Ugh. So many comments here arguing the same (forgone) point. You guys keep pointing out how LS causes interference. OK, we all know that. That's why they got their waiver revoked.
Now, you also argue that "they should have known". That's a lot more interesting point, and I'm sure the Harbinger investors will have questions about that.
I'm not sure, however, that that was a foregone conclusion. LS had 20MHz to work with, and if they allocated half of that as a "shoulder band", could it have prevented interference? The answer to that, as we now know, is also no.
My point, in the article, for noting that it is not LS that is broadcasting out of bounds, but instead GPS that is listening out of bounds, is mainly to correct all the news I have seen stating precisely the opposite. And I go on to say, "...who is at fault is irrelevant: it remains LightSquared's problem to solve." It is policy, and I would argue correct policy, that new spectrum uses should not blow existing industries built on adjacent spectrum out of the sky. So chillax, everyone. I'm wasn't diving into the political part of this anyway (and apparently it's quite heated), I mostly lament the loss of a new entrant that was positioned to shake up the cellular market.
And I am not ignorant of the risky nature of what LS proposed, from an engineering point of view. I am just an advocate of letting them invest their own (private) money into seeing if they can make it work. It didn't, that's really too bad. Isn't it?
That said, WiFi n provided a substantial jump in range, and ac will add more bandwidth to the range of n. But I am still not, nor likely ever will, argue that Wi-Fi can supplant cellular.
But what I will argue (and did above) is that Wi-Fi connectivity, increasingly, can substitute for expensive cellular connectivity in numerous locations, and that all it takes is a smartphone with a wifi radio (common today) and some intelligent automatic switching inside the phone.
The example of Republic Wireless is just such a case. They propose to do MOST of the connectivity over wifi, and only roam onto Sprint's network for those times when out of wifi coverage. THIS is where wifi can challenge cellular.
Instead of thinking as our smartphones (as we do today) as cellular devices that can offload to wifi when possible, we could start to think of them as wifi devices that can roam onto cellular when needed. We would use fewer of the expensive cellular resources, and would ostensibly pay less.
I have NEVER been a "Wi-Fi will offer blanket coverage" guy. Read the article linked above to see how far from that I am.
Klink, On the subject of "scrappy", you point out that LS got cheap spectrum because it was "zoned" for spatial use, and got a waiver to use it terrestrially - basically a bargain in the spectrum world. True, but that is just a small part of why I would refer to LS as scrappy.
More scrappy, for me, is what I have seen on the ground with what LS was doing to business models and technology for mobile telecoms. They were partnering with some very different technology partners. They were going all IP. The wholesale model would have put dozens of new MVNOs into our market - all with different pricing schemes and business models. ex: Best Buy might sell you a laptop with 1-yr connectivity bundled into the price. I saw startups who couldn't get the time of day from a major wireless carrier get rushed into the test labs at LS. That is precisely the kind of 'scrappy' that I wrote about in the article. As you and Artp noted, I somewhat glossed over the spectrum purchase part. What I wrote about, and what will be missed, is this venue of open and free thought, unlimited by any legacy.
I don't dispute anything in the thread here by artp or Wilhelm Klink. I think you guys have added some background, but otherwise are just spinning around the words in a way that comes back to basically what I wrote.
Klink, you are concerned that the FCC didn't "rescind". OK, forgive me, the term they used was "indefinitely suspend". They had given LS a waiver to run their terrestrial system on formerly spatial spectrum. They revoked that waiver. If "rescind" doesn't fit for you, then I've got a head full of hairs we can split when you have time.
Artp, you are spot-on that running a terrestrial network in adjacent spectrum to a spatial network is ill-advised. You somewhat take the position that it is LS's "loud yelling" next door that is the problem, I somewhat take the position that it is GPS's active listening that is the problem. But, regardless, as I put in the article, it doesn't matter: it is LS's job to make it work, or they can't launch. "A long history of spectrum policy states that new entrants must not mess up the existing radio devices".
Ummm. I'm pretty sure I read into things exactly what was said. You are, of course, free to question the NPD research, but I did not cite it even slightly out of context.
Also, I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to support that theory, but that doesn't count for much unless you trust my sources, as I do, and it comes from multiple different sources. My sources are cellular carriers who have sold 3G-enabled tablets, only to see them disconnect from the network and not re-subscribe.
But the free advice to the carriers is in their best interests.
If they continue to gouge us for our second and third devices, they will lose the long-term opportunity to have those devices connected. Eventually, nobody will want non-phones to have a cellular radio. We'll all use wifi. Wifi will get better, then we'll start switching our phones off cellular data, too.
I suppose I'm the resident telco apologist, so let me have a crack at this. There are reasons why moving a cellular MB is more expensive than a fixed MB. Here are some:
- Fixed infrastructure was put in place decades ago (cable and phone lines) and amortized long ago on telephone and cable TV revenues. You don't have to dig new trenches. The new found windfall of selling broadband connectivity over those same copper lines has none of the expensive capex of doing the same on wireless. Developing nations don't have this amortized infrastructure, so they build wireless first.
- The fixed cables are simply fatter pipes. And the cable operators can pump every and any frequency down that pipe - it's all theirs. Every improvement in end-device compression, multiplexing and modulation schemes results in vast improvements in total bandwidth (ex: CWDM or DOCSIS). In wireless, we are historically working within 5MHz channels, and carriers often have maybe 20MHz in a region. Mobile carriers, with LTE, are approaching the Shannon-Hartley theoretical limit for how much data can be crammed in a limited band width.
- Much of the fixed data business in the world is done in densely populated cities. There's a reason datacenters, banks, movie production studios, etc, all locate near the big peering centers and fiber interconnection spots. It's cheaper to wire a dense city for lots of Terabytes, because the cables are non-interfering and so capacity is unlimited. Each one carriers its signal, and another can be laid next to it. With wireless, density actually causes problems. The airwaves are interfering, so capacity is not unlimited.
- In less dense areas, it is also more expensive to invest in cellular, because few users are there to pay back the infrastructure. And the USA has lots of rural areas. Now, this argument applies to both fixed and mobile...but mobile covers a far wider swath of the country than fixed broadband.
- Cable companies and telcos were often given the rights of way for their networks, as part of franchise agreements with governments and in a deal that they would offer universal service. In contrast, cellular carriers must outbid each other at auction to get access to more spectrum. The last auction for LTE spectrum raised $19B. This is a cost fixed providers don't have to pay. And instead of the municipality offering you right of way so that there will be cable (or phones), cellular carriers usually end up fighting the town or NIMBY citizens for every tower they install.
Not to say that cellular carriers won't try to extract every penny they can from the customer...they certainly will. But there are additional costs and limits that you don't have with fixed lines.
Re: CTIA Ad Ties Spectrum Sale to Payroll Tax Cut Funding
Didn't see the banner, but here's what's going on.
The wireless carriers, and thus the CTIA, want (and arguably need) more spectrum to serve the growing demand for mobile data.
Any spectrum, if auctioned, does often deliver billions of dollars to the US treasury, paid by the carriers. The last such auction was in 2007 and yielded not just $19billion to the treasury, but it also offers the general consumer benefit of access to some pretty awesome LTE wireless networks.
Now, so far, I sound like a mouthpiece for the carriers, and I do believe the points above...but here comes the opposing argument:
So given that the LTE spectrum auction raised $19B, that is great, but a true economic argument can't just say "Look, we raised money for the citizens with this auction, therefore the auction was good. The end." No, instead we must consider the opportunity cost - that is, what could the country have done with the spectrum OTHER than auction it off to carriers. One of the best suggestions for an alternate way of using the spectrum would be to leave it "open", just as we do with the 2.4GHz band that Wi-Fi and many other consumer electronics products use.
The thing is, the 2.4GHz band has seen a revolution of innovation, new products, new value creation, job creation, efficiency creation, and has generally be very good for the world. And this was with a "garbage" band of spectrum that was pretty much left unused just because nobody wanted to pay for it, because it is a resonating frequency of water (it gets absorbed very quickly by water, which is a fairly common molecule on earth.)
So, the real question is, if the FCC clears up more spectrum, what is the BEST use of that spectrum. If an auction delivers $19B of value, how much value does open spectrum create - including that which is not deposited directly into the treasury.
Anybody who tries to just tell you about the billions in revenue, and neglects the opportunity cost, is probably trying to bias the discussion in one direction.
I was going to reply as to why your points are wrong, but then I figured I'd Google you're name to see if you are a lobbyist or something like it. Yep, you seem to be.
You have a reputation as being for hire by anti-Google forces, pro telecom, pro microsoft.
This is such BS. Government has a lot of foibles, but among my peeves is when one set of regulators puts in rules for the express purpose of tying the hands of another set of regulators.
In this case, we have the FCC, charged with the task of understanding and regulating radio waves and telecommunication, being hamstrung by Congress, Marsha Blackburn (& her special interest lobbyists). The sad thing is that the FCC actually *does* understand these issues, and often rules in favor of (what it believes is) the public interest -- unlike congress, which is stupider, and more easily misled by lobbyists.
So we have:
i) our dumber government officials
ii) spending our resources in order to pass laws
iii) to deliberately prevent our relatively informed government officials from doing their job.
"And yet, folks are moving the goalpost and saying, nope, still not good enough. So I don't know what the concern is. To me if I get what I ask for, I stop complaining."
Steve. Newsflash. New copyright enhancement legislation has been passed 15 times in the past 30 years. You lie. If you get what you ask for, you do not stop complaining.
Re: Re: Congressmen Should Get Groped As Much As The Rest of Us
Well...my 4th amendment rights don't seem to apply when I pass through security. I'm not happy about that.
As a priority, I'll spend a lot more energy fighting for the general public's rights at TSA than I would ever spend defending a Congressperson's special privilege (Constitutional or not.)
I can pick my battles, this wouldn't be the first one.
Congressmen Should Get Groped As Much As The Rest of Us
I see your constitutional quote, but wish it weren't true. Goose, Gander, etc.
But, seriously, how does the average TSA goon know that he is looking at a Senator on his way to Congress? If there is ID or documentation, are they trained to recognize it and validate it? Could it be fake? Could this be a terrorist impersonating a politician?
True. While I think Gingrich nailed it, I feel like I'm more grading performances than actually getting any truth.
The primaries and debates are more like Dancing With The Stars than any sensible political process. They just lack the brutally honest and funny element of a guy like Simon Cowell.
BTW, you are categorically wrong. I am a long way from a Gingrich campaign manager, but you say that "G spouted politically popular generalities" but you must have not paid much attention.
Gingrich, in a display rare for the debates, demonstrated knowledge of the bill and detailed specific downsides of the Bills: less freedom, protectionism to Hollywood, the fact that the tech savvy are against, it may mess up the Net, poorly written Bill, unacceptable censorship, we have sufficient patents and copyright law already, don't want preemptive government censorship for specific corporate interests.
That's a long way from popular generalities. The 9-9-9 guy would have given us that. Of the four, there were no more pointless generalities than those offered by Santorum.
So, in brief, what you think...just think the opposite.
Wow. Who was the guy in the Newt Gingrich suit? For 60 seconds, I actually LIKED Gingrich!! Was that you, Masnick?
Newt not only fell on the right side of the debate, he took the riskier position of saying so first. Further, he detailed the true downsides of the Bills: less freedom, protectionism to Hollywood, the fact that the tech savvy are against, it may mess up the Net, poorly written Bill, unacceptable censorship, we have sufficient patents and copyright law already, don't want preemptive government censorship for specific corporate interests.
And equally important, what he DID NOT say: no mention of the common but false assertion that piracy is a massive problem, no mention of the common but false notion that we need some new laws to handle it.
Newt clearly did not get a check from Hollywood!
Kudos to Ron Paul, too. Pointing out that this is not a D/R debate.
You find it risky to sit on the fence? Santorum said he didn't like the bill as written (riding the popular sentiment, and after hearing the applause offered Newt and Mitt), yet still managed to kiss the ass of the Intellectual Property maximalists. How is that not weak?
Sadly, his weak response was pretty much identical to Victoria Espinel and the White House. Lame.
I like your intention, but your proposal is not logical.
By assuming the possible legal bills for Wikipedia, Lamar would be exposing himself to risk SOPA or PIPA were used unfairly against wikipedia as we know it today. This is what you assumed, and why you want to challenge him as you do.
However, he Lamar also exposes himself to the risk if wikipedia DID actually begin to engage directly in copyright violations, or the sale of counterfeit items. Since wikipedia could (but wouldn't) do that, and it is out of the control of Lamar, he should not assume the risk. It's not a fair corner to paint him in.
On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks
Re: sigh, please learn some basics
Now, you also argue that "they should have known". That's a lot more interesting point, and I'm sure the Harbinger investors will have questions about that.
I'm not sure, however, that that was a foregone conclusion. LS had 20MHz to work with, and if they allocated half of that as a "shoulder band", could it have prevented interference? The answer to that, as we now know, is also no.
My point, in the article, for noting that it is not LS that is broadcasting out of bounds, but instead GPS that is listening out of bounds, is mainly to correct all the news I have seen stating precisely the opposite. And I go on to say, "...who is at fault is irrelevant: it remains LightSquared's problem to solve." It is policy, and I would argue correct policy, that new spectrum uses should not blow existing industries built on adjacent spectrum out of the sky. So chillax, everyone. I'm wasn't diving into the political part of this anyway (and apparently it's quite heated), I mostly lament the loss of a new entrant that was positioned to shake up the cellular market.
And I am not ignorant of the risky nature of what LS proposed, from an engineering point of view. I am just an advocate of letting them invest their own (private) money into seeing if they can make it work. It didn't, that's really too bad. Isn't it?
On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks
Re: Re: We should regret LightSquared's failure to grasp the laws of physics?
That said, WiFi n provided a substantial jump in range, and ac will add more bandwidth to the range of n. But I am still not, nor likely ever will, argue that Wi-Fi can supplant cellular.
But what I will argue (and did above) is that Wi-Fi connectivity, increasingly, can substitute for expensive cellular connectivity in numerous locations, and that all it takes is a smartphone with a wifi radio (common today) and some intelligent automatic switching inside the phone.
The example of Republic Wireless is just such a case. They propose to do MOST of the connectivity over wifi, and only roam onto Sprint's network for those times when out of wifi coverage. THIS is where wifi can challenge cellular.
Instead of thinking as our smartphones (as we do today) as cellular devices that can offload to wifi when possible, we could start to think of them as wifi devices that can roam onto cellular when needed. We would use fewer of the expensive cellular resources, and would ostensibly pay less.
I have NEVER been a "Wi-Fi will offer blanket coverage" guy. Read the article linked above to see how far from that I am.
On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks
Re: Re: Whose problem was it?
More scrappy, for me, is what I have seen on the ground with what LS was doing to business models and technology for mobile telecoms. They were partnering with some very different technology partners. They were going all IP. The wholesale model would have put dozens of new MVNOs into our market - all with different pricing schemes and business models. ex: Best Buy might sell you a laptop with 1-yr connectivity bundled into the price. I saw startups who couldn't get the time of day from a major wireless carrier get rushed into the test labs at LS. That is precisely the kind of 'scrappy' that I wrote about in the article. As you and Artp noted, I somewhat glossed over the spectrum purchase part. What I wrote about, and what will be missed, is this venue of open and free thought, unlimited by any legacy.
On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks
Re: Re: Whose problem was it?
Klink, you are concerned that the FCC didn't "rescind". OK, forgive me, the term they used was "indefinitely suspend". They had given LS a waiver to run their terrestrial system on formerly spatial spectrum. They revoked that waiver. If "rescind" doesn't fit for you, then I've got a head full of hairs we can split when you have time.
Artp, you are spot-on that running a terrestrial network in adjacent spectrum to a spatial network is ill-advised. You somewhat take the position that it is LS's "loud yelling" next door that is the problem, I somewhat take the position that it is GPS's active listening that is the problem. But, regardless, as I put in the article, it doesn't matter: it is LS's job to make it work, or they can't launch. "A long history of spectrum policy states that new entrants must not mess up the existing radio devices".
On the post: A 4G iPad Requires A Sensible Shared Data Plan
Re:
Also, I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to support that theory, but that doesn't count for much unless you trust my sources, as I do, and it comes from multiple different sources. My sources are cellular carriers who have sold 3G-enabled tablets, only to see them disconnect from the network and not re-subscribe.
On the post: A 4G iPad Requires A Sensible Shared Data Plan
Re: Killer App for Wi-Fi
On the post: A 4G iPad Requires A Sensible Shared Data Plan
Re: There Will Be No Change
If they continue to gouge us for our second and third devices, they will lose the long-term opportunity to have those devices connected. Eventually, nobody will want non-phones to have a cellular radio. We'll all use wifi. Wifi will get better, then we'll start switching our phones off cellular data, too.
On the post: A 4G iPad Requires A Sensible Shared Data Plan
Re: The Wireless Myth
- Fixed infrastructure was put in place decades ago (cable and phone lines) and amortized long ago on telephone and cable TV revenues. You don't have to dig new trenches. The new found windfall of selling broadband connectivity over those same copper lines has none of the expensive capex of doing the same on wireless. Developing nations don't have this amortized infrastructure, so they build wireless first.
- The fixed cables are simply fatter pipes. And the cable operators can pump every and any frequency down that pipe - it's all theirs. Every improvement in end-device compression, multiplexing and modulation schemes results in vast improvements in total bandwidth (ex: CWDM or DOCSIS). In wireless, we are historically working within 5MHz channels, and carriers often have maybe 20MHz in a region. Mobile carriers, with LTE, are approaching the Shannon-Hartley theoretical limit for how much data can be crammed in a limited band width.
- Much of the fixed data business in the world is done in densely populated cities. There's a reason datacenters, banks, movie production studios, etc, all locate near the big peering centers and fiber interconnection spots. It's cheaper to wire a dense city for lots of Terabytes, because the cables are non-interfering and so capacity is unlimited. Each one carriers its signal, and another can be laid next to it. With wireless, density actually causes problems. The airwaves are interfering, so capacity is not unlimited.
- In less dense areas, it is also more expensive to invest in cellular, because few users are there to pay back the infrastructure. And the USA has lots of rural areas. Now, this argument applies to both fixed and mobile...but mobile covers a far wider swath of the country than fixed broadband.
- Cable companies and telcos were often given the rights of way for their networks, as part of franchise agreements with governments and in a deal that they would offer universal service. In contrast, cellular carriers must outbid each other at auction to get access to more spectrum. The last auction for LTE spectrum raised $19B. This is a cost fixed providers don't have to pay. And instead of the municipality offering you right of way so that there will be cable (or phones), cellular carriers usually end up fighting the town or NIMBY citizens for every tower they install.
Not to say that cellular carriers won't try to extract every penny they can from the customer...they certainly will. But there are additional costs and limits that you don't have with fixed lines.
On the post: Canadian Muslim Who Sends Text Urging His Employees To 'Blow Away' The Competition Arrested As A 'Terror' Suspect
Re: Re:
On the post: Congress Trying To Regulate Certain Wireless Spectrum Issues... In A Payroll Tax Bill?
Re: CTIA Ad Ties Spectrum Sale to Payroll Tax Cut Funding
The wireless carriers, and thus the CTIA, want (and arguably need) more spectrum to serve the growing demand for mobile data.
Any spectrum, if auctioned, does often deliver billions of dollars to the US treasury, paid by the carriers. The last such auction was in 2007 and yielded not just $19billion to the treasury, but it also offers the general consumer benefit of access to some pretty awesome LTE wireless networks.
Now, so far, I sound like a mouthpiece for the carriers, and I do believe the points above...but here comes the opposing argument:
So given that the LTE spectrum auction raised $19B, that is great, but a true economic argument can't just say "Look, we raised money for the citizens with this auction, therefore the auction was good. The end." No, instead we must consider the opportunity cost - that is, what could the country have done with the spectrum OTHER than auction it off to carriers. One of the best suggestions for an alternate way of using the spectrum would be to leave it "open", just as we do with the 2.4GHz band that Wi-Fi and many other consumer electronics products use.
The thing is, the 2.4GHz band has seen a revolution of innovation, new products, new value creation, job creation, efficiency creation, and has generally be very good for the world. And this was with a "garbage" band of spectrum that was pretty much left unused just because nobody wanted to pay for it, because it is a resonating frequency of water (it gets absorbed very quickly by water, which is a fairly common molecule on earth.)
So, the real question is, if the FCC clears up more spectrum, what is the BEST use of that spectrum. If an auction delivers $19B of value, how much value does open spectrum create - including that which is not deposited directly into the treasury.
Anybody who tries to just tell you about the billions in revenue, and neglects the opportunity cost, is probably trying to bias the discussion in one direction.
On the post: Congress Trying To Regulate Certain Wireless Spectrum Issues... In A Payroll Tax Bill?
Re: check the constitution...
I was going to reply as to why your points are wrong, but then I figured I'd Google you're name to see if you are a lobbyist or something like it. Yep, you seem to be.
You have a reputation as being for hire by anti-Google forces, pro telecom, pro microsoft.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2012/01/24/the-real-reasons-google-killed-sop apipa/
Allegedly, you are an astroturf specialist.
http://techrights.org/2010/09/16/lobby-vs-google-and-msft-rand/
So, instead of replying, I feel your credibility doesn't warrant my effort.
On the post: Congress Trying To Regulate Certain Wireless Spectrum Issues... In A Payroll Tax Bill?
Wag The Dog
In this case, we have the FCC, charged with the task of understanding and regulating radio waves and telecommunication, being hamstrung by Congress, Marsha Blackburn (& her special interest lobbyists). The sad thing is that the FCC actually *does* understand these issues, and often rules in favor of (what it believes is) the public interest -- unlike congress, which is stupider, and more easily misled by lobbyists.
So we have:
i) our dumber government officials
ii) spending our resources in order to pass laws
iii) to deliberately prevent our relatively informed government officials from doing their job.
Keep up the good work, DC.
On the post: Discussing SOPA/PIPA Over At On The Media
Hypocrite
"And yet, folks are moving the goalpost and saying, nope, still not good enough. So I don't know what the concern is. To me if I get what I ask for, I stop complaining."
Steve. Newsflash. New copyright enhancement legislation has been passed 15 times in the past 30 years. You lie. If you get what you ask for, you do not stop complaining.
On the post: TSA Critic, Senator Rand Paul, Prevented By TSA From Getting On His Flight To DC
Re: Re: Congressmen Should Get Groped As Much As The Rest of Us
As a priority, I'll spend a lot more energy fighting for the general public's rights at TSA than I would ever spend defending a Congressperson's special privilege (Constitutional or not.)
I can pick my battles, this wouldn't be the first one.
On the post: TSA Critic, Senator Rand Paul, Prevented By TSA From Getting On His Flight To DC
Congressmen Should Get Groped As Much As The Rest of Us
But, seriously, how does the average TSA goon know that he is looking at a Senator on his way to Congress? If there is ID or documentation, are they trained to recognize it and validate it? Could it be fake? Could this be a terrorist impersonating a politician?
In a country where nobody knows the politicians:
http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-chan ged-by-news-and-information-revolutions/
...should we expect the TSA agents to know better?
On the post: Crowd Cheers Loudly As All Four GOP Candidates Say No To SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re:
The primaries and debates are more like Dancing With The Stars than any sensible political process. They just lack the brutally honest and funny element of a guy like Simon Cowell.
On the post: Crowd Cheers Loudly As All Four GOP Candidates Say No To SOPA/PIPA
Re:
Gingrich, in a display rare for the debates, demonstrated knowledge of the bill and detailed specific downsides of the Bills: less freedom, protectionism to Hollywood, the fact that the tech savvy are against, it may mess up the Net, poorly written Bill, unacceptable censorship, we have sufficient patents and copyright law already, don't want preemptive government censorship for specific corporate interests.
That's a long way from popular generalities. The 9-9-9 guy would have given us that. Of the four, there were no more pointless generalities than those offered by Santorum.
So, in brief, what you think...just think the opposite.
On the post: Crowd Cheers Loudly As All Four GOP Candidates Say No To SOPA/PIPA
Who Was That?
Newt not only fell on the right side of the debate, he took the riskier position of saying so first. Further, he detailed the true downsides of the Bills: less freedom, protectionism to Hollywood, the fact that the tech savvy are against, it may mess up the Net, poorly written Bill, unacceptable censorship, we have sufficient patents and copyright law already, don't want preemptive government censorship for specific corporate interests.
And equally important, what he DID NOT say: no mention of the common but false assertion that piracy is a massive problem, no mention of the common but false notion that we need some new laws to handle it.
Newt clearly did not get a check from Hollywood!
Kudos to Ron Paul, too. Pointing out that this is not a D/R debate.
On the post: Crowd Cheers Loudly As All Four GOP Candidates Say No To SOPA/PIPA
Re:
Sadly, his weak response was pretty much identical to Victoria Espinel and the White House. Lame.
On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt
Re: Money -> Mouth
By assuming the possible legal bills for Wikipedia, Lamar would be exposing himself to risk SOPA or PIPA were used unfairly against wikipedia as we know it today. This is what you assumed, and why you want to challenge him as you do.
However, he Lamar also exposes himself to the risk if wikipedia DID actually begin to engage directly in copyright violations, or the sale of counterfeit items. Since wikipedia could (but wouldn't) do that, and it is out of the control of Lamar, he should not assume the risk. It's not a fair corner to paint him in.
Next >>