Federal Internet Law & Policy
An Educational Project
Massachusetts Dont be a FOOL; The Law is Not DIY
Page Sections
- Cybercrime
- Muni BB
- - MuniBB Notes
- VoIP

State Links
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming


MASS. GEN. LAWS Ch. 266 Crimes Against Property, Sec. 120F Unauthorized access to computer system; penalties

"Whoever, without authorization, knowingly accesses a computer system by any means, or after gaining access to a computer system by any means knows that such access is not authorized and fails to terminate such access, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than thirty days or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or both.

"The requirement of a password or other authentication to gain access shall constitute notice that access is limited to authorized users." (emphasis added)

ECPA :: Cell Phone Location Information :: Expectation of Privacy

Commonwealth v. Augustine, 4 N.E.3d 846, 850 (Mass. 2014) 

Municipal Broadband


"The Commission granted Time Warner permission to conduct a pilot program providing telephone services to its customers on April 7, 2000 in Docket No. 2000-285.  On March 7, 2001, by advisory rule, the pilot program was extended to June 30, 2002, and Time Warner was required to report to the Commission on its plans for the pilot program by March 31, 2002.  On May 3, 2002 Time Warner filed an application for authority to provide service as a Local Exchange Carrier and Interexchange Carrier; it was docketed as 2002-241.  On June 3, 2002, Time Warner filed for an extension of the June 30 deadline set in Docket No. 2002-285.    On June 11, 2002, the Commission granted the extension to allow Staff and interested parties more time to review the application.   On July 3, 2002, Time Warner filed for an eight-month extension of the pilot program to allow for more time to workout some technical and operational issues.  On July 25, 2002 the Commission granted the exemption and dismissed the application filed in 2002-241 without prejudice."
    "Our approval of Time Warner's application to provide interexchange service in Maine is conditioned on the payment of access charges to local exchange carriers (LECs) who have on file with the Commission approved access charge rate schedules.
            "Time Warner states that at present it will be offering service as a switchless reseller.[1] If Time Warner provides facilities-based interexchange service in the future, it must pay access charges directly to local exchange carriers. However, switchless resellers do not pay access charges to local exchange carriers.  Instead, access charges are paid by an underlying facilities-based interexchange carrier.  As a condition of granting authority to a switchless reseller to provide intrastate service in Maine, its underlying facilities-based carrier must also have authority to provide intrastate service in Maine.  Time Warner has stated that MCI will be the underlying carrier from which it purchases interexchange services that it resells.  MCI is authorized by the Commission to provide intrastate interexchange service and does pay access charges for the intrastate interexchange services it sells to switchless resellers providing interexchange service in Maine.  If Time Warner begins to use another authorized underlying carrier, it shall notify the Commission as required by the ordering paragraphs."
      At the meeting, Time Warner indicated that it had filed its CLEC application in May to meet the Commission's June 30th deadline for termination of the pilot project.  In fact, Time Warner was not ready to terminate the pilot because it had not yet fully developed its permanent offering.  Specifically, Time Warner indicated that it was in the process of securing a new arrangement for local connectivity and resolving technical and operational issues necessary to meet Maine statutes and Commission rules.
     On July 3, 2002, Time Warner filed a request that the Commission grant an 8-month extension of the Pilot Program and hold its CLEC application in abeyance.  Time Warner stated in its request that it would use the extension period to complete its connectivity arrangements and ensure that they complied with E911 requirements.  Time Warner indicated that it would continue to adhere to the 1,000-customer limit governing the Pilot Program.
II.         DECISION
            We grant Time Warner's request for an 8-month extension of the Pilot Program and at the same time dismiss the CLEC application without prejudice to re-file.  We accept Time Warner's assertions that it has been working diligently to address all of the issues necessary to turn the Pilot Program offering into a permanent offering that meets state statutes and Commission rules.  We find it a more efficient use of our resources to wait until Time Warner's permanent offering is filed before we reach detailed findings regarding a Time Warner CLEC application.  Finally, because the original terms of the Pilot Program will continue, we find that the public interest is not adversely affected by granting the extension.
            With regard to the CLEC application, we find it more efficient to dismiss the current application without prejudice and have Time Warner file a new application with all of the updated information at the end of the Pilot rather than try to update the existing filing. "On March 24, 2000, Time Warner Cable (TWC) filed a Request for an Advisory Ruling. The request described proposed telecommunications activities by TWC and sought a ruling that TWC, if it undertook those activities, would not be a telephone utility under Maine law. For the reasons described below, we agree that TWC will not be a public utility if it undertakes the limited activities as described.
. . . . .
           TWC provides cable television service to various communities in southern and northern Maine. For the past several years, TWC has also been offering a cable-modem-based Internet service, which is sold in Maine under the brand name "Road RunnerT." Subscribers to Road Runner Service obtain local content, such as weather forecasts and shopping service, plus high-speed access to the Internet. This service is provided by means of TWC's hybrid fiber coaxial ("HFC") plant. TWC has been working to develop, as an additional feature to its existing cable modem service, a non-powered Internet-based two-way voice service using its HFC plant. TWC expects that this feature of TWC's cable modem service will be offered under the name "Line RunnerT." TWC has decided to offer a pilot program, limited in duration, geographical area, and number of subscribers, to its existing Road Runner subscribers (The "Pilot Program"). This service would not be a substitute for regular telephone service, since it is a non-powered service and therefore will not operate whenever the subscriber loses service from its electric utility.
         The issue before the Commission is whether TWC, if it offers telephone service as described in its Request, is a public utility subject to the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to Title 35-A. TWC is providing a telecommunications service. 35-A M.R.S.A. § 8301 makes clear that cable television companies may be telephone utilities: Cable television companies, to the extent they offer services like those of telephone utilities subject to regulation by the commission, shall be subject to the commission's jurisdiction over rates, charges and practices, as provided in this Title. TWC is using equipment that constitutes a "telephone line" as defined in 35-A M.R.S.A. § 102 (20).  A "telephone utility" is defined in 35-A M.R.S.A. § 102(19) as an entity "owning, controlling, operating or managing any telephone line for compensation within this state." Under our decisions and those of the Law Court, however, merely offering and providing telephone service over a "telephone line" does not by itself make an entity a public utility.To be considered a public utility, the entity must offer a service for "public use." Dickenson v. Maine Public Service Company, 223 A.2d 435, 438 (Me. 1968); Gilman v. Somerset Farmers Cooperative Telephone Co., 129 Me. 243, 247; 151 A. 440 (1930).  In Small Point Water Co., Request for Determination of Public Utility Status, Docket No. 88-183, Order (Jan. 3, 1989) at 4, we stated: If these statutory definitions [defining "water works" and "water utility" in a manner parallel to the definitions of "telephone line" and "telephone utility"] were all that governed a determination of public utility status, then the SPWC would be a public utility subject to Commission jurisdiction. The Law Court and the Commission, in past decisions, however, have made it clear that before an entity will be regulated as a public utility it must, in addition to the statutory definitions, satisfy the so-called "public use" test. A utility must be devoted to a public use before it will be subject to regulation. Gilman v. Somerset Farmers Co-operative Telephone Company, 129 Me. 243, 151 A. 440 (1930); Public Utilities Commission v. A.R. Wright Co., 36 P.U.R. NS 336 (Me. P.U.C. 1940).
. . . . .
          TWC is not using a new technology (cable modem service), but it is deploying a relatively new technology in a new manner. Our conclusion that the limited offering of this service does not make TWC a telephone utility at this time is consistent with the legislative mandate that regulation should encourage the development and deployment of new technologies. A. Service Description and Requirement; Rates

In the June 22 Order, we proposed that Bell Atlantic and all other ILECs (the independent telephone companies or ITCs), in their roles as providers of interexchange service in Maine, offer a special service and retail rate for ISPs that would represent a substantial discount from existing retail toll rates. The service would also provide Bell Atlantic and the other ILECs with a more appropriate level of revenue than the amounts BA-ME has “received” as “local” reciprocal compensation (which actually are payments by BA to Brooks) under Brooks’s interpretation of the interconnection agreement between Brooks and Bell Atlantic. We also proposed that the service be available on a wholesale basis to other IXCs.

. . .

In its comments of July 14, 1999, Bell Atlantic proposed a service (labeled Single Number Service/Hubbed Primary Rate ISDN, or SNS/PRI) essentially identical to that proposed by the Commission, except for price.17 As under the Commission’s proposal, the SNS/PRI service would use numbers that would be toll-free to end-user 17The SNS/PRI service configuration uses advanced intelligent network (AIN) database capability and is therefore technically superior to circuit-switched 800 service customers. Each ISP could be assigned one (or more) 7-digit number within the “500” prefix.18 There would be no need to use any NXX codes within the 207 area code.19 The SNS/PRI service is an interexchange service, and the rate is an interexchange rate, for traffic that the Commission has found is interexchange. It is also a retail service offered to ISPs. The rate to ISPs will be flat. There will be no usage component (per-minute or otherwise). The subscribers to the rate will be ISPs, not individual customers of ISPs. The service is an inward (called party pays) service; ISP customers would be able to call the “500” numbers without paying toll charges.

. . .
TAMs [Telephone Association of Maine] exceptions also note that the June 22, 1999 Order stated that “the rate would not be available to ISPs that offer voice services over the Internet.” TAM states that it:

believes this to mean that no customer subscribing to the service may do so for the purpose of carrying voice traffic. TAM is not aware of anything in the proposal that would prevent a company other than an ISP from subscribing to this service.
TAM then asks whether the Commission intends that the service should only be used by ISPs.

We do intend that the service be available only to ISPs. That limitation should appear in Bell Atlantic’s terms and conditions. 35-A M.R.S.A. § 7101(4) justifies a special rate for connecting to the Internet. It does not justify a similar special rate for ordinary toll traffic.

TAM then raises questions about the enforceability of the limitation. We agree that enforceability may be a difficult problem, and we expect the parties to address this in the collaborative process that also will address compensation.

 We believe that a reasonable policy as a starting point is that ISPs that offer Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) should not be permitted to subscribe to the SNS/PRI service and rate. By "offering," we mean marketing and/or providing software for VoIP. If it is feasible to segregate VoIP traffic, we could alter that policy. We doubt if it is possible to enforce such a policy against end users who, on their own, obtain and use VoIP software.

6. ORDER New England Telephone and Telegraph Company d/b/a Bell Atlantic-Maine, the independent incumbent local exchange carriers of Maine IXCs that are parties to the case that intend to offer SNS/PRI or similar service, and the Commission Advisory Staff assigned to this case to engage in a collaborative process for resolution of questions having to do with compensation between Bell Atlantic and the independent ILECs, the question of whether there are technical problems in offering the service at some independent ILEC switches, and the question of restricting such service to uses other than Voice over Internet Protocol. For the latter purpose, the Advisors may request information from other parties in this case and from outside persons. The Hearing Examiner shall establish a schedule for the collaborative process, which shall not exceed six months. Trials and Deployments


Digital Divide

Cable Open Access

Wifi Security

  • Nantucket
  • AKMA
  • AKMA's Blog (An account of sitting on a bench outside a library, and being approached by a police officer who told AKMA to stop and move on, on the grounds of theft of service, informing AKMA that the police department had just been briefed on the issue by the Secret Service).
  • So Weirdly Wrong (Aug 22, 2004)
  • For Clarity Sake (Aug 23, 2004)
  • Ironies Never Cease (Aug 24, 2004)
  • End of Story (Aug 25, 2004)
  • Case Closed! Closed? (Sept 7, 2004) : Photo of Article :
  • Flickr PhotosAtheneum Exterior : Facade : Plan of Building : Bench :
  • Busted for Using Library Wifi outside Library, Slashdot Sept 1, 2004
  • Rogue Cop Invents Anti Wifi Laws Shakes Down Man of Cloth, Boing Boing (Aug 24, 2004)
  • Weirdly Wrong thread: Stealing a library's Wifi, LibraryLaw Blog (Aug 26, 2004)
  • mama


  • Department of Telecommunications and Cable to Hold Verizon Service Quality Hearings in Western Massachusetts, MASS 6/5/2009
  • © Cybertelecom ::