NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Major UK ISPs challenge Digital Economy Act
I noticed the number, **400m as the cost of infringement. I argue that the costs of locking down the infrastructure to protect that revenue stream is far higher. And what proof is there that this kind of lockdown will actually bring in this revenue? Is such a draconian limit on what is, in effect, free speech an appropriate response to leakage of content? What is the corresponding number for the cost of locking down the infrastructure so that we have to pay for billable events for using the existing physical copper, wire and radios? It's like charging per-step for using the sidewalk. A simple example -- what if we made a portion of the existing "broadband" available for cellular calls rather than requiring we go through towers. I'm not saying that existing protocols would do this but the physical capacity is there and is held off the market by policy. DE assures that people can't even contribute capacity for public use. How different is this from laws banning walking without a license in case you may be singing Happy Birthday without authorization. (For those who don't know Happy Birthday is under copyright and there are lawyers making their livelihood tracking down offenders). More on telecom costs http://rmf.vc/?n=IPTelecomCosts ** -- supposed to be a British Pound sign, AKA, 0xA3. -----Original Message----- From: nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Lauren Weinstein Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 11:35 To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org Subject: [ NNSquad ] Major UK ISPs challenge Digital Economy Act Major UK ISPs challenge Digital Economy Act http://bit.ly/9xxoKe (BBC) --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator