Unfortunately, they are enforcing the "no motor vehicles on the sidewalks" laws with a vengeance
As a pedestrian who walks a small child to and from school I don't see what's unfortunate about that.
Those kinds of laws typically don't get passed unless there's been enough problems with their riders being a danger to pedestrians, deliberately or otherwise, to make it simpler to just force them off of the sidewalk entirely. The city I grew up in actually had people pull off that particular feat for bicycles.
my first run-in with one was with somebody who was of the definite opinion that "I am on an electric scooter!" means that they automatically have right of way over everybody & do not have to obey the traffic rules. (I admittedly don't know which set applies, but I'm going to bet that you won't go wrong by assuming that the ones that apply to bikes apply to scooters, powered or not.)
Motorcycles, actually. These are legally classed as motorized vehicles until new laws are written. Police are using discretion in enforcement because helmet laws, cycle registration plates, etc. don't make much sense. Unfortunately, they are enforcing the "no motor vehicles on the sidewalks" laws with a vengeance, so now there will be more car/human collisions.
Just checking--you are aware these are the motorized version of kick scooters, not the ones that are a type of motorcycle, right? Though the person I mentioned definitely would have been responsible for a scooter/human collision if there'd been any people trying to use the sidewalk...and, well, probably wouldn't have had a license for very long if spotted by any cops, since for some reason the police tend to like it if you don't have your nose in a book when you're operating a motor vehicle...
I don't see this as lasting very long--haven't we already seen an article about a city banning these things? And my first run-in with one was with somebody who was of the definite opinion that "I am on an electric scooter!" means that they automatically have right of way over everybody & do not have to obey the traffic rules. (I admittedly don't know which set applies, but I'm going to bet that you won't go wrong by assuming that the ones that apply to bikes apply to scooters, powered or not.)
I'm not advocating for it or anything, but...if you have a significant percentage of people using these things being idiots and assholes, it's going to only be a matter of time until they either get banned or start requiring a license to use. I don't particularly care, though; I'm just gonna kick back and enjoy the show.
Sometimes, the point of security is not to protect against hackers but your own rear from having the legal system decide that having them in plaintext where you can see them means you should totally be reading it.
There's not going to be many situations where "we couldn't read the message" is going to excuse a company from liability. Let's say it's sexual harassment or similar interpersonal harm. The victim prints the DMs, takes them to HR who does nothing and there's a lawsuit. Monitoring the DMs would not have avoided the liability, since the problem comes from failing to deal with the harassment once it has been reported, not over detecting the harassment.
Not quite--the problem comes from failing to deal with the harassment once you are aware of it, last I checked. It would generally not be wise to wait for somebody to report it after you have, for example, had it happen rather publicly in front of a crowd that includes the head of HR. How much monitoring you're expected to do (vs waiting for somebody to report) will depend on local laws and judges.
If you're imagining some future law where businesses are supposed to magically find terrorists or similar, I really don't see any companies deciding not being able to read their employee's messages is better than a dumb keyword search that lets them pretend they're complying with the law with little to no effort.
Also, I also think you're vastly underestimating the stupidity involved to think a dumb keyword search on its own would be enough to fake compliance should we get a batch of legislators who will pass that sort of law. You are rarely going to overestimate a politician's understanding of what computers can and cannot do by working off the theory that they overall believe that computers are magical & can do anything without mistakes, errors, and/or failures.
By the way, that future law is in the process of being made in the EU. Why do you think people are not happy with the EU's new Copyright Directive's Article 13? Seriously, start here and wander a bit as the EFF are not the only people who are pointing out just how bad this law is--I've seen it reported on here, too. Just because it's not the US passing a monumentally stupid law doesn't mean it shouldn't be a concern, especially when it's a law that will require you comply internationally--or decide it's just plain cheaper to give the EU market a hard pass.
On the other hand, it lacking end-to-end encryption and having the server able to read everything in DMs certainly suggests a good route of attack, and it also would suggest that those running any given server cannot make a strong claim of not having a clue about the content of DMs. "We promised not to look and didn't" is a lot stronger when you can point out that you couldn't have looked anyway.
Sometimes, the point of security is not to protect against hackers but your own rear from having the legal system decide that having them in plaintext where you can see them means you should totally be reading it. (That this is roughly as reasonable as expecting anybody who has been in a bookstore or a library to have read every single book there merely because they are physically capable of reading any of them, but good luck getting those writing the laws to stop thinking computers are magic.)
Maybe it can prevent the bankruptcy scenario. DRM servers will never go down.
I'd like to think that was the goal, but it's Sony and we haven't (yet) passed any laws encouraging companies to ensure that if their DRM servers go down, their DRM will not be preventing people from using products they legally own.
Exactly. Their bosses, however, probably wouldn't take it very well if they pointed out ethically they cannot put up with taking the job because nobody wants WWIII to be caused by some incompetently-executed bug-filled code...
That's because Canada's got a Parliament, and/or 3rd parties that actually take themselves seriously--but I'm trying to be polite and not point out that the US's 3rd parties are not actually serious about winning, while proposing a system that will put them them in a position where they stand a good chance of being like a dog that has unexpectedly managed to catch a car.
Knowing a decent chunk of the people involved in the legal battle, the US right doesn't, it's primarily supported by politicians (both sides) because it makes them money and is easy to abuse. It is, however, probably something best fixed in the courts so a change in the political winds can't undo it--and if you fix it on the legislative or executive level you stand a good chance of the courts saying it's a waste of their time to keep going, so it's not necessarily a Good Idea if there's a civil forfeiture case with a good chance of getting the Supreme Court of the US to rule the entire damn thing a violation of the US Constitution. (About the only way to manage it legislatively with anything close to the same permanence would probably require getting a Constitutional amendment to actually get passed and the odds of getting any Constitutional amendments added now would likely require an infinite improbability drive.)
[...] If the SCGC thinks Amazon (and, by extension, Netflix) does not properly compensate their member, they should negotiate with (or sue) them, not extort the entire Internet base.
Should, yes, but it's easier to get some politicians to team up with them for some rent-seeking. Interestingly, there's reason to consider that the major driver of income inequality--that it's the product of rent-seeking, so there's some very significant reasons to be against this other than just not liking IP trolls.
Part of that's because US voting most places runs with 'person with most votes wins,' even if the majority of people who voted chose someone else--a switch to instant runoff/ranked choice voting, with nobody able to win without an actual majority of the (remaining) votes, would fix that.
But I fail to see how any of this relates to Canadian politics, no less how a Canadian IP group is trying to extort money from people using their internet because they feel they cut a bad deal with the streaming services.
If you want to ensure that the majority of new agencies, government programs, and taxes are a good thing, and not rentseeking (such as this proposed tax which is in the original robber baron tradition), then you need to work from the assumption that any proposed new one is not a good thing--make the people proposing it have to prove that it will be beneficial...
I suspect that you also could raise money more directly from consumers--cutting out middlemen like the Screen Composers Guild of Canada and just buying it directly from the composer and performing artists.
Honestly, proposals like this come off as simply rentseeking on the part of the industry associations--and I'm unfortunately very skeptical that they actually intend to share the money they gain with the people who are actually producing content...especially the ones without the resources to make public the abuse.
could further relax regulations because of the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial
Where exactly is this "assumption" made?
And parenthetically, you do know that small percentages of something might be beneficial, right? The way to find out would be to study it, not just assume that even one bazillionth has to be harmful because reasons.
Well, historically, oxygen was a serious pollutant...and still is, really. The fact that we do happen to need it to live is actually one of the adaptations to the fact that plants just were not going to stop releasing oxygen into the atmosphere.
Mother Jones tends to not go with the Bright Greens, and its science reporting when I've bothered checking has been...questionable. I'm not precisely surprised that it's keeping up the chemophobia. Anybody want to break it to them that all matter in the universe is made of chemicals?
Actually, that is literally the opposite of what the LGBTBBQ community believes. They believe that your gender identity and sexual orientation should not dictate every bit of life, which is why they think they should have the same rights as anyone else.
They say believe it, they don't do good job of living it. This is something that is pretty well-documented--go poke around some.
You can also find out some really...ah...interesting stories by just listening to homosexual trans people talk about some of how they get treated. Some gays and lesbians only really out themselves as transphobic when they are dealing with non-straight trans people--which at one point caused me to drop a few friends because I'm not okay with this.
The moment you start specifying protected groups as opposed to unacceptable behavior (that will be unacceptable no matter the people involved) you start embedding prejudices and bigotry into the rules.
This is a major reason to go with a CoC whose tl;dr is "Be civil to everybody, no exceptions; demands for more specificity will be treated as an admission you are incapable of doing this."
I am non-binary. I'm very against the us-vs-them extremist thinking, but admittedly that's because my family made sure I knew the history of past movements like this well enough to know where they end.
That said, I also do not feel represented by the LGBT* activists and would like them to at least stop acting like I am a vile heretic to be burned at the stake for daring to think thoughts and have wants other than the ones they approve of. My gender and sexual orientation do not dictate everything about me--I am more than my gender identity and whom I might wish to have sex with. (And, actually, I'm rather offended by the suggestion that they should dictate every bit of my life.)
That sounds like you agree that snowflakes and the reasoning why Clinton lost.
I do understand why, I'm just a bit surprised you admit it. After all, when you get down to it, they're all bigots screaming at each other. The rest of us would like to have it agreed that it is never okay to act prejudiced against somebody ever. Seriously, it's like being stuck with two roommates who keep having screaming matches over where the pile of rotting garbage goes, with 'disposed of (trash or compost, as appropriate)' being right out being the one thing they can agree on--of course you're probably going to prefer the one who doesn't switch screeching targets to you when you ask them to STFU or at least go scream elsewhere. (This is actually why I don't like SJWs--especially since that screaming tends to also include calling me by the wrong slurs, because clearly I am not allowed to simply find the behavior in and of itself offensive and anxiety-inducing.)
Given that they're being said to have specs like Li-gas batteries--which is probably what I'm getting seen called Li-air elsewhere--your scale's going to have to be huge. Li-air batteries are being looked at for EVs...and given that the cathode here is looks to be carbon dioxide, it's probably going to be probably a very safe pick. ('Safe' as in 'you do not really need gloves to handle a leaking one' which...you should with most lithium batteries on the market.)
Also, most electrochemical reactions can be relatively easily run 'backwards,' recharging the battery. The actual sticking point is how safely you can pull this off--non-rechargable ones are the ones where the risk of explosions and/or fires are significantly higher than success. (Well, okay, you can also take it apart, recycle everything, and remake it with relatively little loss of the reactants--that will depend primarily on your yields which depends on the RNG and your chemistry skills--but that's not what you probably think of as 'recharging.')
We gotta pollute the world with co2 before we can use said co2 to power our vehicles
so the atmosphere is just a transport channel now?
'Now'? It has been a transport channel for a lot of things, including carbon dioxide, for an absurdly long time. You can even, on occasion, see water vapor being transported in the atmosphere without any special equipment.
In a management heavy company riddled with poor decision making they likely realize that someone would come back into the office to enact revenge of the exorbitantly paid management that bead the company dry.
From what I can tell, that part of the management's long gone--the question for a while has been more of if they managed to do it in time to save the company. We now know that, well, nope.
The chapter release system might help, but the schedule of the chapter releases was significant part of what was killing the studio--here's a very good article about what was going on there for a long time, and from some of the various articles about Telltale shutting down, I suspect that the shutdown is ultimately the result of the issues the article brings up. They did try to fix things, but...clearly, the damage was already fatal.
Where I live, they do put up their own poles, and will also buy/rent (depending on arrangements) the right to place their equipment on already-existing sites. It's actually helping cover preserving a rather important old industrial chimney--it's not in use anymore, but it's a major nest site for one of the local bird species and it'd be an environmental problem if the money for maintaining it couldn't be found. (It's also rather common for watertowers here to get part of their upkeep costs covered this way.)
BUT, I have to agree that along with those carrots needs to be a few sticks- like to make sure there is good coverage and they don't go skipping neighborhoods they don't want...
Stick that into the terms for using the set fee/limited paperwork/quick approval process--so it's functionally part of the price, and have it so you're asking for a geographic area. That'd also keep local governments from causing neighborhoods to get skipped for their own reasons.
I would like that, but I also do not care what level of the government does it--local, state, federal, alien overlords deciding for some reason to finally reveal they're not merely the product of crazed conspiracy theorists, I don't care as long as it's done. Local governments are perfectly capable of screwing over their citizens, too; it's just a lot easier to do housecleaning when you don't have to travel very far to remind them that they won't always get away with it.
Slashdot Mirror
As a pedestrian who walks a small child to and from school I don't see what's unfortunate about that.
Those kinds of laws typically don't get passed unless there's been enough problems with their riders being a danger to pedestrians, deliberately or otherwise, to make it simpler to just force them off of the sidewalk entirely. The city I grew up in actually had people pull off that particular feat for bicycles.
my first run-in with one was with somebody who was of the definite opinion that "I am on an electric scooter!" means that they automatically have right of way over everybody & do not have to obey the traffic rules. (I admittedly don't know which set applies, but I'm going to bet that you won't go wrong by assuming that the ones that apply to bikes apply to scooters, powered or not.)
Motorcycles, actually. These are legally classed as motorized vehicles until new laws are written. Police are using discretion in enforcement because helmet laws, cycle registration plates, etc. don't make much sense. Unfortunately, they are enforcing the "no motor vehicles on the sidewalks" laws with a vengeance, so now there will be more car/human collisions.
Just checking--you are aware these are the motorized version of kick scooters, not the ones that are a type of motorcycle, right? Though the person I mentioned definitely would have been responsible for a scooter/human collision if there'd been any people trying to use the sidewalk...and, well, probably wouldn't have had a license for very long if spotted by any cops, since for some reason the police tend to like it if you don't have your nose in a book when you're operating a motor vehicle...
I don't see this as lasting very long--haven't we already seen an article about a city banning these things? And my first run-in with one was with somebody who was of the definite opinion that "I am on an electric scooter!" means that they automatically have right of way over everybody & do not have to obey the traffic rules. (I admittedly don't know which set applies, but I'm going to bet that you won't go wrong by assuming that the ones that apply to bikes apply to scooters, powered or not.)
I'm not advocating for it or anything, but...if you have a significant percentage of people using these things being idiots and assholes, it's going to only be a matter of time until they either get banned or start requiring a license to use. I don't particularly care, though; I'm just gonna kick back and enjoy the show.
Sometimes, the point of security is not to protect against hackers but your own rear from having the legal system decide that having them in plaintext where you can see them means you should totally be reading it.
There's not going to be many situations where "we couldn't read the message" is going to excuse a company from liability. Let's say it's sexual harassment or similar interpersonal harm. The victim prints the DMs, takes them to HR who does nothing and there's a lawsuit. Monitoring the DMs would not have avoided the liability, since the problem comes from failing to deal with the harassment once it has been reported, not over detecting the harassment.
Not quite--the problem comes from failing to deal with the harassment once you are aware of it, last I checked. It would generally not be wise to wait for somebody to report it after you have, for example, had it happen rather publicly in front of a crowd that includes the head of HR. How much monitoring you're expected to do (vs waiting for somebody to report) will depend on local laws and judges.
If you're imagining some future law where businesses are supposed to magically find terrorists or similar, I really don't see any companies deciding not being able to read their employee's messages is better than a dumb keyword search that lets them pretend they're complying with the law with little to no effort.
Also, I also think you're vastly underestimating the stupidity involved to think a dumb keyword search on its own would be enough to fake compliance should we get a batch of legislators who will pass that sort of law. You are rarely going to overestimate a politician's understanding of what computers can and cannot do by working off the theory that they overall believe that computers are magical & can do anything without mistakes, errors, and/or failures.
By the way, that future law is in the process of being made in the EU. Why do you think people are not happy with the EU's new Copyright Directive's Article 13? Seriously, start here and wander a bit as the EFF are not the only people who are pointing out just how bad this law is--I've seen it reported on here, too. Just because it's not the US passing a monumentally stupid law doesn't mean it shouldn't be a concern, especially when it's a law that will require you comply internationally--or decide it's just plain cheaper to give the EU market a hard pass.
On the other hand, it lacking end-to-end encryption and having the server able to read everything in DMs certainly suggests a good route of attack, and it also would suggest that those running any given server cannot make a strong claim of not having a clue about the content of DMs. "We promised not to look and didn't" is a lot stronger when you can point out that you couldn't have looked anyway.
Sometimes, the point of security is not to protect against hackers but your own rear from having the legal system decide that having them in plaintext where you can see them means you should totally be reading it. (That this is roughly as reasonable as expecting anybody who has been in a bookstore or a library to have read every single book there merely because they are physically capable of reading any of them, but good luck getting those writing the laws to stop thinking computers are magic.)
Maybe it can prevent the bankruptcy scenario. DRM servers will never go down.
I'd like to think that was the goal, but it's Sony and we haven't (yet) passed any laws encouraging companies to ensure that if their DRM servers go down, their DRM will not be preventing people from using products they legally own.
I think the assumption here is that, given Sony's history with DRM schemes, it won't be a well-established blockchain.
Exactly. Their bosses, however, probably wouldn't take it very well if they pointed out ethically they cannot put up with taking the job because nobody wants WWIII to be caused by some incompetently-executed bug-filled code...
That's because Canada's got a Parliament, and/or 3rd parties that actually take themselves seriously--but I'm trying to be polite and not point out that the US's 3rd parties are not actually serious about winning, while proposing a system that will put them them in a position where they stand a good chance of being like a dog that has unexpectedly managed to catch a car.
Knowing a decent chunk of the people involved in the legal battle, the US right doesn't, it's primarily supported by politicians (both sides) because it makes them money and is easy to abuse. It is, however, probably something best fixed in the courts so a change in the political winds can't undo it--and if you fix it on the legislative or executive level you stand a good chance of the courts saying it's a waste of their time to keep going, so it's not necessarily a Good Idea if there's a civil forfeiture case with a good chance of getting the Supreme Court of the US to rule the entire damn thing a violation of the US Constitution. (About the only way to manage it legislatively with anything close to the same permanence would probably require getting a Constitutional amendment to actually get passed and the odds of getting any Constitutional amendments added now would likely require an infinite improbability drive.)
[...] If the SCGC thinks Amazon (and, by extension, Netflix) does not properly compensate their member, they should negotiate with (or sue) them, not extort the entire Internet base.
Should, yes, but it's easier to get some politicians to team up with them for some rent-seeking. Interestingly, there's reason to consider that the major driver of income inequality--that it's the product of rent-seeking, so there's some very significant reasons to be against this other than just not liking IP trolls.
Part of that's because US voting most places runs with 'person with most votes wins,' even if the majority of people who voted chose someone else--a switch to instant runoff/ranked choice voting, with nobody able to win without an actual majority of the (remaining) votes, would fix that.
But I fail to see how any of this relates to Canadian politics, no less how a Canadian IP group is trying to extort money from people using their internet because they feel they cut a bad deal with the streaming services.
If you want to ensure that the majority of new agencies, government programs, and taxes are a good thing, and not rentseeking (such as this proposed tax which is in the original robber baron tradition), then you need to work from the assumption that any proposed new one is not a good thing--make the people proposing it have to prove that it will be beneficial...
I suspect that you also could raise money more directly from consumers--cutting out middlemen like the Screen Composers Guild of Canada and just buying it directly from the composer and performing artists.
Honestly, proposals like this come off as simply rentseeking on the part of the industry associations--and I'm unfortunately very skeptical that they actually intend to share the money they gain with the people who are actually producing content...especially the ones without the resources to make public the abuse.
could further relax regulations because of the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial
Where exactly is this "assumption" made?
And parenthetically, you do know that small percentages of something might be beneficial, right? The way to find out would be to study it, not just assume that even one bazillionth has to be harmful because reasons.
Well, historically, oxygen was a serious pollutant...and still is, really. The fact that we do happen to need it to live is actually one of the adaptations to the fact that plants just were not going to stop releasing oxygen into the atmosphere.
Mother Jones tends to not go with the Bright Greens, and its science reporting when I've bothered checking has been...questionable. I'm not precisely surprised that it's keeping up the chemophobia. Anybody want to break it to them that all matter in the universe is made of chemicals?
Actually, that is literally the opposite of what the LGBTBBQ community believes. They believe that your gender identity and sexual orientation should not dictate every bit of life, which is why they think they should have the same rights as anyone else.
They say believe it, they don't do good job of living it. This is something that is pretty well-documented--go poke around some.
Here, since your search engine skills are not good enough to type in a phrase like 'biphobia in the lgbt community'--here are some of the top results (out of ~176,00) that I got when I did it, you can get more easily: HuffPo LGBT Sentinel Pride Bi Resource Center.. Switching to transphobia from biphobia, I get: The Independent (about the transphobic protest at the 2018 London Pride parade that got to lead the parade for a bit, I honestly wish I was making this up) Syracuse Peace Counsel The American Prospect; I will admit that the filtering on Google means I don't get quite as narrow a focus so some of the ~742,000 results it spit out are not necessarily relevant. Non-binary discrimination within the LGBT* community is primarily discussed in academic sources, though on occasion you will see things like this article from HuffPo.
You can also find out some really...ah...interesting stories by just listening to homosexual trans people talk about some of how they get treated. Some gays and lesbians only really out themselves as transphobic when they are dealing with non-straight trans people--which at one point caused me to drop a few friends because I'm not okay with this.
The moment you start specifying protected groups as opposed to unacceptable behavior (that will be unacceptable no matter the people involved) you start embedding prejudices and bigotry into the rules.
This is a major reason to go with a CoC whose tl;dr is "Be civil to everybody, no exceptions; demands for more specificity will be treated as an admission you are incapable of doing this."
I am non-binary. I'm very against the us-vs-them extremist thinking, but admittedly that's because my family made sure I knew the history of past movements like this well enough to know where they end.
That said, I also do not feel represented by the LGBT* activists and would like them to at least stop acting like I am a vile heretic to be burned at the stake for daring to think thoughts and have wants other than the ones they approve of. My gender and sexual orientation do not dictate everything about me--I am more than my gender identity and whom I might wish to have sex with. (And, actually, I'm rather offended by the suggestion that they should dictate every bit of my life.)
That sounds like you agree that snowflakes and the reasoning why Clinton lost.
I do understand why, I'm just a bit surprised you admit it. After all, when you get down to it, they're all bigots screaming at each other. The rest of us would like to have it agreed that it is never okay to act prejudiced against somebody ever. Seriously, it's like being stuck with two roommates who keep having screaming matches over where the pile of rotting garbage goes, with 'disposed of (trash or compost, as appropriate)' being right out being the one thing they can agree on--of course you're probably going to prefer the one who doesn't switch screeching targets to you when you ask them to STFU or at least go scream elsewhere. (This is actually why I don't like SJWs--especially since that screaming tends to also include calling me by the wrong slurs, because clearly I am not allowed to simply find the behavior in and of itself offensive and anxiety-inducing.)
Given that they're being said to have specs like Li-gas batteries--which is probably what I'm getting seen called Li-air elsewhere--your scale's going to have to be huge. Li-air batteries are being looked at for EVs...and given that the cathode here is looks to be carbon dioxide, it's probably going to be probably a very safe pick. ('Safe' as in 'you do not really need gloves to handle a leaking one' which...you should with most lithium batteries on the market.)
Also, most electrochemical reactions can be relatively easily run 'backwards,' recharging the battery. The actual sticking point is how safely you can pull this off--non-rechargable ones are the ones where the risk of explosions and/or fires are significantly higher than success. (Well, okay, you can also take it apart, recycle everything, and remake it with relatively little loss of the reactants--that will depend primarily on your yields which depends on the RNG and your chemistry skills--but that's not what you probably think of as 'recharging.')
We gotta pollute the world with co2 before we can use said co2 to power our vehicles
so the atmosphere is just a transport channel now?
'Now'? It has been a transport channel for a lot of things, including carbon dioxide, for an absurdly long time. You can even, on occasion, see water vapor being transported in the atmosphere without any special equipment.
In a management heavy company riddled with poor decision making they likely realize that someone would come back into the office to enact revenge of the exorbitantly paid management that bead the company dry.
From what I can tell, that part of the management's long gone--the question for a while has been more of if they managed to do it in time to save the company. We now know that, well, nope.
The chapter release system might help, but the schedule of the chapter releases was significant part of what was killing the studio--here's a very good article about what was going on there for a long time, and from some of the various articles about Telltale shutting down, I suspect that the shutdown is ultimately the result of the issues the article brings up. They did try to fix things, but...clearly, the damage was already fatal.
Where I live, they do put up their own poles, and will also buy/rent (depending on arrangements) the right to place their equipment on already-existing sites. It's actually helping cover preserving a rather important old industrial chimney--it's not in use anymore, but it's a major nest site for one of the local bird species and it'd be an environmental problem if the money for maintaining it couldn't be found. (It's also rather common for watertowers here to get part of their upkeep costs covered this way.)
BUT, I have to agree that along with those carrots needs to be a few sticks- like to make sure there is good coverage and they don't go skipping neighborhoods they don't want...
Stick that into the terms for using the set fee/limited paperwork/quick approval process--so it's functionally part of the price, and have it so you're asking for a geographic area. That'd also keep local governments from causing neighborhoods to get skipped for their own reasons.
I would like that, but I also do not care what level of the government does it--local, state, federal, alien overlords deciding for some reason to finally reveal they're not merely the product of crazed conspiracy theorists, I don't care as long as it's done. Local governments are perfectly capable of screwing over their citizens, too; it's just a lot easier to do housecleaning when you don't have to travel very far to remind them that they won't always get away with it.