Maine Passes a Net Neutrality Resolution 101
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.
Did you comment? (Score:5, Insightful)
I commented to the FCC, and I sincerely hope you did, too. Here's my comment to the FCC, first posted to slashdot here [slashdot.org]. 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.
Ya think? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Civil War v2.0? (Score:5, Insightful)
Somewhat ironically, the 50 states in the US, however, are not states in that sense...
They were, quite literally, separate nations until they united under the Constitution of the United States. This isn't new, and a modicum of research will reveal this.
Their relative influence over American life, however, has gone up and down quite a bit over the years. The GP seems to be pointing out that state independence is on a bit of an upswing. He's probably right about that.
Re:Civil War v2.0? (Score:2, Insightful)
Our federal government fails miserably to realize that there are more issues then just Iraq. For example: healthcare, global warming, net neutrality, outsourcing, corruption, the patent system, gun control, our education system, and endless others. These ALL need to be addressed IMMEDIATELY and SIMULTANEOUSLY. Right now, our federal government is having a terrible time multitasking. Until the Iraq war ends in 10+ years, I don't expect to see anything fixed (but lets all continue paying our taxes). The level of incompetence found in our government today is just astounding.
Each day the reality grows more and more grim. If we ended up in a situation where a succession were to take place, I would join in a heartbeat. Even if it failed, it would teach the government what happens when it doesn't do it's job. (keep in mind that other then the issue of nullification, the Confederate States of America were fundamentally the same as the USA. They broke away over ideals, not for radical change in government).
Re:Civil War v2.0? (Score:5, Insightful)
Throughout U.S. history there are identifiable patterns or periods when power has shifted between the States and the Federal government -- although the overwhelming theme has been from the former to the latter, there have been some periods where the reverse has occurred. I think it's entirely possible that the current uber-Federalism has reached the end of its rope with the public, and we're starting to see a loss of patience for highly centralized government, and a desire to decentralize some authority back out to the States. People want more accountability, and it's just not clear that the Federal government is in a position to provide it.
Although it's not a total non sequitur, I'm not sure that bringing up the Civil War is really relevant to the discussion; it's nearly impossible to have a rational discussion of the Civil War without getting wrapped up in the historically-related (and still partially unresolved) issues of agrarian-vs-industrial economies, slavery, and 19th century politics. (Particularly slavery -- it's hardly worth even trying to discuss the abstract issue of states' rights when anyone on the states' side of the argument is going to be called pro-slavery. It's like Nazism; it just stops the discussion.)
Re:Civil War v2.0? (Score:4, Insightful)
Get the states mad enough and they can call a Constitutional Convention and effectively rewrite the Constitution to strip the federal government of power. Whether the federal government would allow this or use the military to prevent it (and whether the military would obey) becomes an interesting question after the events circa 1865, when the fundamental notion of states participating voluntarily in a union shattered, for better or for worse depending with high correlation on your latitude with respect to the Mason-Dixon line.
Re:and you thought maine was only for lobsters! (Score:3, Insightful)
Stories like this actually make me proud of my home state. Maine has had a good streak of independence for quite a few years now. It's nice seeing independent, reasonable thought maintaining its presence.
Net Neutrality Resolution (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Ya think? (Score:4, Insightful)
The 2 issues that the "anti-net neutrality" crowd should be focusing on are:
1.When ISPs give preferential treatment to, say, CableCo VoIP over, say, Vonage. Or give preferential treatment to a customer who pays extra for the privilege.
and 2.When ISPs deliberatly limit the speeds of certain data (based on network protocols, port numbers, source and destination address or whatever else) so that that data can never go at the full speed of whatever broadband link you have.
Re:Did you comment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, unless you're a stalker or a husband. That's what we have the 2nd amendment and rolling pins for.
Re:Did you comment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Public opinion does matter, just not as much. Especially in the context you and the GP seem to be soapboxing on. Criminal activity, and thus opinion in some cases, does matter. That particular bent can effect change by getting somebody else do to the political work for you. Usually to the criminal's derision. As long as we are talking about the law, let's talk about those persons that are above it. Their opinion matters very much. So much so that it upsets the very foundations on which our country was built.
And need I remind you that our country was founded by people who _didn't_ go through the proper channels. They got so fed up with the old guard (sometimes not even a figure of speech) that they left. Took their little balls and bats and just freaking left and founded another nation. I mean, if they had just left comments and pleaded with those in power they could of effected change. Cowards!
Enough sarcasm for you? This country is run by big businesses, special interest groups, and those who have absolutely no interest in changing anything that will affect their political positions. And to top it all off, now the entertainment industry is using their influence over the apathetic (which they helped create) to make changes beneficial to them.
Who wants to secede?
Re:and you thought maine was only for lobsters! (Score:3, Insightful)
So yeah. Go Maine. Unfortunately it doesn't mean jack shit because the available broadband is pathetic.