[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.

[user5184]

ISP will argue it is not a discount it's a promotion. They are two different things under the law

[Frondo]

So let them argue and let this go to court and be clarified there.

Rather than cynically dismiss this, imagine a less shitty world for a moment and imagine how we get there.

[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?

[MiddleEndian]

Because there is no choice of ISP. I could have an internet connection and never visit the web at all, spending all my time on IRC and use a desktop email client.

But I need to use an ISP to get online at all. They are the gatekeepers and they should be uninteresting.

[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.

[Reelin]

The fact that you can't avoid them? I can (at least hypothetically) avoid Google. Maybe not really practical, but at least in theory.

How are you going to avoid your ISP? Might as well decide not to purchase electricity from the local utility...

[treis]

>The fact that you can't avoid them? I can (at least hypothetically) avoid Google. Maybe not really practical, but at least in theory.

>How are you going to avoid your ISP? Might as well decide not to purchase electricity from the local utility...

You can avoid any particular ISP as well. You have to use an ISP, but you also have to use an OS and a Browser. And the companies that dominate the OS and Browser markets are actually recording and selling your data.

[Reelin]

> You can avoid any particular ISP as well.

I take it you aren't from the US? When I said "Might as well decide not to purchase electricity from the local utility...", I wasn't embellishing.

> the companies that dominate the OS and Browser markets are actually recording and selling your data

But again, at least theoretically you can avoid them. For example, you can use Firefox (or hypothetically even Konqueror) and Linux (or FreeBSD, etc). Similar to avoiding Google though, this might not be feasible in practice.

[treis]

>I take it you aren't from the US? When I said "Might as well decide not to purchase electricity from the local utility...", I wasn't embellishing.

I am. And like most other people in the US I have cable option, DSL option, several cell providers, and a couple satellite options. So, yes you are embellishing when you say "Might as well decide not to purchase electricity from the local utility..."

>But again, at least theoretically you can avoid them.

I can theoretically avoid Comcast way easier. To avoid Windows, I'd have to quit my job because I use Windows only software. Chrome to Firefox is easier than getting rid of Windows, but would be worse than going from cable to DSL. And besides, Firefox spies on their users as well (or at least tried to at one point).

[forgottenpass]

Because they've got to start somewhere?

Government is a lot of incremental progress, not a big bang from zero to perfection. Attempts to bundle too much scope into one unit of work is a frequent compliant towards government.

[egypturnash]

Gotta start somewhere, if they were going after everyone then everyone would be throwing money at trying to stop it.

Also apparently this new law is modeled on a federal law against ISPs harvesting data that the Trump administration struck down. So this is maybe not so much a bold step forwards against data harvesting as a refusal to be dragged backwards.

[treis]

>Gotta start somewhere,

Why start with the only sector that isn't routinely harvesting and selling user data?

[iamnothere]

> Why start with the only sector that isn't routinely harvesting and selling user data?

If they aren't doing anything wrong with the data, then what's the issue? They won't have to change any business practices.

[egypturnash]

Maybe to create legal precedent to go after the sectors that do?

[awakeasleep]

The bill forbids data sharing consent as precondition to service

[user5184]

It's not precondition to service. People will be able to get the service but only lower speeds. Faster connections only opting for the "promotion"

[salawat]

The "faster connections" would be seen as "fast lanes".

If we could push through net neutrality, this wouldn't be an issue.