I live there and I am proud our lawmakers took this seriously. It seems too common for lawmakers to not understand the ramifications of what was at stake.
There was a campaign by the Maine Chamber of Commerce running against it on the grounds that the privacy protections didn't go far enough. They only applied to ISPs (carriers) not to companies higher in the stack (Facebook, etc.). [1]
I couldn't quite work out of this campaign was done out of legitimate concern or was a cynical attempt to derail it? I mean, I agree with them that privacy legislation should apply broadly, but then I'm happy to at least start somewhere.
Industry groups in favorable contexts would say this is fine, then for the "didn't go far enough" part they just lobby some changes in definitions next year, another change in scope the year after that, etc. Pretty soon it's exactly what they wanted and nobody's the wiser.
This isn't "progress", it's the silicon valley oligopoly on traffic data trying to maintain its position through legislation. If we're going to hold as a societal standard that it's okay for companies to sell traffic data, then more competition is better. The more centralized the control, the easier it is for the companies in power to exploit the general public.
> I couldn't quite work out of this campaign was done out of legitimate concern or was a cynical attempt to derail it?
I would bet on "cynical attempt to derail it", since it conflates two things that are not remotely comparable: providing internet service itself and providing a service that uses the internet.
Me too! Now we just need to get some ISP competition. Spectrum has a complete monopoly in my area. Their service is spotty at best, and they also accidentally blocked my account from paying digitally. Now I have to drive to their office with a couple hundred dollars cash once a quarter to prepay my bill...
