Last year, President Obama’s Federal Communications Commission ruled that broadband providers may not sell information about their customers’ internet browsing habits without permission.
But last Monday, the President scrapped that rule, signing into law a bill that had been approved in both chambers of Congress (on strict party-line votes) to allow telecommunications giants like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T to collect and sell that information, notwithstanding any objections from us, its source.
Now this privacy battle has moved to the state level: Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota and Montana have been pursuing ways to restore the privacy protections that were jettisoned by the Republicans in D.C.
And as of Friday, Massachusetts has joined them. Republican Senator Bruce Tarr, joined by his five Senate GOP colleagues, has filed legislation to prohibit broadband providers from using or selling their customers’ internet histories without permission, and several Democratic lawmakers have already signed on as co-sponsors. Let’s hear it for bipartisanship.
You can help to get this bill moving in the State House by calling your Senator and Representative and asking them to co-sponsor Senate Docket 2157: An Act to Secure Internet Security and Privacy. Contact info here.
Leave a Reply
6 Comments on "Internet Privacy: A Chance for Massachusetts to Confound the National GOP"
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
….how about we push our legislators to make Internet service a public utility, like our roads? In case you were not aware, the Internet was developed by a team of scientists/engineers funded by our tax dollars. We built it. Why don’t we own it? If you’re like me, you have a choice between two Internet “providers” who charge just about the same, deliver a similar service, and from my personal experience, have the a horrible service department. Why can’t we, in Massachusetts, have a publicly owned Internet? It’s what they have in Chattanooga, where a fiber-optic network offers speeds of up to 1000 Megabits per second, or 1 gigabit, for just $70 a month. A cheaper 100 Megabit plan costs $58 per month.
Reclaim OUR Internet and do away with the private companies selling our data in one move.
Of course, now all of us will be happy with this move. Verizon CEO McAdam’s 2014 Compensation was $18.3 Million. Brian Roberts of Comcast Raked in $27,520,74 in 2015…..not a bad gig (pardon the pun) for selling us something that our tax dollars funded in the first place.
Neither the “inventors of the internet” nor BBN spent the billions of dollars needed to bring a fiber-optic connection to your home or put a cable model inside your home. Like it or not, the infrastructure that we use was built out by companies like Comcast, RCN, and a good many others. They built it, they maintain it, and it isn’t surprising that they seek ways to maximize their investment. I’m a strong supporter of net neutrality.
Blowing meaningless smoke and rhetoric will not help preserve or regain that.
Let’s please try to maintain a semblance of rationality in our debate about this issue. By the way, the figures you cite for Chattanooga are higher than what I pay RCN for similar bandwidth (the high one). I nuked my hard-wired landline years ago in favor of VOIP provided by RCN and bundled in the price.
So long as we insist on “free” bits, SOMEBODY is going to sell our data. Each and every bit that appears on our screens costs money to put there, and somebody pays that money. I would prefer our regulators force our providers to disclose how much those bits actually cost and who pays for them.
I would, frankly, happily pay premium rates for selected sites in exchange for advertising-free service (like youtube-red). Your mileage may vary.
…is that the internet should be considered a public utility, owned by all of us. Yes, that is a radical shift, but I think he knows that. I would add water, electricity, and phone lines to that list.
Here’s what he said:
That’s patent horse manure. We did NOT build the infrastructure we’re discussing. So far as I know, water IS a public utility. Electricity was nationalized and operated as public utility until being driven towards privatization in recent decades. Phone lines have always been operated by private companies, and are unlikely to be nationalized at this point — if nothing else, because they are essentially obsolete and VERY expensive.
If we are concerned about internet privacy (which is, after all, the original topic of this thread), then I suggest that nationalizing the internet infrastructure is counterproductive.
The main focus of the “net neutrality” regulations that have now been scrapped was to stop service providers from stratifying internet access into performance tiers differentiated by price. That stratification provides one more way that the 1% is able to command advantages unavailable to the rest of us.
Nationalization of our internet infrastructure strikes me as an essentially unrelated issue. The point of net neutrality is to block providers — public or private — from restricting high-performance connections to those with deep pockets.
MA chose to deregulate electric in 1998 (?) and the breakup of ‘Ma’ Bell was earlier. This would allegedly bring competition to the marketplace, the new Trust Busters claimed. Now we have less competition, without the protection of utility regulation.
n/m