with an unusual amount of backbone. I moved south a few years ago, and while I partially regret it and would love to move back, the numbers are just dismal.
As a state is has one of the highest tax burdens (as percent of income). IIRC it's up close to 15% going to the state, and second only to Vermont. (Although looking at newer stats they may have cut it down some.) And that's on top of Federal taxes. That wouldn't be too bad if you could get a high paying job -- you can buy a lot of property, inland anyway, for the cost of a townhouse in other parts of the country -- but except for a meager high-tech area down around Portland (National Semi has what I think is their prototype fab there), the job market is in tough shape.
Leaving Northern New England was one of the saddest things I ever did, but by moving to the Mid-Atlantic region I got an almost 50% pay increase -- even factoring in the ridiculous cost-of-living and the necessity (as far as I'm concerned) of running the A/C most of the time. Still, every time I hear a story like this, I can't help but cheer a little. And then feel vaguely dirty for so blatantly selling out.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Perhaps now the best thing would be to contact your representative legislators and let them know that Maine has set an example that should be followed...HOWEVER...and this is a BIG HOWEVER...
e xts/LD167501.asp
p ?LD=1675
:) - Zapped.Info
We should be careful before celebrating and actually READ the resolution. I must admit that I have not read the resolution and while everything looks great on the surface, sometimes, we the people, end up getting duped into thinking our rights have been preserved when in fact they were diminished. I doubt that is the case here, but we should read the resolution with magnifying glasses before celebrating and promoting it.
Here is the bill text from Maine's website which must be behind the times because the leading page still reads, "Not yet determined"
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/billt
Leading page:
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/LD.as
Well...I've got some reading to do
It's important to know that I forgot what I thought I knew when I thought I knew it all:Now I don't even know whatIknow.
I totally agree with Ron Paul: this should be something the states decide.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
I am really sorry we didn't listen to your complaints. You expressed them so poignantly
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
What are the players like Google who are facing the prospect of having to pay extra to get "full speed" doing about this? Why aren't they using their resources to counter ISP FUD over this issue?
Call me weird, anti-/. or something, but I've read the bill (it's not that long, really), and it seems actually quite good.
Some interesting bits (my interpretation, IANAL etc; check the real stuff if you're into legalese):
(this however certainly doesn't shield you from trouble if your line is used for illegal stuff)
All in all, seems pretty well-thought. Good job Maine. I can't see a nasty flaw, loophole, unnecessary burden put on ISPs or end-users...; did anyone spot some problem I missed?
As an expat from Maine who still pays some attention to what goes on in his home state, I have already been a fan of state Rep Hannah Pingree for some time. She was the sponsor of an early law requiring a paper trail (and originally, but not in the final version passed, open source software) in electronic voting machines. I wrote about it here. Well, I went to the title page of the legislation, and there's Representative PINGREE from North Haven as one of the co-sponsors.
Additionally, Rep. Pingree has become the majority leader in the Maine state legislature. I am a fan of Ms. Pingree's work and look forward to following her political career. I'm torn, though. She seems to be effective in the state legislature, but since Tom Allen has announced he will run for Senate against Susan Collins, that leaves Allen's first district US House seat available. I've heard rumors that both Hannah Pingree and her mother, Chellie Pingree, were both considering running for that seat. Much as I like Hannah's work in the state legislature, I start to wonder if she couldn't get some stuff done on the Federal level. I'd like to have somebody with a background like Hannah Pingree's (voting machine legislation and net neutrality being the two "nerd issues" relevant to this discussion, but there are others on which I agree with Ms. Pingree) representing Maine in DC.
What kills me is the fact that, although I identify with Maine and still have a clue what's going on in Maine, I have to vote absentee in Federal elections (Congress, Senate, President) in the district in California that was the last place I lived in the USA. Even though I lived for 8 years in California, I do not identify as strongly with the state (it was a great place to live, but I'm from Maine) and, despite it getting a lot more media attention, I am not really up on California state legislation and politics. I don't need to be, because since I'm an expat, I only get to vote in Federal elections, but I really wish I could vote in the state with which I identify instead of the last place I happened to live before leaving the USA.
I recently found out that friend of mine from childhood and adolescence is now a state rep in Maine. I just saw him a few weeks ago at my 20 year high school reunion. I didn't know about LD 1675 when I saw him, but I've already shot him an e-mail asking him about it. I'm almost sure he would vote the way I would. Even if I didn't know him and like him from when we were kids, he seems to be a politician I could like based on the issues and based on his way of doing things. Anyway, I'm following legislative and political goings-on in Maine in part because Maine is my home state, but also because Hannah Pingree (and, it turns out, a friend from my childhood) is doing things there that make me proud to be a "Downeastah."
Ayuh.
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
Say what?! Maine passes a socialist nanny-state law to tell private industry how and to whom they will sell their services and you praise it for it's "streak of independence"?
Perhaps it's time for Maine to change its anthem to "Someone to Watch Over Me".
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
...where it belongs? The summary is right on, this is most important for its symbolism; finally some bodies of government are taking notice of the complexities of this issue and weighing in. Even if they don't rule in favorable ways, it'll be good for the dialogs to start opening up so that voters can get to see where their candidates stand on the issue. I wonder if/when the presidential candidates will touch this. The YouTube debates might be something to watch out for after all.
Maine and, apparently, a fair sample of /. seem to think that the internet is a public utility. It isn't.
That last point is particularly relevant; it's how the commercial internet came about. As originally implemented, the internet was the private domain of a small circle of institutions harder and more expensive to penetrate than the upper levels of Scientology. Seeing a market for internet services that was not being served, Jack Rickard's army of BBS sysops tore up the Internet AUP and reconfigured their BBSs into ISPs. They bought IP bandwidth from broadband suppliers who also saw the opportunity, and started selling internet service to anyone willing to pay for it. The rest is history.
A bit of trivia: AOL was one of the last BBSs to make the switch.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
so glad to know that they aren't just trying to find more ways to tax us though!!!
i support the right to offend.
This is where my karma goes down, but I don't think Net Neutrality will be a good thing.
ISP have been allotting more bandwidth to "preferred" sites since the beginning, they even allow companies to pay for more of a preference by means of buying more bandwidth. I do not believe that there will be a time that you can only surf big sites on the internet, I think its fear mongering and I think the very worst thing we can do with the internet is allow government to regulate it.
Let's just regulate the piss out of it.. regulate what kind of traffic you can send, and who you can send it to, and if you can gamble on pornographic games with it, and what types of fraud and child protections must be mandated by law, Let's mandate a tax for every e-mail too. We do all that.. and I'm SURE we will absolutely ruin the net.
I believe it has been the LACK of government law and regulation that caused it to become what it is.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
* ISPs can implement some QoS (good!) but only based on the type of service, not its source/destination/ownership/content... In sync with this post by jonwil, who I fully agree with.
I think the law is great, but I don't agree with this part. While it will stop goodmail type schemes where companies pay for their content to get to me, it doesn't stop ISPs from charging me for a "service" like a "VoIP Package" which isn't different from any other kind of bandwidth. I do agree that as long as people aren't getting charged differently, that for QoS it should be fine.
You're correct, ISPs are still free to provide any service they want, like VoIP. The way I understand this resolution though, they're not allowed to treat their own service differently than other carriers', or act in any other way that would be discriminatory, like charge you different rates depending on if, or where, you buy such extra services.
Seems fair to me...
Philosophically speaking, that might be the right answer.
Practically speaking, I live in Texas
Right, you can't have a proper operating government with private funding of elections.
But as long as we buy the "money is speech" argument, we're sunk.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
we make clear chowda
Clear paint is called varnish. Clear coffee is called water. Clear chowda is called soup.
Heathens, indeed.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
But they are allowed to charge you more for a line with VoIP prioritized. Which means they have financial incentive to prioritize VoIP down for everybody who doesn't pay. This is the biggest problem I see with the deal, it enables a QoS business model. And, heck, if Microsoft can get priority access for it proprietary non-HTTP-port-80 Office Live! product, they'll do it.
Unless the above is incorrect, we're best off sticking with best-effort and building sufficient capacity and algorithms to handle traffic.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
This line from the bill throws me for a loop because it seems contradictory or like double-talk. You can't have it both ways can you? Clearly I must be mis-interpreting it.
----
D. May only prioritize content, applications or services made available by the provider and accessed by a user based on the type of content, applications or services and the level of service purchased by the user, but without charge for such prioritization;
----
What are they saying here? Content and applications written by the provider sounds fair enough, but services??? So the can prioritize based on service? So what does that mean?
If anything, it was as I suspected. This bill augments the ISP's position by clearly defining the ISP's rights and does little for the citizen with vague double-talk.
Great! I can hook-up any device I want, as long as it doesn't degrade somebody elses service. Frankly that statement is just too broad and allows the ISP to do whatever they want anyway; because all they have to do is say it was degrading service for everyone!
No - The legislators of Maine did not do a good job...but they did a job alright...on the people. Now their constituents will think they are at least earning their pay, even though they don't need it...just build another bridge to nowhere, take the kicks backs and then disappear when your term is over...
This bill is just a dog and pony show, but it's got no bite and it's certainly taking us all for a ride.
Zapped.Info
It's important to know that I forgot what I thought I knew when I thought I knew it all:Now I don't even know whatIknow.
ISPs can implement some QoS (good!) but only based on the type of service, not its source/destination/ownership/content... In sync with this post by jonwil, who I fully agree with.
This seems to outlaw some business models that I think are legitimate. For example suppose I pay my ISP $10/month for a 10MB link, but want to watch to company X's HDTV video on demand service that requires 25MB. My ISP says fine, you can do that two ways:
1) Pay us $25/month, and we'll give you 25MB from every site on the internet.
2) Pay company X $5/month (in addition to their normal subsription), they'll pass that on to us (the ISP), and we'll give you 25MB just from company X's servers.
I'm a cheapskate and go for option 2, and everybody's happy. I see nothing bad about this arrangement, but (I assume, DNRTFL) the legislation will not allow this.
I haven't been the victim of one of these spam-porn attacks. Am I missing out?
Except that QoS can only be applied to Internet traffic after it arrives within the ISP's network. How are you going to determine what traffic is IPTV and what traffic is Other Stuff that somebody just wants to see prioritized? I could make a lot of money setting up a content distribution service that took advantage of IPTV prioritization by sending my file transfers over a data transfer protocol that simulated IPTV.
In addition, since QoS flags sent over the public Internet can't be trusted, commercial IPTV providers are putting an awful lot of faith in the ability of the intermediate backbone providers to keep their packets shuffling along. With no business relationship between the content providers and these backbone providers, is it really appropriate to base your entire content distribution model on an entity that you have no control over?
The only sane way to start up an IPTV service that intends to compete with Cable TV (or an ISP-provided IPTV service) is to contract with the ISPs directly and set up a dedicated QoS-aware network connection to the ISP's network, and ask the ISP to respect those QoS flags all the way to the customer's premises. An ISP can do that easily enough in a non-discriminatory manner, but who pays for all of that? If the IPTV providers pay for it, wouldn't that be giving "preference" to those who have done so over those who haven't? That doesn't sound very "neutral" to me. Should the customers pay for it? This legislation says no-way! Should the ISP simply eat the cost? How is that fair?