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.
and you thought maine was only for lobsters! (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
almost forgot about that
And it's a good way to start a bar fight. (Score:4, Informative)
(For the record, Maine "chowdah" is the real thing
Re: (Score:2)
Libelous trash! We Rhode Islanders do not, as a rule, make the heathen Red chowda, we make clear chowda, with 2nd place in state popularity being the standard white chowda. The tomato users are further south.
Clear? (Score:2)
Clear paint is called varnish. Clear coffee is called water. Clear chowda is called soup.
Heathens, indeed.
Wish I still lived there. (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And I sure have to agree with you, as a rule Maine's congress-critters have a backbone. I might not agree with all that they do, but that's life. As for the tax rate, they're trying to lower it by re-organizing schools, as well as other things. we'll see how that goes.
Re: (Score:2)
If enough states have
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
with our income, which is above average for our area, we still don't have a lot of extra money. Our house was about 190k but it needs work (just finished a 6-7k
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And hopefully our folksy saying "As goes Maine, so goes the nation" will hold fruit with this issue, ayuh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
This is independence? (Score:1)
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".
Re: (Score:1)
This means a lot to the hundred-or-so of us Maine residents who understand that the internet isn't just the blue "e" on their Windows (ME, of course) desktops.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Just look under Preferences.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that Maine has NO next generation broadband. No FIOS. And it won't get it, EVER. Verizon is selling off it's Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine lines to Fairpoint, whose motto is "128K DSL is the wave of the future." The closest FTTP type deployment in Maine is in Lewiston / Auburn via Oxford Networks [oxfordnetworks.com], who's idea is to use fiber to deploy 2M MAX service (which is slower than available cable / DSL). Business users only have a 1M option. The brilliant Oxford Networks execs are running around wondering why nobody is buying...
So yeah. Go Maine. Unfortunately it doesn't mean jack shit because the available broadband is pathetic.
Wrong. Verizon is selling their residential telephone service to Fairpoint, that's it.
Part of the reason is there is so much competition now, Verizon is ready to get out of that line of business in such . Not just mobile phone companies, from big places like Time Warner Cable and small places like GWI and their VOIP offerings. And if you don't like Fairpoint's DSL offering, buy it from someone else. IIRC, GWI's DSL service was $35 for 3/768 and their coverage area is getting quite extensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Maine does have a pretty good fiber backbone, but the last mile is the issue. Please show us the press release or any other info for Standish or any other FTTP effort.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as entertaining as it is to read battle-of-the-press-release-links threads, it isn't really necessary is it. There is already FIOS in the areas covered by the press release you posted. I don't need a press release to conclude the obvious.
And you make it seem as if Verizon is pulling out of Maine entirely. Wrong. From the press release you posted:
The transaction does not include the services, offerings or assets of Verizon Wireless, Verizon Business (former MCI), Federal Network Systems LLC,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you base that on? At a talk I went to [bfccomputing.com] FairPoint was pushing their 6+Mbps DSL infrastructure.
Though I have to admit I'd be happy to pay for 128K DSL over my 26.4K modem, which is all Verizon is ever going to provide in the current regulatory environment.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
> "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!".
>
You sound like just the kind of guy everyone would love to have discussions with! The life of the party, Slashdot-style! Rock on!
Re: (Score:1)
You don't get it, do you? Your voice means NOTHING if you don't submit it via the proper channels. No, I don't know what the proper channels are on this one either.
Seriously, though, the parent does sound a little bit... intolerant. Not every abstentionist (or whatever those are called) is an ignorant moron. Some have very interesting ideas. But whatever suits him/her.
Re: (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 muc
Re: (Score:1)
Lets do it!
I hope your from Mpls, MN or we might have a hard time defending our territory. uuhh wait a minute, have you already been detained (secretly and indefinitely)?? I may have to reevaluate my position if it poses such an imminent danger to my livelihood. Are you a government agent?? I think despite widespread support, it will be pretty difficult to grow a revolution under our political climate.
Re: (Score:1)
But hey, whatever man. I bet you didn't even heard a passing sound above your head or something.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not quite true. The parts don't cooperate together for public benefit, they cooperate for the benefit of the owners of the parts (which, are mostly privately owned). The parts cooperate because, well, it is profitable for them to do so. For example, if my ISP suddenly decides to sever all links to the rest o
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: (Score:2)
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!".
Your saying.. "I can use force on you not based on if its right or wrong but based on if you voted." I don't stand on one leg when I vote.. does that matter to you?
Government is legal fiction, it is not moral, or right, or just.. its just men using force on other men. Every single year if I could, I would vote to disband the federal government entirely. I can not and probably never will win, but I continue to try.. really though..? does it matter if I vote or not?
The system of tyranny of the majority we ca
Re: (Score:1)
It's really good to see that some people believe in freedom and liberty, and also realise that for the most part both parties have been bought and paid for by foreign interests and corporations. We really need a revolution, but I'll settle for Ron Paul if he can bring change.
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, an
Re:Ya think? (Score:5, Interesting)
When it comes to mass production it will often cost more to design a product or service which conforms to two different standards than just implement the stricter standard in all of your products.
If even 25% of the states in the US implemented a Net Neutrality Resolution the cost to ISPs to ensure that packets originating and ending in a Net Neutral state would be significantly higher than just abandoning QoS nation wide. And if someone like Google moved into your state then ISPs would need to know which datacenter IP range they need to throttle and which they can leave alone.
If you bounce your packet through a Net Neutral state and it is throttled while in the state, they've broken the law. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to ensure that every packet you send and receive didn't pass through a state with a net neutrality law?
Behold the beauty of de facto legislation. One of the first real gems of globalization.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you noticed that download times tend to go down the faster your Internet connection is? The speed of your personal Internet connection is almost always the limiting factor in Internet data transfers
Re: (Score:2)
An IPTV provider (for example) can't just do QoS over the public Internet, and hope that every random ISP will respect the QoS flags and prioritize their IPTV streams over random bulk data transfers. If that were the case, it would be easily abused. The IPTV provider must contract with individual ISPs for dedicated data connections fit to carry QoS-flagged traffic to the ISP's network.
Who pays for that?
If the IPTV provid
Re: (Score:2)
Civil War v2.0? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
BZZZZZTTT!!!
What this post reflects is a young understanding of something that's been going on as long as there have been states. It's why there ARE states - the term "state" can literally mean "country", and the "United States of America" can be literally read as "United Countries of America". It's a "body politic".
If you'd paid attention in history class, you'd remember that once upon a time, each state printed t
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: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: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Didn't expect that to happen THIS FAST, though... sheesh!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But *you* broght up slavery. I merely brought up the issue of state's rights as "bodies politic". I didn't say why, I didn't get into it at all, other than to indicate that states have been telling the feds to screw themselves as long as there's been a federal government to yell at.
Don't put this one on me - it's entirely YOUR doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
States offering "counter programs" that will allow people to opt out of programs like social security and medicare. This will bring more money to the states and less to the federal government. There will be people fighting on both sides of the issue as it's easy to see problems on each side. (Such as, what happens if you move to live out
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: (Score:1)
Get the states mad enough and they can call a Constitutional Convention and effectively rewrite the Constitution to strip the federal government of power.
Not going to happen. The federal government has a much stronger and more loyal military today than it had in 1789. The individual military power of states today, consisting of local militias, municipal and state police forces and maybe a few National Guard bases, can't measure up to the power wielded by the federal government.
What military power was once held by individuals has been legislated away in the name of reducing gun violence. Any exceptions are licensed, and thus known and tracked.
No, there's
Re: (Score:2)
I think the GP was referring to the measures in the constitution allowing for the states to amend the constitution without intervention from the national level. See Article V [archives.gov] for the procedure.
I suppose it is possible that if the states got together intending a large enough change that it would effectively strip the federal government of power, in other words, a legal non-violent revolution. The federal government could still choose to use military power to stop that, but it seems unlikely and the public w
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The people in the US military don't come from the US federal government. They come from states.
Good luck in getting them to attack their homes.
Re: (Score:2)
The ATF confuses Constitutional Convention with Religious Cult
YAY (Score:1, Redundant)
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:Net Neutrality Resolution -- seems good to me (Score:5, Informative)
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 [mainelegislature.org] 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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 gett
Re: (Score:1)
Seems fair to me...
Stick with Best Effort (Score:2)
Unless the above is incorrect, we're best off sticking with best-effort and building sufficient capacity and algorithms to handle traffi
Loopholes? This bill is swiss cheese on a string! (Score:1)
----
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 provid
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 pr
Sweet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Philosophically speaking, that might be the right answer.
Practically speaking, I live in Texas, which is a good state in a lot of ways, but ughhhhh, when it comes to telecom legislation, I don't have high hopes because of the way our state government works and the fact that "the new AT&T" is headquartered in San Antonio. I predict that if it is left up to the state government, the lobbyists will push through some kind of ho
Public Funding of Elections (Score:2)
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.
Where are the content providers in all this? (Score:2)
Hannah Pingree (Maine state rep) rules! (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe bring this issue to the surface... (Score:1)
The internet is not a common (Score:2)
Maine and, apparently, a fair sample of /. seem to think that the internet is a public utility. It isn't.
maine had me at hello (Score:1)
Government regulation is bad. (Score:2)
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 o
Re: (Score:1)