Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts Proposes Public Shaming of Net Neutrality Violators (cnet.com)
An anonymous reader quotes CNET:
Massachusetts plans to protect net neutrality by naming and shaming internet service providers that don't adhere to open internet principles. Lawmakers in the state Senate have proposed a bill (S2160) that would create an "internet service provider registry" to track whether broadband and wireless providers adhere to policies that keep the internet open and neutral.
Motherboard reports: In the wake of the FCC's repeal of net neutrality, more than half the states in the union are considering their own, state-level net neutrality rules. Some states are tackling the problem with legislation (California, Oregon, Washington), while others (like Montana) are signing executive orders banning state agencies from doing business with ISPs that behave anti-competitively... when the FCC repealed net neutrality, it included a provision attempting to "pre-empt" (read: ban) states from protecting consumers. As a result, large ISPs have threatened to sue any states that stand up for consumer welfare, and at least one ISP (Charter Spectrum) has tried to use the repeal to wiggle out of state lawsuits for terrible broadband. Charter's efforts on that front have failed, and the the FCC's authority to tell states what to do has been highly contested.
Still, Massachusetts thought it might be a better idea to try and publicly shame ISPs into behaving.
Motherboard reports: In the wake of the FCC's repeal of net neutrality, more than half the states in the union are considering their own, state-level net neutrality rules. Some states are tackling the problem with legislation (California, Oregon, Washington), while others (like Montana) are signing executive orders banning state agencies from doing business with ISPs that behave anti-competitively... when the FCC repealed net neutrality, it included a provision attempting to "pre-empt" (read: ban) states from protecting consumers. As a result, large ISPs have threatened to sue any states that stand up for consumer welfare, and at least one ISP (Charter Spectrum) has tried to use the repeal to wiggle out of state lawsuits for terrible broadband. Charter's efforts on that front have failed, and the the FCC's authority to tell states what to do has been highly contested.
Still, Massachusetts thought it might be a better idea to try and publicly shame ISPs into behaving.
Assuming isps are capable of shame. That's the best joke I've heard all week.
This seems kinda useless. So, the -only- provider in an area is SHAMED but still has all the customers. Great. Can't wait to see how MA proposes curing cancer. "We will SHAME the cells!"
Why do you let private companies trample over you in the US ? Why do you think you can only hold the government to account ? Here in Europe, we try and make both of them accountable.
Just image search them. Still doesn't stop what they are doing.
As if saying X ISP should be shamed because of Y throttling, it means nothing at the end of the day.
These are large companies, not individuals.
The ISPs made their bribe fair and square, so he'll send his tweets out to condemn the real enemy of America: Legislators who follow the will of the people or adhere to the genuine interests of morality.
Yeah, keep politicizing the shit out of everything, SJW retard. Let us know how well that works out for you and your ilk.
Lawmakers in the state Senate have proposed a bill (S2160) that would create an "internet service provider registry" to track whether broadband and wireless providers adhere to policies that keep the internet open and neutral.
Why do they need a registry for a list you can count on one hand?
Require them to provide scarlet modems with the letter N painted on them. That would be very old-school Massachusetts.
The design of the Internet is such that if you simply deliver the "Internet" to an endpoint, the traffic is in accordance with the principles of Net Neutrality. So if an ISP comes along and delivers a filtered, manipulated and piecemeal subset of the Internet, then are they really delivering THE Internet?
Why not demand "truth in advertising"? If an ISP wants to abuse net neutrality, then they can't claim they are delivering the Internet: At best they can claim to be delivering "Part, but not all of the Internet, manipulated, blocked, and changed for our profit and your annoyance". Then consumers can decide what they really want to pay for.
Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
If you have public notifications, don't bother.
Now, if you have a traveling roadshow with board members and large stockholders in Pillories in public places, that's an idea I can get behind.
What? The state wants to define what ISPs should do, but rather than actually pass legislation to enforce their requirements they want to make a "rainman" list of companies that violate their legislated 'suggestions'?
They are acting like a bunch of powerless children - step up, pass a law and enforce it.
Ken
...simply send a stamped self-addressed envelope to:
Internet Bad Guys
PO Box 14153
Boston, MA
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
You live in an alternate universe that is more online than real. In the real world, you can be shamed. Arrested. Tried and convicted. Incarcerated sometimes for years.
Also strange that you think our president is the cause of your dilemma, since of course the man has been in office for 18 months. I think you need a reality check.
Maybe unplug and see how things really are, instead of the world you believe to exist. It's your choice, but your happiness is not based on what occurs in DC. If you think it is, you are the one with the problem.
I look forward to seeing what governments thing "Net Neutrality" is vs what the supporters thought it was.
Will be great to see actual codified definitions.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
so long as the money's good they have no shame. Grow a pair and enforce Net Neutrality. This is an obvious attempt by a bunch of bought off politicians to avoid the repercussions of their policy decisions. If we had a functioning media & press they'd be called out on it. But the mega corps bought that too...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I agree. Trump is not the cause, he is a symptom.
He's like a big orange brain tumor that metastasized from rectal cancer.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
So now itâ(TM)s patriotic to protest the president? A couple years ago, you were a racist and anti-American to say anything neagative against the president.
There has never been a bigger group of hypocrites than liberals.
Tolerant of others, provided they think exactly the way they do.
I am one of the few people here that actually advocates for REAL network neutrality. I am one of the few people not on a "side" other than the side of reason and fairness... I also appear to be one of the few people on the side of sanity.
I would LOVE to see a real Network Neutrality law. But I am also smart enough to realize politicians are not smart enough to produce something so simple and direct without goobering it up or using it to provide benefit to political allies at the expense of a truly open internet... until I see evidence of a real network neutrality law the free market (and the 1st amendment) has done more to provide us with an open internet than any regulation ever has.
Your problem is that anything that doesn't look like what you believe is labeled "partisan" automatically, like cave-men shrieking away from eclipses or anything else out of the ordinary.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Duggie, Hopefully you are a young person. This {degradation of shame} started and reached artistic levels decades before Trump entered politics. Placing the blame on Trump shows the ignorance of the young and uniformed or the stupidity of the Democratic Party. (And possibly something else that I'm not aware of.) Many Psychologists say that shame is a bad thing. One reason is that it doesn't give some people "space" to change.
on Politicians, Lawyers, and Bankers...
Let's be honest here. How many people would willingly stay with Comcast if they had any (and I mean any, IP over carrier pigeon if necessary) choice? You can name and shame them as you want, as long as they have the monopoly you have no choice anyway.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"The FCC doesn't have the authority to enforce net neutrality, so we will repeal our rules. Also the FCC DOES have the authority to interfere with states rights and preempt them from enforcing net neutrality on their own."
What a fucking joke. Pai is the transparent corporate stooge we all thought Wheeler would be.
It’s funny how SJW’s want net neutrality, but also want Facebook and Twitter to act as thought police.
when most people only have one internet provider?
As a Massachusetts resident I can assure you of three things: 1) There may be four people in the state who actually understand what Net Neutrality is 2) None of them are members of our legislature 3) We have far more problems - not the least of which is physical traffic in the state nevermind Internet - that our lawmakers should focus on. The Republican-Democrat animosity in this country is so bad that even in a rampantly Democrat state, we get ourselves distracted by what is happening in Washington.
Put them in the Registry and ban them from being 1 mile from a school or other public places where there are children.
This is just plain dumb. The reaction will be "Their shaming us but we still make billions so we don't care". Most people have at best 2 choices and some only have 1 so shaming will have no effect. If you want to stop them start fining them or throw them out like New York is doing.
Who the hell modded this insightful? I'm against their thought policing but to think those two issues are even remotely related shows a profound misunderstanding of what net neutrality is and why it should be enforced. You're talking about website TOS versus near-monopoly wireline service to access websites. Conflating these is moronic.
Run the risk of getting a good brands telco reputation caught up in the US party politics of "open internet principles"?
The more a state attempts to regulate and demand an ISP, telco has to do "open internet principles" the more such a state stands out from the rest of the USA.
Lawyers and experts needed to understand what complex compliance for political "open internet principles" is in that state.
To ensure full compliance in that state for their unique legal view of what "open internet principles" is in any year.
Say invested in that state with a new network.
Would "open internet principles" allow a limited for profit network to be created? Over a wealthy part of a city, gated communities?
Good parts of a state that could pay back such an investment in a fast new network?
Would state party politics demand that all the state then get the same new network for "free"?
Poor communities will never be able to pay back the use of a new network.
Would "open internet principles" demand a telco build new network in areas of a state that would never make a profit and require constant payments to keep working?
A telco would be forced in a state under ""open internet principles"" to build a network and support a new network that would never make a profit?
So everyone in that state got their full equal share of free telco "open internet principles"?
Who is going to pay for an "open internet principles" design?
The customers in more wealthy areas and who pay for plans? So consumer can then get "free" "open internet principles" in poor parts of the state?
To do that would need massive new state gov support payments to ensure the telco can make a profit and support all the poor people getting free telco networks.
A new "open internet principles" tax to do a state wide network? Internet to nowhere.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I wonder how long it took some corporate suck-up to create this piece of must-do-something legislation that does nothing? Let's admire Massachusetts for dutifully not "protecting consumers".
...have no shame.
If this happens the violators will publicly moan and wail about their hardware or software and say they working on it but the internetworking tubes are complicated and infrastructure hasn't been updated because of repressive Obama policies. Of course they'll secretly explain to big mutual fund investors that they're now able to charge customers a premium for what they used to provide as a matter of course. Joe Plumber pays extra to get decent pornhub video speed and advertisers and content providers pay extra to get their competitor's packets moved to the back of the bus. That's what America wanted, what they voted for and what they got. See? The system works.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
You talk about brain tumors and rectal cancers as if they were a bad thing. That's why your side lost in the last election.
We're getting brain tumors to own the libs. Get used to it, snowflake.
You are welcome on my lawn.
âoeI canâ(TM)t watch 4K Netflix on my 1.5 Mbps DSL line - Net Neutrality violation!â
âoeMy ISP is blocking my pirated movie torrentâ
âoeMy WiFi router is 1,000 feet away from my laptop and I cant get good streams from Amazon. My ISP must be throttling itâ
âoeCanâ(TM)t watch Stranger Things on my Windows 95 Box - net neutrality violation!â
âoeI work for Vladimir Putin, and it looks like my portscanner is being blocked - net neutrality violation!â
And the world's biggest dipshits, you guys STILL don't realize is that until you stop being vile little repulsive pricks, just like the guy you hate more than anything, more Trump is all you're going to get.
Although its night a black/white thing, i notice that all those on the Left are for Net Neutrality and the vast majority of those on the Right are against it. And the worst part is when i read comments from those on the Right i get a sense they are mostly against it because those on the Left are for it. And the remaining others are against it because some leader in their group (ie, talk show host, or someone in power) told them to be against it. smh
I'm against their thought policing
The fact that you want comments down voted shows you are a fascist in favor of thought policing.
Remain calm, snowflake. The WAAAAmbulance is on it's way.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
And another false equivalency, two actually, thanks. First, users upvoting and downvoting content is an entirely different issue than the host hiding or removing content based on viewpoint. Second, suggesting that inaccurate posts should not be upmodded is not the same as saying they should be downmodded. The comment was fine at 0; -1 should be reserved for spam and trolls.
You tried to come up with a way to insult me for pointing out your stupid comment, then fell flat on your face again with an even more ridiculously false comparison.