Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Government

Massachusetts Proposes Public Shaming of Net Neutrality Violators (cnet.com) 77

Posted by EditorDavid from the spirt-of-America dept.
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 when the FCC repealed net neutrality, it included a provision attempting to "pre-empt" (read: ban) states from protecting consumers.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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Massachusetts Proposes Public Shaming of Net Neutrality Violators More

Massachusetts Proposes Public Shaming of Net Neutrality Violators

Comments Filter:

  • Thank you (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Presence Eternal ( 56763 ) on Saturday July 28, 2018 @03:41PM (#57024562)

    Assuming isps are capable of shame. That's the best joke I've heard all week.

    • Re:Thank you (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Saturday July 28, 2018 @04:01PM (#57024628)

      You can "name and shame" all you want. So what? In most parts of the U.S. you have only one choice for an Internet Service Provider.

      Even if you're lucky have have two choices, they are both run by corrupt assholes who couldn't care less what you think of them.

      • In the few places with competition, it would certainly help.

        However, a better solution is to create fines which make it unprofitable, and spend those fines providing municipal internet service, starting with the places without competition.

      • "My ISP sucks and is run by idiots? Why, thank you Big Brother! I would never have realized this without your benevolent watchful eye!"

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pots ( 5047349 )
        Sometimes naming and shaming can work in the short term, even in a monopoly situation. They'll do something bad, there will be an outcry, politicians will publicly threaten the company to show that they're defending the people, and the company will partially roll back what it did in order to demonstrate their contrition. Wait a few years for everyone to get used to the new normal, and repeat.

        Naming and shaming is totally ineffective in the long run, but it can slow down the deterioration a bit.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by bigtiny ( 236798 )

        Exactly. In my town (Cambridge, MA) you have two choices: Comcast or Verizon. Other comments about the (in)ability to shame these companies notwithstanding, the only control available in a monopoly is Gov't regulation. Congress should make Net Neutrality law of the land.

      • Mozilla reports that google is already throttling Firefox when FF. needs some google service. So much for fairness.

    • Not to mention your typical Mega-ISP has an army of lawyers standing by to deal with anyone who dares say anything negative about their Company. :|

  • How about something with teeth? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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!"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      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!"

      It is useless for many more reasons. For one, even bad publicity is good publicity. What you want is to recommend the ISPs that are NOT bad, not name the ones that are.

      For another, no matter what, shaming won't help, because we've already done that. Everyone already pretty much knows which ISPs violate net neutrality, and

  • 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 Inte

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dog77 ( 1005249 )
      The FCC head (I won't say his name for fear of stirring up anger), has stated that the FCC will go after companies that are not transparent with their networking practices. From their own document https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-... [fcc.gov]

      A critical part of Internet openness involves Internet service providers being transparent about their business practices. That's why the FCC has imposed enhanced transparency requirements. Internet service providers must publicly disclose information regarding their network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of service. These disclosures must be made via a publicly available, easily accessible company website or through the FCC's website. This will discourage harmful practices and help regulators target any problematic conduct.

      I can go to the most hated company in the United State and see what ports they are blocking traffic on: https://www.xfinity.com/suppor... [xfinity.com]

      I expect to get modded down for making the son of Satan look any better than he is portrayed, but I think it is better to have a discussion

  • Shaming in what way? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Saturday July 28, 2018 @04:01PM (#57024626)

    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.

  • No. (Score:2)

    by kenh ( 9056 )

    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.

  • And to access this registry... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by flacco ( 324089 ) on Saturday July 28, 2018 @04:04PM (#57024640)

    ...simply send a stamped self-addressed envelope to:

    Internet Bad Guys
    PO Box 14153
    Boston, MA

  • 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.

  • 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...
  • 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.

    • I would. Comcast has been very good to us since 2009. There were a couple of hiccups, but they bent over backwards to fix it.

  • FCC Logic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sydin ( 2598829 ) on Saturday July 28, 2018 @05:35PM (#57024880)

    "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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      You (oddly) left out the part where Ajit Pai said the FTC, not the FCC, was the appropriate body to enforce Net Neutrality regulations.

      Funny how critics of the FCC always fail to include that point.

      From Ajit Pai's statement:

      Moreover, we empower the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers. But today, we are putting our nation’s premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. The FTC will once again have the authority to take action against Internet service providers that engage in anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive acts. As FTC Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen recently said, “The FTC’s ability to protect consumers and promote competition in the broadband industry isn’t something new and far-fetched. We have a long-established role in preserving the values that consumers care about online.” Or as President Obama’s first FTC Chairman put it just yesterday, “the plan to restore FTC jurisdiction is good for consumers. . . . [T]he sky isn’t falling. Consumers will remain protected, and the [I]nternet will continue to thrive.”

      Source [theverge.com]

  • 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.
    • "If it bleeds, it leads" is the media's motto and few things bleed more than the Two Minutes Hate over the latest POTUS tweet.
  • 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
  • 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 e
  • 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

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close