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 when the FCC repealed net neutrality, it included a provision attempting to "pre-empt" (read: ban) states from protecting consumers.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 when the FCC repealed net neutrality, it included a provision attempting to "pre-empt" (read: ban) states from protecting consumers.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.
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.
...simply send a stamped self-addressed envelope to:
Internet Bad Guys
PO Box 14153
Boston, MA
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
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.
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
"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.
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.