I've always thought it'd be awesome for some company (Google?) to make a WiFi router that makes it easy to share. Most people are afraid to leave their routers unlocked for fear of nefarious activity.
Imagine if NYC had a million 802.11 routers that each let devices automatically log on as they passed by. There would be some security risks, sure... but it'd be a free distributed alternative to a cellular network.
There could be a bunch of different business models associated with it. The network could be free to access so long as a user is running a node. The network could be pay for access with some of the money going to "node" owners.
I'd ditch my data plan if this became popular. Hell... the cell companies were just griping that they can't keep up with demand. They should love it too.
Don't you know how much people who run youtube channels get? These guys must be dozen-aires off the backs of hard working REAL artists.
Note: I admit... dozens of dollars is probably a bit of a high estimate; either way though, that's money that has been ripped from the labels. Do I need to go into zero-sum-games with you New Mexico freetards?
If you have "threat analysis" and "threat prevention" under the same organization then you have funding for both coming from the same place. All TSA has to do to argue for a bigger budget is to coerce their analysis team to dream up new threats, and now all of a sudden TSA is massively underfunded to combat theses new made up threats.
I think the fact that a late night television show took time to make fun of the Netflix "apology" adds weight to the discussion that took place here (and other places) earlier in the week.
This isn't just a nerd rant that will echo in computer-equipped basements; mainstream media has picked it up and is mocking the moves of Netflix. When it gets that bad it's noteworthy (even if it failed to amuse you).
AT&T is paying to remove a tertiary player (Tmobile) from the wireless market. Further, they are paying to block Sprint from acquiring T-mobile (thereby effectively knocking two players out of major contention).
It really seems like AT&T is trying to pay to buy out competition, and this document proves that their previous purchase justifications were less than honest. You have to agree that it has at least a little bit of stinky smell to it, no?
I personally leave a WiFi unlocked in the hopes that someone might happen upon it and find it useful. When Google's van drove by I hope they stopped for a while and checked their email - or used it however they saw fit. If the feds wanted to do the same, I wouldn't mind (or I couldn't complain anyway). Having my WiFi open is (in my mind) an open invitation for anyone passing by to use it.
My cell phone is another story. You are correct that the device broadcasts publicly, but it uses protocols that are designed with security/privacy in mind. For someone to make any use of the broadcasted radio transmission they would have to overcome more than one measure designed to keep me anonymous.
I know I haven't made a legal argument, mostly because I know nothing of the relevant laws. In my mind it is about intent: I choose to let anyone use my WiFi, so I can't complain if Google or the Feds or whomever wants to use it. With cell phones I choose not to enable tracking (Latitude, etc) and I assume that the security measures aren't being overcome by anyone.
It's very hard to force the only service provider in town to be good. If a monopoly power really wants to screw their customers they will find a way - it is very hard for regulators to keep a sharp eye on a telco.
Mike's (and Jay's) argument is that if there were multiple providers then people could just switch to the one they liked best, forcing the Rogers/Bells/Comcasts of the world to change the way they treat people.
The "regulation method" is ineffective, discourages growth, expensive (who pays the regulator), and has high risk of corruption (easier to pay off the regulator than to change).