Slashdot Mirror
First Nations Want Cellphone Revenue
Peacenik45 writes "The CBC is reporting that First Nations in Manitoba want compensation for every cell phone signal that passes through their land because it violates their airspace. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs recently resolved to negotiate revenue sharing with Manitoba Telecom Services. Ovide Mercredi of the Grand Rapids First Nations says "When it comes to using airspace, it's like using our water and simply because there's no precedent doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do." This move may inspire First Nations in other provinces to follow suit."
Then they should pay for any cell phone signal originating from their territory, too.
And they should be charged for any rain water that evaporated from somewhere else.
Let's total up these charges...wow, looks like they come out even!
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
I believe that is the same line of reasoning that caused their genocide...
Allow me to state that I am fully in favor of the Native American Nations taking advantage of their status and sucking money away from the surrounding governments. They've had a pretty shitty 500 years, and if they want to take money from dumb white folk at casinos, and let those same folk dodge cigarette taxes, more power to them.
That being said, WTF? They are asserting a "property right" that has been rejected via common, statutory, and international law time and time again. A nation can control physical objects that enter their airspace, but not energy. It's like RFA/Radio Marti - nations may not like broadcasting radio waves into their territory, but there isn't dick-all they can do about it except bitch and moan and try to jam it. But in this case, jamming would be a cure worse than the cause - their own members would lose the same access.
I mean, are they serious?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
That's easy to answer! Of course they would like to set up their own cell phone repeaters and collect the roaming fees for anyone using a cell phone near them!
--jeffk++
ipv6 is my vpn
On first glance it sounds ridiculous; however there is some precedence in the monetization of air:
0 5.html.
. 0.pdf: www.pff.org/issues-pubs/books/060309dacaspectrum1. 0.pdf+lectro-magnetic+spectrum+auctioned&hl=en&ct= clnk&cd=1
-The state of New York has filed suit against Ohio for dumping pollution on them through the airwaves http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/mar/mar18a_
-A portion of the electro-magnetic spectrum is going to be auctioned off in the U.S.
"the spectrum is a national resource that should be managed".
PDF: www.pff.org/issues-pubs/books/060309dacaspectrum1
google cache: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:fH_s8JehCyEJ
If governments can make money off the spectrum then why not so-called "First Nation" governments? It really boils down to how much legal and economic authority Indians should have. And it deals with the ambiguity of a people who both want to claim their individuality and distinction from the rest of society, and still be apart of that society, especially when it comes to exploiting natural resources. It's pretty much politics as usual. Seems like the typical having-your-cake-and-eating-it-to mentality.
Spike: I just can't take all this mamby pamby boo-hooing about the bloody Indians.
Willow: The preferred term is...
Spike: You won. All right? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did, and he's not going around saying, "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it." The history of the world isn't people making friends. You had better weapons, and you massacred them. End of story.
It doesn't matter. It wasn't our generation, or our great great great great great grandparent's generation. But we're now paying for it like it was. And it's about time it stopped, because it is doing nobody any favours, least of all the native americans.
...Steve
They already get their check every month, now they are trying to milk out more. I have plenty of sympathy and outrage over the past of the way they were treated, but after living near a reservation for three years in the here and now I've let alot of that slide. A large chunk of these people are stuck in the welfare cycle and are just looking for handouts. This is just the latest in a long line of schemes they've been trying on the government to get back what was never taken from the living in the first place. Also it really depends on what ever agreement the particular reservation has with the federal government. They are not sovereign nations, nor are they exempt from federal law.
Denial is rarely a good solution.
...Steve
who sees where they are coming from? Okay, so I just skimmed the article, but don't most native Americans thing that everything is sacred in some way, including the air? Okay, yes, most of us will sit here and laugh about this, but think about it. You are brought up in a culture where everything is sacred. The water, the earth, the soil, the trees, the air. Someone from another culture upstream decides to build a damn that alters the water and how it flows. Most of us would argue they have a reason for compensation. We come in and decide to cut down their trees, they would want compensation. These to us are physical things that we can put monatary value on. But the natives are seeing it not as just a physical thing, but as a spiritual thing. Extending this thinking to the air waves is not that far of a stretch. And the thought of radio waves are invading their aerospace is actually a really good argument. Most countries that I know of require any device that operates that puts out any type of radio waves or electromagnetic field to be licensed and regulated. Broadcasters and radio operators must pay for braodcast licenses. If there is an Indian nation where we are sending radio waves through their aerospace without paying them a licensing fee, the idea of paying for compensation suddenly does not become so outragious.
What a bunch of horsesh*t.
While I agree the current system doesn't work (in fact, it's absolute garbage which likely exacerbates the problem), pretty much everything else you've said is crap, IMO. I've been to quite a few reserves in Manitoba, and I don't see very many silver spoons in people's mouths. There are plenty of reserves that are absolute holes, where residents don't even own the crappy thirty year old run-down trailers they live in (not allowed to own them on some reserves, from my understanding). No sewage, no garbage pick up, no pavement, mud, no jobs, a laissez faire attitude by the RCMP toward crime (hence lots of juvenile vandalism, arson etc.). What's the option? Move to the city and get a job? Kind of tough when the immediate assumption by too many people, yourself included (I'd guess), is "lazy Indian expecting free hand outs.".
AFAICT, it isn't "current land claims they are proposing", but existing agreements they want honoured. Personally, I want my government to keep its word, even if it costs me. Some of these treaties are fairly recent (government agreements with natives during the world wars to get them to fight etc).
And since when did non-violent civil disobedience become "terrorist antics". You might as well paint Rosa Parks with the same brush.
If 45% of your taxes are largely going to the Indians, you need a new accountant (either that, or I need yours).
being single, white, male and in my thirties, I can speak out, but I have no recourse, I want my government to honour its agreements. Who knows, it might help.
You have the ability to choose precisely to whom you pay rent. You can avoid really bad landlords, as well as landlords who would use, or you find out are using, your rent moneys in ways abhorrent to you. You have no such choice with the government. Additionally, when you pay rent, you receive in return a service you desire and are actively attempting to obtain (a place to stay.) When you pay property taxes, you receive what the government decides to give you; you have little (or no) control over your end. For instance, it is one thing for a taxpayer to receive the "service" of schooling if there are children in the house; it is entirely another when there aren't. It is one thing to pay a tax for television transponders if you watch broadcast television. It is entirely another if you don't. It is one thing to see religions exempted from property tax, thus increasing what you must pay, if you support religion. But if you don't... And so on.
So there are differences. The ability to do much about it, however, is questionable. The larger the area you live in, the less effective your vote is; likewise, the more you differ from the average citizen, the less powerful your vote is. Representative democracy as practiced in the US doesn't serve the minority except as an afterthought, or when cornered.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Well, let's see..
a) It's a local tax, not a "US law," and some localities may not have property tax. States specify maximum taxes, but not minimum.
b) You might as well ask "what's the difference between my power bill and my gas bill?" The answer is what you get for your money. You aren't paying the government to use your own property; you're paying them for the services within their jurisdiction -- usually schools, water, roads, police, streetlights, etc.
c) It's a TAX. Likewise, try not paying your income tax and see what happens. That doesn't mean you don't have a right to earn a living, but you *also* have an obligation to help maintain our society.
d) "What happens" is usually that a lein is placed against your property, and that lein must be paid if/when the property is sold or transferred. In some localities, the worst thing that happens is that your name is printed in the local paper. In others, sale is forced, in which case you still get all the money after the government takes its cut.
So how is that like rent again, where you have nothing to show for your money, cannot transfer posession of the asset, and are liable for damages?
People who say you don't "own" the property are using very narrow definitions of the word "own." It could be argued that you don't own anything, since there are no guarantees that someone else won't take it away, and you forfeit all of it when you die. Such definitions are both impractical and misleading.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
What does it mean to "own land"?
emt 377 emt 4
Nope, we're talking about Native Canadian reservations. Not that it changes the argument much, but it's good to get the country right
I'm actually originally from Manitoba, currently living in British Columbia. I'm not sure how it is down south, but here Native issues are a very complex and politically charged area in both provinces. I personally have trouble trying to separate reason from emotion, and my first instinct is often to think that it's a money grab. On one hand, many reservations are in dire financial need and the money could help them. On the other hand, I'm not sure such funds always go to where they are supposed to or are used in a manner that is really helpful.
There often still seems to be the feeling within Native communities that the Natives are owed for losses of the past. While there is no arguing that those losses were major, I'm not sure that maintaining that pattern of thinking is a strategy that will win out in the long term (or even in the short term). That feeling of being owed leads to the expectation that other people will take those troubled communities and fix them, but the fixing needs to come from within for it to work. Unfortunately, I fear that this airwaves thing is another knee-jerk "you owe us" reaction rather than one aimed at helping those communities from within. Hopefully I am wrong.
What weird area would that be, I wonder?
but in practical terms a landlord will be in a relative position of power in any such negotiation.
I don't know why you think so. If I talk to a salesman I don't consider him above me. I have a business offer, that's all. I'm not afraid of him. If he says no, it's his right, just as it is my right to say no. If we don't agree I will walk away, big deal.
It is often much easier for him go without a tenant than it is for you to go without somewhere to live.
Do not betray the fact that you never worked as a landlord. The ones that I know would laugh at this statement of yours. They spend 30% of their time sending reports to their bosses on how many units are rented and what are the prospects. If the number drops below a certain number they get kicked out - not that it's hard to find a replacement landlord these days... it's a largely unskilled job. Besides, you are free to return to him later and accept his offer, but he is not able to find you a week later and accept your offer. The renter has a tactical advantage.
You are just as free to try and renegotiate terms with the government.
I understand that you only restate your previous position, but your phrase is worth quoting :-)
Of course you do have another form of recourse with regard to government -- you do have a say in who makes up the government and what policies it pursues.
Huh? What country are you talking about here? Not the USA - the country of Compassionate Conservatives and Democrats Determined To Stop The War, I suppose? (I don't know what happens in .nz where you appear to be from; it could be a True Democracy for all I know.)
a government [...] still provides you with some means to renegotiate.
I would like to know some of them that still work. Soap, ballot and jury boxes have been tried to no effect. The last box is scary, and is not likely to help either. Got other ideas?
A government isn't inherently evil anymore than a landlord is.
A government has more control over you, including control that you personally haven't permitted the government to have - since you haven't signed any papers to that effect after you were born. Contracts with landlords are signed by you, and should be to mutual benefit of both parties, and they can be dissolved when they are no longer interesting. You can't dissolve a "contract" with your government, and this gives the government more chances to affect your life against your wishes.