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."
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
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