Where Cellular Networks Don't Exist, People Are Building Their Own

New submitter TechCurmudgeon writes: According to a story at Wired, towns in Mexico that aren't served by the nation's telecom monopoly are taking matters in their own hands with the help of a non-profit and open source technology. "Strategically ignored by Mexico's major telecoms, Yaee is putting itself on the mobile communications grid with the help of a Oaxaca-based telecommunications non-profit called Rhizomatica." A locally-made tower is the backbone of Yaee's first cellular network. The town's network is composed of two antennas and an open-source base station from a Canadian company called NuRAN. Once Yaee gets the tower installed and the network online, its 500 citizens will, for the first time, be able to make cell phone calls from home, and for cheaper rates than almost anywhere else in Mexico.

Comments

what about spectrums rights?

[schlachter]

i imagine if you did this in the usa you'd get sued for using spectrums you don't own. does anyone care in mexico?

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd imagine some of the cartels might if they use this network to resist them.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[CrimsonAvenger]

i imagine if you did this in the usa you'd get sued for using spectrums you don't own. does anyone care in mexico?

In point of fact, the company that sold this town its base-station has legal rights to the spectrum they're selling, granted by the Mexican government.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[ITRambo]

The linked article states "Armed with an experimental concession from the Mexican government that grants Rhizomatica access to coveted cellular spectrum all over the country," So, yes existing mobile companies care in Mexico. The government is not catering to them, but to the needs of it's citizens in sparsely populated areas. NIce.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd imagine some of the cartels might if they use this network to resist them.

Which will be an ongoing problem into the foreseeable future until the western world wakes up, stops making excuses, and legalizes recreational drug use.

If the drug prohibition actually worked, the Zetas and others wouldn't have the funds to buy those rifles and grenades. It isn't working. Time to recognize that and move on to something that might work. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. The worst insanity is institutionalized insanity.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

The linked article states "Armed with an experimental concession from the Mexican government that grants Rhizomatica access to coveted cellular spectrum all over the country," So, yes existing mobile companies care in Mexico. The government is not catering to them, but to the needs of it's citizens in sparsely populated areas. NIce.

And that is why it won't work in USA, because the Government (including the local) is paid by the big companies, so they will not allow this to happen.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[c]

i imagine if you did this in the usa you'd get sued for using spectrums you don't own.

I imagine if you did this in the USA, you'd get sued for not waiting for the nearest local incumbent to provide the service.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny part is this isn't entirely accurate. I recall colorado and washington reporting that they didn't get near as much as they thought from the taxing of marijuana.

No one wants to pay a taxes on top of an already high price for something you can already get from your bestest pal down the street. But let's legalize and see if this will be true elsewhere. Maybe it will bankrupt the cartels and make them die in a fire, maybe it will only make them more aggressive since they're dealing with new competitors

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[SternisheFan]

Crime has gone down dramatically since pot was made legal in Colorado.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny part is this isn't entirely accurate. I recall colorado and washington reporting that they didn't get near as much as they thought from the taxing of marijuana.

No one wants to pay a taxes on top of an already high price for something you can already get from your bestest pal down the street. But let's legalize and see if this will be true elsewhere. Maybe it will bankrupt the cartels and make them die in a fire, maybe it will only make them more aggressive since they're dealing with new competitors

The funny part is, tax revenue was never brought up except by you. Gangs using contraband as a source of revenue was. This is what you failed to address, through either deliberate deception or an atrocious level of reading comprehension.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[bhcompy]

There's always something illegal to profit from. Take away drugs and you still have guns and human slaves(sex or otherwise). I don't hear you saying anything about legalizing more guns or slaves. Insanity is saying that "well, they're doing it, so we should just let them do it legally" and expecting that it will somehow end at the first thing you give in on.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[barbariccow]

I recall colorado and washington reporting that they didn't get near as much as they thought from the taxing of marijuana.

I've heard this topic discussed on radio. The conclusion was that Colorado had to set the "expectation" very high in the bill, otherwise if they exceeded that number they would have "overtaxed" and had to surrender the money. It is future-proofing it.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[IcyWolfy]

According to the latest Dec 2014 Reports in Colorado, they brought in $44 million for the time period 2014-01 to 2014-11.
Which although less than the planned 65 million (Nov brought in $7m so Dec could bring the total to $52 assuming monthly upward trend continues), is still a lot of revenue to fund schools, improve infrastructure and enforcement.

Though one still has to wonder how many cartels own pot dispensaries now :D

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[afidel]

The other thing is that they are also freeing up a tremendous amount of tax dollars from the general fund by not arresting, trying, and housing non-violent drug offenders. My guess would be those savings absolutely dwarf the tax revenue. Also there's a societal benefit, fewer people labelled as criminals means more people able to access gainful employment outside menial entry level jobs which should lead to a higher GDP.

Re: what about spectrums rights?

[O('_')O_Bush]

I am all for legalizing cannabis. I have no interest in legalising heroine, crack, meth, PCP, etc. I'd rather abusers spend time in jail than around me and mine. We have to draw a line somewhere, and crossing that line is how the black market makes money. Taking away that line altogether is akin to anarchy.

Re: what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Denverite here, there have been at least a few MJ outlets linked to Columbian cartels, and some gangs have taken to growing cannabis in the forests illegally, hoping to disguise their activities with the smokescreen (pun intended) created by the legal stuff. Most of the weed crossing from Colorado to other states is a result of them.

Some say it's so cheap, in part due to the botanical efforts, high purity fertilizer and controlled conditions, to grow the super potent stuff here that it's being smuggled back into Mexico, of all places.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[3.5 stripes]

In fact, human slavery and drugs are exactly the same thing, silly OP for not realizing that transporting small amounts of naturally occurring mostly inert substances is exactly the same as transporting human cargo for slavery, in fact I just saw some guy at the airport get stopped with three human slaves stuffed up his ass in a condom.

TLDR; you dumb.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

"fewer people labelled as criminals means more people able to access gainful employment outside menial entry level jobs"

Really? How does this work, exactly? Most employers still drug test, even for marijuana, so if you want a job, you STILL can't smoke. I agree you save with less arrests, trying, and housing those offenders, but you won't see people who insist on smoking pot going out and getting most jobs.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

i imagine if you did this in the usa you'd get sued for using spectrums you don't own.

I imagine if you did this in the USA, you'd get sued for not waiting for the nearest local incumbent to provide the service.

SOCIALIZMS! BURN IT WITH FIRE!

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Em Adespoton]

"fewer people labelled as criminals means more people able to access gainful employment outside menial entry level jobs"

Really? How does this work, exactly? Most employers still drug test, even for marijuana, so if you want a job, you STILL can't smoke. I agree you save with less arrests, trying, and housing those offenders, but you won't see people who insist on smoking pot going out and getting most jobs.

Hmm? The only jobs I've ever seen that drug test for cannabis use were factory jobs and menial entry level jobs. That's hardly "most employers". Considering the fact that cannabis is legal in those states and is used for medical purposes globally, I think this issue is significantly smaller than you're indicating. I don't know that I'd want someone toking up just before operating heavy machinery of course, and smoking during working hours is about as good an idea as drinking during working hours, but what people do on their own time is generally not HR's concern, for most employers.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Opportunist]

Really? If my company started drug testing I'd be SO out of there in a minute. Not 'cause I smoke (sadly, this wonderful herb does little for me) but because it's none of their fucking business what I do in my spare time. Unless someone comes drunk/stoned to work, it's exactly NONE of their business.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Opportunist]

For a moment I was tempted to post "pics or didn't happen", until I realized that I'd have given reason for the first on-topic goatse link.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Trailer Trash]

The other thing is that they are also freeing up a tremendous amount of tax dollars from the general fund by not arresting, trying, and housing non-violent drug offenders. My guess would be those savings absolutely dwarf the tax revenue. Also there's a societal benefit, fewer people labelled as criminals means more people able to access gainful employment outside menial entry level jobs which should lead to a higher GDP.

Exactly! People don't seem to realize that jailing someone hurts the country twice - first in the direct costs to jail them ($20K/year and up) and second in the lost productivity since they can't contribute to the GDP. We have a GDP of $17T with 350M people. Or, a GDP of $17,000,000M with 350M people which works out to $48,500 per person. If jail costs the low end of $20K per year we're paying 2.5 times that much in lost productivity. The costs are staggering. Of course not everybody in jail would contribute to the GDP but there's no reason to believe that pot smokers wouldn't.

We need to seriously take that into consideration when looking at the best options to punish people for crimes, and when looking at what activities need to be punished in the first place.

Re: what about spectrums rights?

[Opportunist]

I'm torn between agreeing on the topic of what drugs to approve and which ones to keep illegal, but I can't agree to that statement: Somewhere you have to draw the line.

No you don't. There is no inherent logic in this statement. You do not HAVE to draw the line all the time somewhere. And even if you decide that you want to draw the line somewhere, why does my line have to be at the same place?

Moderation sure is a good thing and I tend to disagree with most radical, all-out suggestions, they're usually going overboard with something. But saying that WE we have to draw the line somewhere is simply not true. WE don't. You might, but who said I do? We also don't HAVE TO because, again, where you draw your line is by no means where I'd put mine.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[causality]

We need to seriously take that into consideration when looking at the best options to punish people for crimes, and when looking at what activities need to be punished in the first place.

My way of looking at things: a crime is an act which has a victim.

Re: what about spectrums rights?

[causality]

I am all for legalizing cannabis. I have no interest in legalising heroine, crack, meth, PCP, etc.

I'd rather abusers spend time in jail than around me and mine.

We have to draw a line somewhere, and crossing that line is how the black market makes money. Taking away that line altogether is akin to anarchy.

Stealing it without paying for it would still be a crime. Fraud would still be a crime. It wouldn't be anarchy, no not nearly.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[afidel]

The only job I've ever been drug tested for was one requiring clearance.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[ciaby]

i imagine if you did this in the usa you'd get sued for using spectrums you don't own. does anyone care in mexico?

Well, we do have licenses ;) And we're actually pushing for more spectrum, right now. Source: I'm _the_ Italian guy mentioned in TFA.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[theshowmecanuck]

I'd imagine some of the cartels might if they use this network to resist them.

Ha! You could use the same phrase to describe the situation in Canada and the USA wrt the phone companies.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[ArhcAngel]

Which is why the FCC needs to take back all the spectrum and assign one company to build out a network using the whole spectrum while carriers sell service and lease capacity from the company maintaining the network. Basically make all service providers MVNO's. Much like deregulated electric providers are today. It aint perfect but it's better than what we have now.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Holi]

Not sure about Colorado but I know in Washington they screwed up by not allowing home cultivation and not licensing enough growers so price gouging happened. I mean who is gonna pay $840 for an ounce.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[theshowmecanuck]

The reality is the cartels will legitimize and become legal corporations. Then the current cartel bosses will become legitimate respectable businessmen, just like the owners of many major liquor companies did after American prohibition in the 1930s. As an example, review of the Bronfman family of Montreal and their company, Seagrams, at one point the largest distilling company in the world. As an aside, it is also a good example, and a sad one, of the descendants completely fucking things up. Regardless, legalizing marijuana will create another case of history repeating itself.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

#1 - Dude, you wanna go mug somebody?
#2 - Dude, I'm so baked I don't think I could piss. Oops, I was wrong, dude. Hehehhehehe. That's wet, dude!
#1 - Hheheheheheheheh

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Firethorn]

Take away drugs and you still have guns and human slaves(sex or otherwise).

True, without some major, radical reforms there will always be something illegal to profit from. But the next part is a fallacy. You seem to be assuming the guns and human slave markets are currently underfilled and able to absorb all the criminals currently employed in the drug trade. I'd argue that within market inefficiencies they're all exploited to about the same level of profit. IE if we can 'get rid of' the drug trade and the criminals wanted to stay criminals in black market type organized crime, the shift towards trafficking in humans, guns, and other illegal substances would leave the markets over-saturated with workers, leading to a severe drop in income. More logically, at least some would go more or less legit, because crime would no longer pay enough to justify it.

As a secondary issue, at least in the USA/Mexico, you also have to realize that for the most part the gun trade is predicated on the drug trade. They're buying the illegal guns to protect their illegal product. Take away the illegal product and they no longer have the resources to purchase the illegal guns, nor the justification of product to protect to do so. Of course, I'd also legalize the guns...

In the end, crime seems a little less attractive and fewer people get into it.

To continue on - with drugs I see primary drug use as a 'victimless crime'. 'Most' of the criminality and other downsides arise from the very fact that it's illegal. Slavery, kidnapping, extortion, theft, etc... All have victims. Those need to stay illegal.

But we could, quite reasonably legalize, tax, and regulate drugs. Treat addiction as a medical issue. Work to mitigate the harm drugs do to society in the most effective fashion possible, which is not prohibition as the war on drugs has shown.

Re: what about spectrums rights?

[Firethorn]

Why not legalize Heroin? Or perhaps I should specify 'legalize in an extremely regulated fashion'. Studies have shown that simply giving addicts sustaining amounts* is cheaper and more effective than trying to dry them out cold turkey. Indeed, most are able to live productive lives while addicted so long as they have a secure source of the drug.

The UK managed to keep heroin dealers to a minimum for decades by simply defining heroin addiction as a medical concern and providing clean medical grade doses for free to addicts. The dealers couldn't survive economically in such a market(you'd get half a dozen who'd try a year, generating about half a dozen addicts each). It's when they ended that policy that the number of dealers and addicts skyrocketed, which costs the country far more than simply handing out doses to the addicts.

Legalize and regulate: Marijuana, Heroine, Cocaine, and LSD and I think that you'd find that your problems with Crack, meth, PCP, and such would mostly disappear.
Consider that during prohibition the most popular alcohols transitioned from low potency wine & beer to easy to smuggle hard liquor.
Crack and Meth are products of the war on drugs. Meth is a substitute for crack/cocaine because it can be made 'anywhere'. Crack was developed trying to extend cocaine(more hits per kilo), as well as make it easier to use.

Prohibition tends to lead to harder substances, because more concentrated doses are easier to smuggle and you tend to be punished by weight/volume, not the actual amount of drug. Put some MJ into brownies and the police will happily weigh up the brownies and charge you with having a kilo of MJ when it's actually only a few ounces.

*IE not really enough to get high, but enough to satisfy the addiction.

Re: what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of crime has gone down tremendously?

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[cusco]

Actually legal pot in Washington is cheaper and higher quality than what was available before. My only complaint is that I don't really care for the high-potency stuff, I prefer to smoke a joint or a bowl and then go out and **DO** something, weed the garden, paint a bedroom, go for a walk, whatever. Don't really like being so stoned I'm non-functional. Give me a baggie of leaf and I'm a lot happier, but then I'm not typical either.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure where you were buying your weed from, but pre-legalization I was getting decent weed in Washington for around $250/oz before it begame legal. Quite a few of my friends still buy from dealers rather than dispensaries because dispensaries (at least as of a few months ago) were outrageous.

Apprently it's still cheaper for MMJ patients, although since I'm not a patient in Washington I can't say for sure. I know that my prices haven't (and shouldn't) change in Oregon for the patients, but regular folks are going to pay out the nose. Probably.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

"fewer people labelled as criminals means more people able to access gainful employment outside menial entry level jobs"

Really? How does this work, exactly? Most employers still drug test, even for marijuana, so if you want a job, you STILL can't smoke. I agree you save with less arrests, trying, and housing those offenders, but you won't see people who insist on smoking pot going out and getting most jobs.

Hmm? The only jobs I've ever seen that drug test for cannabis use were factory jobs and menial entry level jobs. That's hardly "most employers". Considering the fact that cannabis is legal in those states and is used for medical purposes globally, I think this issue is significantly smaller than you're indicating. I don't know that I'd want someone toking up just before operating heavy machinery of course, and smoking during working hours is about as good an idea as drinking during working hours, but what people do on their own time is generally not HR's concern, for most employers.

Most hospitals test for drug usage, both at employment and randomly afterwards, and hospitals are major employers in every community.
Because so many of their employees are on some version of 24 hr on-call, there are often restrictions on off-hours alcohol use as well as no-doping.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Coren22]

That would be so much better than Verizon (you buy the phone from us and no one else) Wireless.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[sjames]

I doubt the cartels can compete with legal growers. They depend on being able to get a huge markup for the black market.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[youngone]

The only job I've been drug tested for is my current one. The factory guys are all drug tested randomly, and management decided that it was only fair if everyone had to be tested too. I'm not sure if it has any relevance, but the company is American owned, (but I'm not in America). Luckily for me my drug of choice is made with water, grain, hops and yeast.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[afidel]

Huh? I bought my Galaxy S5 Developer Edition directly from Samsung and use it on Verizon with no issues, we also buy iphones from Apple and use them on Verizon without any problems. The main issue with Verizon is that you need a phone that supports their bands, which until recently was only available through them as they tended to be one offs, now Qualcomm is including almost all bands in universal chips and the 2g/3g chips tend to have support for both GSM and CDMA. Now I will grant you, before LTE brought SIM cards to Verizons provisioning process the only way to effectively get a phone activated was to buy it through them so the IMEI was in their supported database, but these days it's rather easy.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Em Adespoton]

When a significant portion of your community is employed by hospitals, you've got a serious problem. The point about not allowing drug use for on-call employees is always good policy; that still eliminates very few jobs from the available job pool (although high-stress jobs like those found at hospitals sometimes drive people to alcohol and THC in order to help them unwind).

"no gainful employment beyond menial labor" is a far cry from "can't work for the local hospital".

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

The cartels are involved in a hell of a lot more than marijuana and I don't see people going to legalize cocaine, heroin, and meth. But the stupidity of the American public is a difficult thing to gauge. I wouldn't have thought there were that many people stupid enough to become addicts in the first place.

Re: what about spectrums rights?

[SternisheFan]

Sept 21, 2014: When Colorado cautiously legalized recreational marijuana, critics strongly warned it would lead to more crime throughout the state. But, in what could easily be considered a big slap-on-the-face to all marijuana haters, the overall crime rate actually plummeted. As reported by the state’s official website, crime data for Denver, the hub of legal pot sales in the state, shows that murders, assaults, rapes, burglaries, and other violent have crimes actually declined during the first three months of the year, compared with the same period for 2013.

Though the overall reduction was only 10 percent, the impact is quite visible, claim proponents of marijuana consumption. According to the data obtained, homicides went down from 17 to 8, a massive 53 percent drop, automobile break-ins went down from 2,317 to 1,477 (36 percent), and sexual assaults from diminished to 95 from 110 (14 percent).

http://www.inquisitr.com/14900...

Violent Crime Down Since Colorado Legalized Marijuana

When Colorado legalized recreational marijuana, critics of the idea warned it would lead to more crime throughout the state. But the impact has been just the opposite so far in the state’s largest city, which has seen violent crime go down.

Crime data for Denver, the hub of legal pot sales in the state, shows murders, assaults, rapes, burglaries and other violent crimes declined during the first three months of the year, compared with the same period for 2013.

Homicides went down from 17 to 8 (a 53% drop), automobile break-ins from 2,317 to 1,477 (down 36%) and sexual assaults from 110 to 95 (down 14%). Overall, violent and property crimes dropped more than 10% from last year to this year during the first quarter.

Two types of property crime did go up—arson from 20 incidents to 47 (a 135% jump) and larceny from 2,133 to 2,287 (up 7%).

http://www.allgov.com/news/unu...

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is the reason why all major companies in state should drug test much more. I'd you be jobless than a druggie fucking up my stuff.

Re: what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

the crime of getting busted for possession of pot.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to seriously take that into consideration when looking at the best options to punish people for crimes

That's correct. Instead of putting people in jail for being in possession of illegal drugs, they should be caned and/or flogged.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[rea1l1]

"And that is the reason why all major companies in state should drug test much more. I'd you be jobless than a druggie fucking up my stuff."

Looks like you don't need any help with that.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Crime has gone down dramatically since pot was made legal in Colorado.

Sure. And you could lower crime a lot more by legalizing heroin. Even less crime if the government hands over free heroin to anyone who wants it. (No limit on amount, other than inject the first dose before you can have another free one.) Crime would drop becaue of:

1. Drug use/sale/transportation is no longer criminal - instant drop in crime rate
2. Easy availablitiy, no need to burgle for dope money any more
3. People passed out can't commit crimes no matter how little they care about law
4.Last but not least: Crime rate goes down as the population dwindle!

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt the cartels can compete with legal growers. They depend on being able to get a huge markup for the black market.

Lets say Mexico legalizes growing. Now try to grow something, in direct competition with cartels who kill more people than war. You might as well try to compete with whatever legal businesses the mafia controls. Not paying the "protection money" is also legal . . .

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[SternisheFan]

Heroin comes in pill form and is how many teens get introduced to it. When they can no longer afford the pills is when they inject the street drug.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[sjames]

All irrelevant since we're talking about price competition in the U.S. where it has been legalized.

However, if more states legalize, the cartels will turn on themselves in a fight for what market remains open to them.

Note how in the U.S. organized crime has moved on since the repeal of prohibition.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[beastofburdon]

I cannot agree more.

Try reading the article first

[lommetennis]

"Armed with an experimental concession from the Mexican government that grants Rhizomatica access to coveted cellular spectrum all over the country, Bloom is slowly but surely bringing coverage "

Until they knock it down.

[Shinare]

And blame it on the Mexican drug cartels.

..cheaper than almost anywhere else in Mexico

[Bearhouse]

Well, that's not surprising since it's a virtual monopoly controlled by one of the world's richest men; Carlos Slim.

{snip} Telmex, of which 49.1% is owned by Slim and his family, charges among the highest usage fees in the world, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:..cheaper than almost anywhere else in Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

Is he related to Carlos Danger?

Re:..cheaper than almost anywhere else in Mexico

[NotDrWho]

There's a lesson in this. If you want your kid to grow up to be a decent person, don't give him a name like "Carlos Slim."

Re:..cheaper than almost anywhere else in Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and also related to Slim Shady.

Re:..cheaper than almost anywhere else in Mexico

[robotito]

You know, Telmex haven't changed the fees since like forever, same price since I can remember, just the local tax... the company will eventually have a nice fees

Re:..cheaper than almost anywhere else in Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

Telmex got a bad reputation on its own right, but as a Telmex subscriber myself, I can say rates haven't gone up one cent for probably over ten years now.

I'm getting now 10 Mbps through fiber on the most basic plan. It's quite good.

Also, Mexico got rid of long distance charges beginning this year, so all Mexico is a local call now. "Unlimited" national calling is implicit on any phone service, so Telmex is now including 1000 minutes to the US and Canada and 350 to the rest of the world.

Re:..cheaper than almost anywhere else in Mexico

[rea1l1]

Sounds like Mexico and the US aren't all that different.

Monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure why TFS mentions "monopoly". I have the choice of at least 4 different wireless vendors where I live - and it's not even in a large city. I think someone needs to consult their Webster's.

Re:Monopoly?

[suutar]

Since TFS does not contain that word, I assume you mean TFA, which uses it in only one place. So which part of Mexico do you live in?

Re:Monopoly?

[tepples]

Unless Anonymous Coward meant that there is no monopoly because customers can always choose to live in another provider's service area.

Re:Monopoly?

[Stewie241]

Hmmm... I must be reading a different summary or am working with a different definition of TFS. When I read the summary, it says: 'According to a story at Wired, towns in Mexico that aren't served by the nation's telecom monopoly'.

Re:Monopoly?

[suutar]

ah, you are correct. I was looking inside the quote.

I still wonder which part of Mexico AC lives in that has 4 providers.

Re:Monopoly?

[TechCurmudgeon]

Hmmm... I must be reading a different summary or am working with a different definition of TFS. When I read the summary, it says: 'According to a story at Wired, towns in Mexico that aren't served by the nation's telecom monopoly'.

You are correct that I used the word "monopoly" in the summary when maybe I shouldn't have, the article itself mentioned telecoms in the plural. Is it more like the situation we have here in the US with Comcast and Time-Warner? Even if you have a handful of competitors it makes no difference if they've already agreed not to poach each others' territories or no one is reaching out to the outliers.

We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allowed

[caseih]

This sort of thing could never work in the US or Canada. I'm sure there are places where cell networks don't exist such as mountainous, remote areas. However this technology could never be deployed here, even on a small scale, because we've decided the spectrum shall be privately owned (which is absurd), and therefore the same companies that won't put up cell towers in certain out of the way places will also sue the life out of anyone who would dare put up a tower, even if they have no presence there whatsoever. And legally they would be exactly right. The spectrum should never ever have been sold off. Only licensed and regulated to prevent conflicts. But what's done is done. We all have to live with the consequences of this and many other short-sighted actions.

Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow

[bill_mcgonigle]

The spectrum should never ever have been sold off. Only licensed and regulated to prevent conflicts.

But the purpose of a government is to privatize profits and socialize risks. Other arrangements don't require violence to back them.

But what's done is done. We all have to live with the consequences of this and many other short-sighted actions.

There's never been a permanent government in the history of the human race.

Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow

[Anonymous Coward]

This sort of thing could never work in the US or Canada. I'm sure there are places where cell networks don't exist such as mountainous, remote areas. However this technology could never be deployed here, even on a small scale,

/quote?

You mean like this? http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/02/what-we-learned-running-a-mobile-network-at-burning-man/

The spectrum wasn't sold off, it was licensed.

Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow

[Richard_at_work]

because we've decided the spectrum shall be privately owned (which is absurd)

Not privately owned, licensed to private entities - subtle but huge difference.

Do you really want to live in a world where there are no limits on spectrum usage? Loudest device wins? We wouldn't even have wifi...

Open source base station?

[dbc]

Gee... I didn't find links to the schematics and source code on their web site. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough? Where are they?

Or..... maybe it's yet another click-bait article abusing the term "open source'.

Re:Open source base station?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the article(s) on the subject, they don't claim that NuRan's offering an OpenSource solution- only that there's OpenSource in the backhaul. Perhaps if you'd be a little less quick on the gun about "clickbait" and a bit more willing to do a bit research, you'd not look like an ass. Oh, snap, this is /. after all...

Re:Open source base station?

[ciaby]

Gee... I didn't find links to the schematics and source code on their web site. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough? Where are they?

Or..... maybe it's yet another click-bait article abusing the term "open source'.

You're right, we are a bit messy right now. Code (rhizomatica specific): https://github.com/rhizomatica Open source GSM code: http://openbsc.osmocom.org/tra... Anything else I can help you with? :)

Re:Open source base station?

[dbc]

Anything else I can help you with?

I will look at it and let you know. I am happy to see there is actual source code. Too many projects in RF-land claim to be open source, but are not.

Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow

[Archangel Michael]

This sort of thing could never work in the US or Canada.

This sort of thing CAN work in the US, if we change a couple regulations and set up a procedure to accomplish it in an orderly manner. It doesn't have to be all that complicated.

1) Is the area being served by any cell company? If the answer is no, proceed to #2
2) Community organizes and petitions for an FCC waiver to set up a cell tower on specified frequencies.
3) Cell companies can either respond by setting up a tower* or allowing the process to go forward, OR present data showing it is covered adequately (TBD)
4) FCC Grants waiver and monitors the new cell tower as needed.

*Must be maintained permanently to the "AVERAGE" capability of all cell towers owned by said company in the USA. Defined properly by regulation etc.

Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow

[kamapuaa]

Mexico also sells spectrum. Did you even read the article, or did you just start ranting?

Haha are you serious?

[ArchieBunker]

When the daily news story is about the police finding a duffel bag of severed heads or corpses hanging from a bridge you might have bigger problems than unlicensed communications equipment.

ignored

[Anonymous Coward]

"Strategically ignored by Mexico's major telecoms"

Can someone elaborate?

Re:ignored

[Svartalf]

Sort of like Rural America is strategically ignored by the main players for Internet Access. Best play so far is Verizon...so long as you're nearby a primary corridor for LTE, that is. Otherwise, you get the dubious joy of Satellite Fraudband, 2/3G, or dialup. To put it in would be only as a loss leader play because the overall expense of putting in tower coverage versus payback unless you're talking a highway corridor is a bad picture in the bean counter sense of things. It's a dead loss. I very strongly suspect the same story for Mexico out around the area they're doing this...so, strategically, they ignore them.

Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow

[Svartalf]

They NEVER read TFA. Ever.

You just Know

[Anonymous Coward]

when the infra structure gets big enough for their to be enough profit in it Corporations will demand it be handed over to them.

Re:You just Know

[ciaby]

when the infra structure gets big enough for their to be enough profit in it Corporations will demand it be handed over to them.

Unfortunately for you, we don't really make any kind of profit. It's a non-profit organization, and the license is directly tied to it (as in, we can't make a business out of it). You know, it's not like the whole world has to be like the US :-P

Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow

[fermion]

Another thing to consider it that is not as necessary. For many in developing world there is no landline, or at least affordable landline.

I remember about 20 years ago I knew many more people in South America who had cell phones that in the US. I, at that time, did not have a cell phone. OTOH, many of those in SA that had cell phones did not have land lines because the lines either did run into the mountains, or the land line was too expensive. In particular, the local service would not sell what we call residential lines, instead requiring the higher business rates.

What they did have outside the US were reletively strong repeaters, and many had then. The cell phones would work in urban areas, then fade, then work again when they were in range of the home signal booster.

Now, as in many places outside the US, the coverage is excellent and one is never very far away from a shop that will top off your data.

Medical meth vs. medical Heroin

[tepples]

I have no interest in legalising heroine, crack, meth, PCP, etc.

Medical meth exists under the name Desoxyn (methamphetamine hydrochloride). There's also medical coke. So why is Heroin (diamorphine) illegal while more potent opioids like oxycodone are legal to prescribe?

Re:Medical meth vs. medical Heroin

[Coren22]

Heck, meth analogs have been being prescribed for years to treat ADHD. The child's response to amphetamines is the primary indication of the disorder; people who have ADHD calm down when on amphetamines, people without get hyped up.

Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow

[tepples]

Not privately owned, licensed to private entities - subtle but huge difference.

How often must these licenses be renewed, and how much does such renewal cost? A perpetual, sublicensable license is practically indistinguishable from ownership. It's like saying all land is rented from the state and property tax is the rent paid to the owner.

A victim can be manufactured

[tepples]

I imagine that for nonviolent drug offenses, the victim is the taxpayers who pay into the health care fund of the social welfare system who now have to pay to treat the complications of use of these unsafe substances. Likewise for infringement of copyright in older works that are out of print, the victim is incumbent publishers who fail to realize revenue on newly published because potential customers have instead spent their entertainment budget on infringing copies of the older work. Victims for other allegedly "victimless" crimes can be invented in similar ways.

Re:A victim can be manufactured

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why pacifists who don't believe that victimless crimes should be violently punished also oppose collective medical solutions.

Re:A victim can be manufactured

[Firethorn]

I imagine that for nonviolent drug offenses, the victim is the taxpayers who pay into the health care fund of the social welfare system who now have to pay to treat the complications of use of these unsafe substances.

First, this justification could also be used to ban red meat and such. How far do you go? Especially when we don't have socialized medicine, meaning most of these types have to pay for their own treatment.

Second, as the calls to test those on welfare has shown, those on assistance are actually less likely to be using drugs.

Third, on the copyright issue - I've proposed in the past that if you take a work out of print long enough for it to not be generally available that you should lose your copyright, and that copyright in general should be for a far shorter time.

Re:A victim can be manufactured

[mccrew]

The victim might well be some poor fellow in Mexico who got gunned down by the cartel which supplies the drugs used in "nonviolent" drug offenses.

Re:A victim can be manufactured

[Trailer Trash]

The victim might well be some poor fellow in Mexico who got gunned down by the cartel which supplies the drugs used in "nonviolent" drug offenses.

Except that if drugs were legal the poor fellow wouldn't get gunned down. It's kind of fascinating to blame drugs for the problems that are actually caused by criminalization.

Re:A victim can be manufactured

[sjames]

Only if you can actually demonstrate a particular harm that exceeds other recreational activities they might do instead. For example, BASE jump of smoke a bowl and watch the game? Or perhaps Smoke a bowl or mow the lawn?

Beyond that, sure, some drugs can have rather nasty complications, particularly the poor quality ones on the bl;ack market. Others tend to be fairly harmless.

Then we shall manufacture their compensation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only fair.

I hurt some imaginary victim? Here's some imaginary dollars!

Judge: "you own us elventy billion for piracy"
You: "ok, it's eleventy billion worth of BitCoins"

Finally, a real use for BitCoins!

Re:Then we shall manufacture their compensation

[Coren22]

1 BTC = ~$500, so 11 bill BTC is WAY more than $11 bill

Now, if you want imaginary money, pay the bill with Monopoly money you print yourself.

Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow

[Holi]

Yet.

Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out K-net in Canada http://knet.ca/ . They are running a number of networks and have worked out a sub-concession with one of the operators there named Rogers so as to operate legally.

"taking matters INTO their own hands"

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid Americans and your prepositions. You don't "take matters IN your hands".

Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow

[Anonymous Coward]

There has yet to be a time where so few people were needed to monitor and control so many
(thanks to surveillance and weapon improvements) and so much else in life to draw attention away from it

Remember:
Governments ONLY change when rulers lose control/influence of the ruled (the ruled revolt via democratic vote, violent uprising or some other combination of);

Slashdot...

[Spugglefink]

Edits away upside down _ _ and _ _ (? and !) which totally ruined my joke. Slashdot tehsux0rz.