
Maine Governor Signs Strictest Internet Protections in the U.S. - eplanit
https://www.govtech.com/policy/Maine-Governor-Signs-Strictest-Internet-Protections-in-the-US.html
======
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20061764](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20061764)

------
aj7
When my internet connection slows down, I just run Speedtest once or twice. My
providers detect that and restore the bandwidth they’d been stealing.

~~~
icxa
I've noticed this as well, except with fast.com

I will fire up the laptop, be getting 3.2-12 mbps, all of a sudden a fast.com
speed test starts of sluggish and ramps up to 120-200 mbps.

Go figure. It happens every time, on multiple occasions, devices, browsers,
all using the same internet connection and frequency.

~~~
dooglius
I'm surprised, I thought it was run by Netflix so that they'd also have to
boost all Netflix traffic. Maybe they are doing DPI? Netflix also has a "test
video" somewhere that is probably a more representative test.

------
matttproud
Consistency and compliance costs be damned; I am pleased that localities are
taking this matter seriously.

The status quo lack for user data protection is appalling.

~~~
snarf21
While I applaud this kind of effort, it seems like it will have little effect
in the end. Companies will just violate it anyway and get a small fine. Or
they will just get the law replaced when the makeup of the government changes.

It seems like we have two issues: politicians who don't really understand the
technical ramifications around the laws and issues; and politicians who don't
really care and just want their funding. It feels like the only way to make
them both really get it is to use some form of hacktivism. Would we like a law
to prevent robocalling? Then use our technological expertise to robocall all
numbers related to these officials non-stop and have the message be "Pass a
law to stop robo-calling". Worried about ISPs selling your data? Then use our
technological expertise to buy this data from the ISPs and correlate the data
and make public all the details of the data about these politicians and those
related. Maybe this is nonsense but it seems like the only way to make it
_real_ for them.

~~~
testvox
Their response won't be to pass a robocalling law, it will be to send the
police to your house to arrest you for harassment which is already illegal.

~~~
snarf21
How is that harassment if people calling me about student loans I don't have
isn't harassment?

~~~
tzs
Intent.

~~~
glaurung_
So intent to be annoying is a worse offense than intent to rob someone?

~~~
tru3_power
If this is true you could just robo call them with the intent to sell them
something, or looking for someone. The annoyance part is merely a side effect
vs. the whole purpose (at-least it could be argued that’s the case)

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Robocall to ask them to donate to your gofundme which you will donate to the
election campaign whoever proposes an anti-robocalling law that meets X, Y, Z,
criteria and is actually signed into law.

Convince some industry group to seed it with $20k or so, target a small state
where campaign donation amounts are low and bam, you've got your first anti-
robocalling law (with teeth) on the books.

------
akshayB
ISP are becoming annoying middle man who want to make money from any data they
can get their hands on. What eventually needs to be done is we classify ISPs
as utility. Example - your water supplier doesn't make a big deal if you use
more water because you have a swimming pool but you ISP does and I find that
very weird.

~~~
CondensedBrain
Water companies do charge different rates depending on type of usage. Look up
your local company's page to see the commercial rate. It could be higher or
lower. They all seem to have different priorities based on a quick search of
different cities.

~~~
akshayB
maybe I didn't choose the best example but they don't throttle your water
supplies.

~~~
Spivak
But water usage is absolutely throttled based on usage when there's a drought.
I mean the police rather than the pipes is the enforcement mechanism but you
will definitely be fined for using more water than necessary to water your
lawn.

I think we can all imagine examples where this would get scummy but using
network management to in good-faith give a better experience to everyone isn't
really what people should be worried about.

I feel like the ISP throttling debate needs to be taken out of the realm of
hackers where the mentality is "being allowed to do X is logically equivalent
to being allowed to do X unrestricted for any purpose whatsoever" and into
human territory where intent matters.

~~~
randallsquared
> _the ISP throttling debate needs to be taken out of the realm of hackers
> where the mentality is "being allowed to do X is logically equivalent to
> being allowed to do X unrestricted for any purpose whatsoever" and into
> human territory where intent matters._

When an ISP offers “unlimited” usage that does _not_ allow 100% usage all
month long, that is exactly what they are attempting to do: take the debate
out of the realm of consistency, and into human territory where how someone
feels about it is what matters, rather than what was apparently agreed.

~~~
Spivak
100% usage of what though? I feel like it's like complaining to the city
because I can't drive the speed limit 100% of the time.

Look, I agree with you that the marketing for internet packages desperately
needs to be changed from "X Mbps" to "Capped at X Mbps bandwidth" but we're in
a technical forum where we all ought to know better.

And any ISP that uses their ability to throttle for a competitive advantage
for competing services deserve to be raked over the coals but there are
situations where throttling specific services makes everyone better off. The
example I always use is throttling HBO traffic when GoT episodes are released
-- watchers buffer a little longer but otherwise it's largely imperceptible
and then non-GoT traffic isn't crowded out and you can livetweet the episode.

I know that technical people here can do their own traffic shaping and
probably don't want their ISP doing it for them but for people who just want
working internet it's a huge improvement. Gone are the days of people's
internet being slow because someone's hogging all the bandwidth watching
YouTube.

~~~
randallsquared
I don’t think we disagree on specifics.

------
shmageggy
How valid is the argument that states can't regulate interstate business? Any
business that operates over state lines is immune to all local law?

Also claiming that this infringes on ISP free speech? Like Citizens United,
applying ideas of personhood to cooperations is just gross.

I'm with the Chamber of Commerce in that the bill doesn't go far enough. Why
should giving away our privacy be a prerequisite for doing anything online?

~~~
frankharv
I agree. How could a Federal rule supersedes a state law. If FCC they want the
rule that bad the feds need to make it a law. A rule that can be changed by
politics is not a law.

------
telaelit
Yes. This is what should be done on a federal level, but I'm glad states are
starting to take up the issue of protecting their citizens.

------
user5184
ISPs will just offer slower plans as default and promotions with faster
connections for people that consent with data harvesting and monetization. As
it's a promotion, regulators can't forbidden promotions. And as ISPs are an
oligopoly at best, it will be easy to force most people to consent. Regulators
must forbidden data harvesting and selling. But it will not happen because
data is the new gold.

~~~
tomd3v
> Maine’s new law does not allow an ISP to offer a discounted rate to
> customers who agree to share or sell their data.

~~~
treis
I don't get why ISPs are the only ones singled out for this. More or less
everything on the internet is subsidized by data harvesting. What's so special
about ISPs that it should be different?

~~~
tzs
To the extent that we are going to consider data harvesting an inherently
harmful business model that needs to be regulated, there is no reason to
single out ISPs.

As a practical matter, it might make a lot of sense to _start_ with ISPs,
though, because you get more bang for the buck there if you don't think you
would be able to pass some kind of all encompassing data harvesting
regulation.

If we aren't going to consider data harvesting to be an inherently harmful
business model, it still makes some sense to regulate it in the case of ISPs
because ISPs are internet infrastructure. If ISPs are data harvesting, it
means that you cannot use the internet without being subjected to data
harvesting. Furthermore, your ISP has a lot more information on you than most
sites you visit will have.

If ISPs cannot data harvest, than at least I've got a chance to avoid it on
the net. Sure, it may be hard, and I may have to avoid the most popular
services like Twitter, Google, Facebook, and the like, but at least it is
theoretically possible.

~~~
treis
>As a practical matter, it might make a lot of sense to start with ISPs,
though, because you get more bang for the buck there if you don't think you
would be able to pass some kind of all encompassing data harvesting
regulation.

There's no bang for your buck because, AFAIK, no ISP in the U.S. is harvesting
and selling user data.

>If we aren't going to consider data harvesting to be an inherently harmful
business model, it still makes some sense to regulate it in the case of ISPs
because ISPs are internet infrastructure. If ISPs are data harvesting, it
means that you cannot use the internet without being subjected to data
harvesting. Furthermore, your ISP has a lot more information on you than most
sites you visit will have.

ISPs are a smaller part of the internet infrastructure than Chrome or Windows
or Android or iOS are. They are also more easily replaced.

If we are considering data harvesting a legitimate business model then ISPs
jumping into that game is good for consumers. That market is effectively a
duopoly between Google and Facebook. Adding in ISPs should send more value to
the consumer and/or lower ad costs.

I'm spending about $1,000 a year between my ISP and cell company. I'd be fine
with them selling my browsing data in exchange for a discount. Google and
Facebook know pretty much everything I do on the internet already. What's the
difference if Comcast gets added to that party? At least I get some more cash
in my pocket. And since ISPs are regional it's probably better overall for the
internet if they get the ad cash instead of global oligarchs like Facebook,
Google, and Microsoft.

------
pard68
Seems cool. Let me know when I can get speeds faster than 5mbps, and that is
because I pay extra for to have two dsl lines.

------
cliff_badger
Just like the stupid cookie laws you'll just get a little popup that says: "In
order for you to use our internet, you are agreeing to have your data tracked
and sold..."

This law prevents absolutely nothing...

~~~
mrguyorama
The law EXPLICITLY prevents that.

~~~
cliff_badger
I am sorry, I stand corrected. Now that I read the actual bill I see my error.

------
paulie_a
It would be interesting if deleware followed suit.

------
belenos46
Yes! Yes, we're _finally_ in the news for something good, not something our
social cancer of a former governor did!

~~~
bilbo0s
Rejoice therefore.

I'm in Wisconsin, and man do I wish we would be in the news for _anything_
other than something our social cancer of a former governor did. :(

Last week I was watching some comedians on a cable show. Trying to avoid late
night comedians because we're always the butt of jokes over there. In any
case, it's on in the background and I'm sort of paying attention enough to
follow. All of a sudden I hear, "Wisconsin!" Followed by the comedy club's
audience laughing.

And I'm thinking to myself, "Man? Did a b-list comedian just tell a joke that
featured 'Wisconsin' as not only the butt of the joke, but the punchline too?"

A new low.

Oh well, like my neighbor said this weekend, "There's always Florida!" So at
least we're not at the bottom.

~~~
WhompingWindows
Can you summarize Wisconsin politics, I don't know anything about it.

------
throwayEngineer
Has any internet provider sold data previously?

They sell ip address, websites visited, and home address?

~~~
module0000
If someone could give some more information, I'm very interested in this. I
always assumed this was taking place, but I'd love to hear from someone
involved or with knowledge of that industry. Who do ISPs sell it to? What type
of money is involved?

~~~
sseveran
A team I worked on tried to buy browsing histories for specific sites about 10
years ago. NetZero was selling them from their free dialup customers, but the
data was not that useful as the demographics of users was super skewed. All
the ISPs that people tend to think are evil absolutely refused to even
entertain the idea. One of them even lectured our PM on privacy and ethics for
a few minutes before ending the call.

You can buy advertising profiles (or access to them) but this not really
useful for things that are not directly advertising as it is super aggregated.
In general the ISP data is less valuable since so much of the web has moved to
using SSL.

I don't know much about how this has changed over the last couple of years but
maybe someone else can chime in.

------
guptat59
Sounds somewhat similar to GDPR, does it ?

~~~
TheAdamist
only when maine users start being blocked from websites.

------
algaeontoast
You'd be better off shaking your fist at a blank monitor.

Laws like this are more dangerous than draconian internet legislation or
companies doing un-ethical internet things.

These laws make people feel good and feel they've made progress when in
reality they've done nothing - the illusion of progress to make one feel good
is more damning than doing what these laws were explicitly intended to
"prevent".

~~~
thwythwy
>"These laws"

OK grandpa, demonstrate you know what the law does and maybe you'll earn a
response on the merits. This is just empty nonsense. Who are you quoting?

