Fine, then local municipalities should be allowed to establish their own publicly funded internet services without any interference from private service providers in the form of lawsuits because of "unfair" competition.
I have absolutely no problem with that. I would argue that they shouldn't be doing that without also opening up that last-mile infrastructure they're building to "all comers" (ie, if the taxpayers have paid for outside-plant for high speed bandwidth specifically to force competition against an incumbent carrier, then that fiber should be available for anyone who wants to compete against the incumbent carrier).
If a community has the financial resources, and the political will, to take that tack to solving the "lack of competition" angle, versus the usual "competitive wholesale access" angle (where TWC/Verizon/Comcast are forced to allow competitors to use their last mile), then that's a perfectly reasonable solution.
You don't need net neutrality for that. All you need is for the PUC/PSCs (for telcos) and the local Franchise Authorities (for cable) to mandate competitive wholesale access to last-mile facilities.
What you're trying to un-do in this case is decades of government assisted monopoly, so even the radical libertarian in me says that it's up to the government to regulate the "undoing of that damage". In order to renew their franchises, cable providers would have to provide up to "n" (let's assume n=2 for an argument) competitors access to bandwidth equivalent to the incumbent provider's highest-capacity offering, at a rate which allows for competition for the customer-base.
If you mandate an environment like that for - say - 15-20 years then when you come out on the other side, you've got established companies, with revenue streams, who can have started to invest in their own outside plant and be able to achieve actual competitive independence.
And once you've got a multitude of carriers on the poles and in the conduits, net neutrality is irrelevant. Don't like your carrier's policies, go somewhere else. Don't have a carrier that does what you want, and think it's a sound business plan, start your own and prove there's a demand for what you describe.
If you can't understand why it's important that ISPs not be able to be paid more than once for the same packet, then you really shouldn't be in a discussion about whether the government should or shouldn't impose regulations on ISPs.
Ah, yes, let me paraphrase that sentiment: "If you can't agree with me, then you really shouldn't be in a discussion about the topic of debate."
You, sir, can take that sentiment and retire to your echo-chamber of choice with it.
It is why FedEx is not permitted to negotiate preferred carrier status with one manufacturer to inhibit shipments made by a competing manufacturer.
Except FedEx does do such things. The rate you pay Fedex versus the rate I pay FedEx, versus the rate Amazon pays FedEx are all different, because it IS in fact doing such negotiation.
Further, The government hasn't shown that there is any actual harm caused by the model that folks like Comcast intend to use regarding cost-recovery of high-bandwidth content-providers. There's been a lot of emotion-laden assertions made, but precious little actual evidence. Trying to assert that the internet is like "a series of UPS trucks", as you do, is not in any way an apt analogy, and you know it (or should, at any rate, if you're hanging out on a site like Slashdot).
No, that's not how it works. You don't get to (essentially) trick them into using technologies, and then say, "well, since you're using that thing we put into the public domain, now we get to tell you what to do with it." The same thing with subsidization. Just because I donated to a kickstarter campaign today doesn't mean I get to go to the company five years down the road and say "Remember that $100 I kicked in? Now I get to tell you how to run the company, even though you never agreed to that at the time."
As for "free usage rights of way", those rights of way aren't free. They pay for them. There may be government assistance in terms of mandating that - where necessary - they are given the ability to buy the rights of way through eminent domain, but make no mistake, they weren't "given".
What you describe is exactly how it's supposed to work. If the government wants to control the hundreds of billions of dollars of network infrastructure that private companies have invested it, it has an obligation to show that such control is the least burdensome method of achieving a compelling state interest.
And - frankly - it's not. Motivating competition in the last-mile space is a MUCH more effective method for achieving the same interest, AND has lots of other benefits as well in terms of driving prices down and service-offerings up.
I think with the "reboot" having about 5X as many episodes as the original, it's safe to say that unless someone says "Original Battlestar" they're referring to the reboot.:)
No. My understanding of the case at hand is that EU privacy laws do not allow for the release of the data without an EU-issued warrant/subpoena/equivalent.
Their privacy laws are much much stronger than ours. You can't simply do what you want with PII in the EU.
Not at all. If EU law prevents me from turning over data (as it would in this case) then I have exceeded my statutory authority by doing so.
The data physically sits in the EU, so my property rights over that data are subject to EU statutory limitations. Under EU law, I don't have an absolute property right to use and distribute that data as I deem fit, I can only do so in compliance with EU law. As EU law would NOT allow me to release that information, any attempt to do so is a violation of my legal authority, which puts me in violation of the CFAA.
Aha, but if American Airlines wanted to pick a particular 747 and only fly it in ${otherCountry}, and then only hold it to ${otherCountry}'s maintenance standards, that would be legal. The only time the FAA gets jurisdiction over the piece of equipment is when American Airlines decides it wants to fly it either in US airspace or to/from a US-controlled airport.
Let me turn that around on you: Should the Chinese government be able to compel a Chinese company, with operations in the US to turn over data, stored in the US, where doing so would be a violation of US law? If "ChinaCo" was a military contractor and had a bunch of classified material on servers here in the US, should the US just roll over and allow China to "subpoena" the US-based blueprints for the new Stealth weapon? Why or why not?
No. The "terminal" is wholly performed on the local screen. The *connection* crosses an international boundary to a place where the US has no jurisdiction.
Worse, circling back to TFA, the US LEO would be attempting to coerce me into violating the law in the EU, which itself would be a violation of US law (CFAA).
- The UK-based server is a "protected computer" (defined as a computer "used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States") [emphasis added] - I would be violating section (2) ("intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access", because my authorized access cannot exceed the legal authorization for where the computer is located) - I would then be obtaining "information from any protected computer;"
So by obeying law enforcement in this matter you have committed a prima facie violation of 18USC1030(a)(2)(c), punishable by up to ten years in prison, as well as committed a criminal act under EU privacy law.
No. Because the United States has no jurisdiction past the borders of its sovereign territory. It can certainly compel me to go there (and then hope that I don't flip them the bird as soon as I'm on another nation's soil), but it has no legal authority to compel any actions that cannot be wholly performed within its jurisdiction.
No, they should not be able to get warrants for either. They should approach law enforcement in the country where they wish to execute a search and gain their cooperation. If there is a legitimate crime, and the search is in compliance with their local laws, they will happily assist.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone else did such a great job destroying your points
I feel like you're reading a different thread than I am. I've yet to see such "destruction" of points.
Thanks for playing, though.
Fine, then local municipalities should be allowed to establish their own publicly funded internet services without any interference from private service providers in the form of lawsuits because of "unfair" competition.
I have absolutely no problem with that. I would argue that they shouldn't be doing that without also opening up that last-mile infrastructure they're building to "all comers" (ie, if the taxpayers have paid for outside-plant for high speed bandwidth specifically to force competition against an incumbent carrier, then that fiber should be available for anyone who wants to compete against the incumbent carrier).
If a community has the financial resources, and the political will, to take that tack to solving the "lack of competition" angle, versus the usual "competitive wholesale access" angle (where TWC/Verizon/Comcast are forced to allow competitors to use their last mile), then that's a perfectly reasonable solution.
Ah yes, the ol' "if you don't agree with me, you must be a shill for the opposition" chestnut.
*plonk*
You don't need net neutrality for that. All you need is for the PUC/PSCs (for telcos) and the local Franchise Authorities (for cable) to mandate competitive wholesale access to last-mile facilities.
What you're trying to un-do in this case is decades of government assisted monopoly, so even the radical libertarian in me says that it's up to the government to regulate the "undoing of that damage". In order to renew their franchises, cable providers would have to provide up to "n" (let's assume n=2 for an argument) competitors access to bandwidth equivalent to the incumbent provider's highest-capacity offering, at a rate which allows for competition for the customer-base.
If you mandate an environment like that for - say - 15-20 years then when you come out on the other side, you've got established companies, with revenue streams, who can have started to invest in their own outside plant and be able to achieve actual competitive independence.
And once you've got a multitude of carriers on the poles and in the conduits, net neutrality is irrelevant. Don't like your carrier's policies, go somewhere else. Don't have a carrier that does what you want, and think it's a sound business plan, start your own and prove there's a demand for what you describe.
If you can't understand why it's important that ISPs not be able to be paid more than once for the same packet, then you really shouldn't be in a discussion about whether the government should or shouldn't impose regulations on ISPs.
Ah, yes, let me paraphrase that sentiment: "If you can't agree with me, then you really shouldn't be in a discussion about the topic of debate."
You, sir, can take that sentiment and retire to your echo-chamber of choice with it.
It is why FedEx is not permitted to negotiate preferred carrier status with one manufacturer to inhibit shipments made by a competing manufacturer.
Except FedEx does do such things. The rate you pay Fedex versus the rate I pay FedEx, versus the rate Amazon pays FedEx are all different, because it IS in fact doing such negotiation.
Further, The government hasn't shown that there is any actual harm caused by the model that folks like Comcast intend to use regarding cost-recovery of high-bandwidth content-providers. There's been a lot of emotion-laden assertions made, but precious little actual evidence. Trying to assert that the internet is like "a series of UPS trucks", as you do, is not in any way an apt analogy, and you know it (or should, at any rate, if you're hanging out on a site like Slashdot).
No, that's not how it works. You don't get to (essentially) trick them into using technologies, and then say, "well, since you're using that thing we put into the public domain, now we get to tell you what to do with it." The same thing with subsidization. Just because I donated to a kickstarter campaign today doesn't mean I get to go to the company five years down the road and say "Remember that $100 I kicked in? Now I get to tell you how to run the company, even though you never agreed to that at the time."
As for "free usage rights of way", those rights of way aren't free. They pay for them. There may be government assistance in terms of mandating that - where necessary - they are given the ability to buy the rights of way through eminent domain, but make no mistake, they weren't "given".
I wish I had points to vote this up.
What you describe is exactly how it's supposed to work. If the government wants to control the hundreds of billions of dollars of network infrastructure that private companies have invested it, it has an obligation to show that such control is the least burdensome method of achieving a compelling state interest.
And - frankly - it's not. Motivating competition in the last-mile space is a MUCH more effective method for achieving the same interest, AND has lots of other benefits as well in terms of driving prices down and service-offerings up.
I think with the "reboot" having about 5X as many episodes as the original, it's safe to say that unless someone says "Original Battlestar" they're referring to the reboot.:)
If you're not paying for the service, you're not a customer.
Google's advertisers and business partners are their customers.
You're not the customer. You're the product.
We'll agree to disagree. . :)
{agree(disagreement)}
No. My understanding of the case at hand is that EU privacy laws do not allow for the release of the data without an EU-issued warrant/subpoena/equivalent.
Their privacy laws are much much stronger than ours. You can't simply do what you want with PII in the EU.
Not at all. If EU law prevents me from turning over data (as it would in this case) then I have exceeded my statutory authority by doing so.
The data physically sits in the EU, so my property rights over that data are subject to EU statutory limitations. Under EU law, I don't have an absolute property right to use and distribute that data as I deem fit, I can only do so in compliance with EU law. As EU law would NOT allow me to release that information, any attempt to do so is a violation of my legal authority, which puts me in violation of the CFAA.
Aha, but if American Airlines wanted to pick a particular 747 and only fly it in ${otherCountry}, and then only hold it to ${otherCountry}'s maintenance standards, that would be legal. The only time the FAA gets jurisdiction over the piece of equipment is when American Airlines decides it wants to fly it either in US airspace or to/from a US-controlled airport.
Let me turn that around on you: Should the Chinese government be able to compel a Chinese company, with operations in the US to turn over data, stored in the US, where doing so would be a violation of US law? If "ChinaCo" was a military contractor and had a bunch of classified material on servers here in the US, should the US just roll over and allow China to "subpoena" the US-based blueprints for the new Stealth weapon? Why or why not?
Those warrants and subpoenas have the value of toilet tissue as soon as you try to execute them off-shore.
And the execution of a search warrant happens "where the thing to be searched is", not "where people who have access to it are".
No. The "terminal" is wholly performed on the local screen. The *connection* crosses an international boundary to a place where the US has no jurisdiction.
Worse, circling back to TFA, the US LEO would be attempting to coerce me into violating the law in the EU, which itself would be a violation of US law (CFAA).
- The UK-based server is a "protected computer" (defined as a computer "used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States") [emphasis added]
- I would be violating section (2) ("intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access", because my authorized access cannot exceed the legal authorization for where the computer is located)
- I would then be obtaining "information from any protected computer;"
So by obeying law enforcement in this matter you have committed a prima facie violation of 18USC1030(a)(2)(c), punishable by up to ten years in prison, as well as committed a criminal act under EU privacy law.
No. Because the United States has no jurisdiction past the borders of its sovereign territory. It can certainly compel me to go there (and then hope that I don't flip them the bird as soon as I'm on another nation's soil), but it has no legal authority to compel any actions that cannot be wholly performed within its jurisdiction.
And in my revised analogy, the residence is controlled and accessible by US entities (the US citizen who owns it).
No, they should not be able to get warrants for either. They should approach law enforcement in the country where they wish to execute a search and gain their cooperation. If there is a legitimate crime, and the search is in compliance with their local laws, they will happily assist.
If an American citizen owns the house in Amsterdam, how is that any different than the American company owning the server in Europe?
As an American citizen, in that revision of the analogy, be could be compelled to allow US investigators to search his Amsterdam residence.
Would you support that? Cuz "hellz no" for my part
I find it odd that you would think that "Randroids" would be in favor of government-mandated monopolies.
It really goes to show how little you know about the people you intend to mock.
People win these sorts of lawsuits all the time.
Bizarro-World is the one people live in when they refuse to even attempt to hold people accountable.
OK, let me rephrase:
"You don't get to complain afterwards without sounding completely disingenuous in doing so."
You will get far more than $1000 in your civil rights lawsuit against Los Federales. It'll be a net win.
Doubly so if, as suggested, you've been recording the entire thing with your glass.