"if you'd asked, I would have said that thread-starters tend to get more votes"
Just a thought, have you considered a top conversations category? You could base it on the number of votes on all comments on the thread. It might be biased towards longer threads but often the conversation is more interesting than the 'one liners'
Countries that retained state sponsored monopolies could sustain higher prices that limited growth. Countries that introduced competition saw prices drop, elasticity kicked in and those markets grew. There's a clear correlation, but sender pays isnt the cause, the cause is basic economics.
The problem with suggesting Sender Pays for internet settlement is the fantasy that packets are an analogue for minutes. There is no scalable way to measure interactions and no clear way to even agree which party in an individual interaction got the most value and thus should pay. There is nothing that works better than what the internet industry has come up with while the ITU were off doing other things.
Network and content providers have been arguing about this for near 20 years. The ITU actually already put out paper/recommendation that internet settlement should be on a sender pays basis in the late 90's. The internet including practically all telcos basically ignored them.
Even if this does get voted through the internet will ignore them again. I doubt the US is going to give over legislative control over ICANN for a start.
Regimes that want 'control' already can do and already do whatever they want anyway.
The ITU is making a last desperate grasp for relevancy. Even arguing against it lends them more legitimacy than they have.
I dont think the ITU is the right international body for this. Some members of the ITU are no doubt taking this as an opportunity for a bureaucratic power grab.
But others are motivated by concerns that the non government organizations that run critical components of the internet are only non government because US Federal law delegated the responsibility. If you visit this site only casually you will see plenty of evidence of discomfort from US citizens over what the government is doing to spy on it's own citizens, block websites, attempts to impose US law on foreign websites, etc. so it shouldn't be too surprising that the US government isn't quite trusted to maintain it's "hands off" oversight.
These concerns aren't going to go away and debate about how to address them is a good thing.
I wonder how much the US security agencies possible success in pressuring US telecom equipment vendors to install back-doors in their equipment lends weight to speculation that the Chinese government has or might do the same to vendors under their jurisdiction...
Is this Apple's fault? Google's fault? They're just gaming the system and blaming either is another way of saying it's not *my* fault.
But it our fault: we through our ignorance or disengagement with the democratic process have created the rules. Many people here are engaging with politicians and trying to make a difference. Many of us are not.
Speaking from personal experience, this is just the way it is in India. If you could have done something and did not the bureaucracy will go after you - that it would be cost prohibitive is not a defence. The courts often agree.
Its kind of like the joke "A man can spend his life building bridges. Do they call him John the Bridge Builder? No. A man can spend his life raising crops. Do they call him John the Farmer? No. But you fuck one goat . . ."
you can spend your life making bad decisions but piss your pants just once . . .
I lost all respect for the peace prize when they gave it to Obama before he'd had a chance to actually do something. The award has become a bitch to European politics. And right now the Europeans are terrified that cheap Chinese labour is going to effect their standard of living.
So they give the price to a Chinese activist/dissident. And China reacts predictably.
Of course they could, but going out and negotiating with each individual rights holder for each individual work takes up a lot more resources than simply selecting a track from the pre approved library. It's a cheaper not to.
To be fair, no small number of those that claim to support the free movement think "free as in beer" too. As long as there are its going to be difficult to deal with the misconceptions of those that oppose the idea.
I wonder whether there should be more effort in explaining things to the people that support exploiting the new reality.
"Google does offer open platforms, just not for their search and the reasons behind that are not totally clear"
"Google" didnt become a verb because of open software, it because a verb because their closed algorithm was superior to anyone else's. Why would they open it and invite their competitors to be as good?