Some jurisdictions do appear to understand that the issue is one of striking a sensible balance among all parties concerned -- not just hotel/motel/AirB&B, but small and casual operators as well as the broader community -- rather than simply protecting a traditional monopoly on the part of the established short-term accommodations industry.
Here in Vancouver, the concerns about AirB&B are more about the pressure such enterprise seems to be putting on a very tight rental (ie. not hotels/motels, but houses and apartments for long-term tenancy).
So over here, we figure that "the AirB&B problem" is not so much problem that the hotel chains don't like the competition, but more a problem that we're having too much trouble finding reasonably affordable homes, reasonably near our workplaces, etc. (Ironically, even the building trades/construction workers are having trouble finding suitable domiciles).
If I'm part of Organized Crime, aren't I already "found"?
And in that case, I'm not caring what people in Law Enforcement "know" and have certain evidence for, if that doesn't mean the system is prepared to try me and put me in prison over it, even with that evidence at hand.
"We won't take these Organised Crime mobsters to Court to answer for their crimes -- because then they'll find out how we caught them."
Well, I've got news -- they're going to figure it out, anyhow.
- - -
So now, in an attempt to postpone the inevitable, they've created a new breed of "Untouchables" -- the sophisticated criminals who are known to have committed certain crimes, but are effectively protected from from prosecution, anyways, simply because the "justice system" is more concerned with protecting its own secrets, than with actually getting the job done.
Their are some places that actually have more than one cable and one DSL provider.
On the other hand, I've also heard from more than one american acquaintance, about receiving adverts for "competing" broadband service -- that wasn't actually available to them when they followed up on it.
That's simply because "Net Neutrality" is essentially a political/legal label for what was originally over-arching design principles (eg. the "end-to-end" principle) that guided the construction and development and build-out of The Internet, in the first place -- principles that had been carefully worked out and negotiated by all the stake-holders, and that had worked very well to encourage development and to respect the interests of all participants (and the nation as a whole.
But with consolidation of consumer internet services into a handful of large, regional, effective monopolies, the ISPs realized they could subvert the principles that led to the Internet's amazing success, and exploit the resulting non-competitive, captive market in ways that a free market and the (explicit) design of the system just wouldn't have made practible.
Net Neutrality was put into place only recently, because the need, to preserve those existing (founding), negotiated principles and accepted, negotiated practices through regulation, only became apparent as the ISPs consolidated and acquired enough market power to abuse their position and impose their own interests over those of the users, contrary to the system those users had created and functioned under till then.
And so it came to pass, that Donald J. Trump was not only elected to the great and powerful Oval Office as the President Of the United States, but was recorded to posterity in the Annals and Histories of the Nation, as
Donald J Trump; "the Great Educator" -- damn him to Hell.
Let me second the call-outs for Smashwords and BAEN Books.
The prices are reasonable, and the "No DRM" policy is a winning draw.
Also, the Gutenburg Project is worth a mention, for classics and for older (copyright expired) works
-- "free" and "legal" is hard to beat.
I have more epubs from Smashwords or from BAEN Books than from everyone else combined (and the Gutenburg Project is the only other "publisher" that comes close to them).
I don't have to worry about whether I can read it on this device, or only on that device, nor for how long I'll be able to keep them and read them again. Nor do I need to fiddle with stripping DRM and/or tinkering with them in Calibre trying to ensure the book will render properly on whichever device I want to use this time.
If a book is worth reading, I'm certainly willing to pay for it. What I'm not willing to do is to wrestle with books I've paid honest cash for, just to be able to read them as I please on the device I please, when I can almost certainly get "pirated" versions for free, which I can just load and go, with no effort to speak of, on whichever device I find most convenient.
note that I said "ePub": I don't buy e-books from Amazon or for Kindle -- in my mind, "proprietary formats" is a concept even more incompatible with "books" and "Literature" than DRM is, and I simply refuse to support a publisher who tries to foist that brain-dead idea on the general public.
These sorts of xenophobic authoritarian thugs in uniform don't think it makes them look bad, they think it makes them look good -- even if (especially if?) the "Lie-beral Press" portrays them in a negative light over such incidents.
It's not pit-bull hate. It's an observation that they behave like pit-bulls, -- and an implication that they need to be subjected to a similar degree of training, discipline and control (which they clearly aren't receiving) to keep their behaviour within the bounds considered acceptable even for dogs.
My favorite American pundit, Molly Ivins, used to say something along the lines of "The 'Left' versus 'Right' political spectrum is an obsolete model -- today, the political spectrum is divided between the 'screw-ers' and the 'screwed'."
Funny, I was hearing almost exactly that same line from some pro-Putin (and even pro-Stalin apologist) Russian(s) in another forum -- in course of a discussion about the Russian annexation of Crimea from the Ukraine -- except according them, it's Russia that is the target of some combination of covert but powerful internal threats, terrorists (internal and external), and the external/outside world's unjust prejudices and inimical, threatening national enmity.
Authoritarians the world over keep plying the same, tired lies -- and the people keep falling for it.
"It's always seemed to me that if it's possible for a suspect to get rid of damning evidence in a short amount of time, then their criminal enterprise isn't possibly big enough to warrant a SWAT team raid. A meth lab or a big drug house will have plenty that can't be flushed. Residue can't be cleaned that quickly. Guns won't fit in the toilet."
That's a very succinct argument. I can't help wondering why that's not at least a commonplace, and accepted Rule of Thumb in Law Enforcement circles.
Have you ever noticed how, on Ars (a.k.a. Ars Technica) forums, the "hidden" posts can still garner even more downvotes *after* they've reached the threshold for becoming "hidden" comment -- often getting multiple times the number of downvotes needed to trigger the "hidden" status.
Which means that people like me generally click on the collapsed post in question anyhow (as "hidden" on Ars really just means "collapsed, because so many readers have rated it as a "poor" or otherwise deficient comment), then after reading, agreed that it was indeed substandard -- and added another downvote.