SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The broadband industry is suing Maine to stop a Web-browsing privacy law similar to the one killed by Congress and President Donald Trump in 2017. Industry groups claim the state law violates First Amendment protections on free speech and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
[...] Customer data protected by this law includes Web-browsing history, application-usage history, precise geolocation data, the content of customers' communications, IP addresses, device identifiers, financial and health information, and personal details used for billing.
[...] The state law "imposes unprecedented and unduly burdensome restrictions on ISPs', and only ISPs', protected speech," while imposing no requirements on other companies that deliver services over the Internet, the groups wrote in their lawsuit. The plaintiffs are America's Communications Association, CTIA, NCTA, and USTelecom.
[...] The lawsuit is part of a larger battle between ISPs and states that are trying to impose regulations stronger than those enforced by the federal government. One factor potentially working against the ISPs is that the Federal Communications Commission's attempt to preempt all current and future state net neutrality laws was blocked by a federal appeals court ruling in October 2019.
[...] But while the FCC was allowed to eliminate its own net neutrality rules, judges said the commission "lacked the legal authority to categorically abolish all 50 States' statutorily conferred authority to regulate intrastate communications."
Previous Story:
Maine Governor Signs Strictest Internet Protections in the U.S.
(Score: 4, Informative) by mobydisk on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:57PM (1 child)
Your statement is correct if we assume the ISP == the telephone company. That mistake needs to be rectified: an ISP is not infrastructure. My ISP could be in Cambodia and have no local presence.
The provider of the internet service ("ISP") and the provider of the wires ("telephone company") needs to be decoupled, like it was in the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, I could select from multiple ISPs without having to change out my modem or get wires. What killed that was when the telecommunications act of ... 1996 I think? It weakened the separation between the two so today the telephone and cable companies bought out the ISPs or used heavy-handed tactics to drive them out of business. Now everyone's ISP is their telephone company or cable company.
The situation is similar to how, in some states, the provider of your power is the same company that provides the power lines - while in other states there are many power providers, but a single company that runs wires.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20 2020, @01:31PM
well i am not sure this is smart.
the people putting in cables are just that "cable providers".
to qualify as a isp you should at least own some cables. preferably more then two. so there is a network now.
owning only "empty" cables or dark fiber doesnt qualify you as a isp.
ofc the market is vast and all kinds of "cost effectif" structures spring from the minds of humans.
important should just be if the fiber or cable is lit and is carrying internet traffic. if that is the case you're a isp.
the rules should be for the wellbeing of the "entity" we refer to as "internet".
what laws are required to protect this "entity"?
if you want to "carry" the internet you should have to obey these laws.
but ofc we have to figure out what exactly the "internet" is. not laws to protect companies but laws to protect the internet ... so it can grow and not be misused for profit only?
end note: i am a bit sceptical about "infrastructure less" isps. methinks a thing like the "internet" does require some form of physical infrastructure to exist. so for me isp without "gear" are just resellers or same like any customer of a real isp ... why you would chose such a isp is beyond me.