Proposed Mexican Telecom Law Would Be a Disaster for Internet Freedom(eff.org)
eff.org
Proposed Mexican Telecom Law Would Be a Disaster for Internet Freedom
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/proposed-mexican-telecom-law-would-be-disaster-internet-freedom
24 comments
Unfortunately as a consequence to Carlos Slim's quasi-monopoly on telcos, Mexico has already the highest Internet access price in the world. I'm wondering if this law is not another attempt to lock down the system.
Slim's Telmex monopoly drove Mexico's voice telecom prices to the highest in the first world, though competition and regulation have now reduced them somewhat . Data and internet prices are pretty reasonable.
Home broadband connections can be had for about US$20-35 per month. Reliable 4G nationwide month-to-month absolutely no contract plans with 2GB+ data can be had for US$25 or less.
Home broadband connections can be had for about US$20-35 per month. Reliable 4G nationwide month-to-month absolutely no contract plans with 2GB+ data can be had for US$25 or less.
Yeah, those are better prices than I'd expect to see in the US (only experience: San Francisco comcast, or T-mobile for cell data). Broadband and cell data will substitute perfectly for "voice service"... what gives?
"Broadband and cell data will substitute perfectly for "voice service"... what gives?
reply"
They substitute only if everyone you want to call has Skype or GVoice or something. If you want to call people with phone numbers, you need voice specific service. Telmex charges Skype &c big, big interconnect fees to access the regular telephone number voice market.
It's been worth enough to make Slim the world's richest man mostly on the charges for USA-Mexico voice interconnect fees. I used to talk to my US contacts on Skype.
They substitute only if everyone you want to call has Skype or GVoice or something. If you want to call people with phone numbers, you need voice specific service. Telmex charges Skype &c big, big interconnect fees to access the regular telephone number voice market.
It's been worth enough to make Slim the world's richest man mostly on the charges for USA-Mexico voice interconnect fees. I used to talk to my US contacts on Skype.
> If you want to call people with phone numbers, you need voice specific service
This isn't true. I use google voice and the GrooVe app to make and receive calls to and from land lines. They don't need GVoice; I do. And I have it.
Then again, my GV calls connect to US numbers. On examination, the Google Voice rate to call mexico is indeed ridiculously high ($0.15 / minute -- compare the $7.14 / minute my parents' land line wanted in order to connect to China [GV rate: $0.02]).
But if the use case is talking to family members on a regular basis (seems likely when the cash cow is US -> mexico calls), it shouldn't even be difficult to tell them "if you use the internet, we can all talk for free". Your family seems especially likely to be willing to make some accommodations.
This isn't true. I use google voice and the GrooVe app to make and receive calls to and from land lines. They don't need GVoice; I do. And I have it.
Then again, my GV calls connect to US numbers. On examination, the Google Voice rate to call mexico is indeed ridiculously high ($0.15 / minute -- compare the $7.14 / minute my parents' land line wanted in order to connect to China [GV rate: $0.02]).
But if the use case is talking to family members on a regular basis (seems likely when the cash cow is US -> mexico calls), it shouldn't even be difficult to tell them "if you use the internet, we can all talk for free". Your family seems especially likely to be willing to make some accommodations.
Unfortunately since Televisa and TV Azteca own a big stake in this bill, they won't give air time about it, and will go unnoticed by the general mexican public...
It seems like the entire planet is headed inexorably toward a locked-down, oppressed future, both online and off.
I wonder if the level of violence in Mexico changes how people see these internet tracking and retention bills? If any government official could pull your blogging and twitter history, seems like it could have more consequences than in America. But it still seems like only a small portion of the population cares... guess all around the world everyone has life issues that limit their expression of political will.
I could see it both ways. If you believe the federal government is violently corrupt, you wouldn't want them to have any information on anything you said to disparage them.
If you see locals as corrupt and the federales as simply lacking ways to investigate and prosecute drug kingpins, then you might want much longer periods of data retention.
Of course, if you're plagued by violence, you might not really care about telecommunications regulation, you might have more important things to worry about, like whether or not the Knights Templar are going to accidentally kill your local preacher's kidnapped daughter before the community can rally to collect the ransom:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YKL8jFB... [cache because the original story seems to be broken on WSJ]
If you see locals as corrupt and the federales as simply lacking ways to investigate and prosecute drug kingpins, then you might want much longer periods of data retention.
Of course, if you're plagued by violence, you might not really care about telecommunications regulation, you might have more important things to worry about, like whether or not the Knights Templar are going to accidentally kill your local preacher's kidnapped daughter before the community can rally to collect the ransom:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YKL8jFB... [cache because the original story seems to be broken on WSJ]
Mexicans do not expect their government to use this kind of authority to actually pursue and stop violent criminals. The level of cynicism and suspicion toward government is astonishing to me, even as an American. IT makes me a little proud.
But the Mexican government usually seems somewhat more responsive to public opinion on internet, security, and privacy policy issues than the US government is. So there's some chance these provisions will be changed if enough people care.
But the Mexican government usually seems somewhat more responsive to public opinion on internet, security, and privacy policy issues than the US government is. So there's some chance these provisions will be changed if enough people care.
To be honest, I am a lot more scared about the PRI party and its determination to do whatever it takes to stay in power than of the narco. Criminals beheading each other is bad, sure, but state-sanctioned rape and mass-murder of protestors is the stuff of nightmares.
If this law comes to pass, we'll be pretty much without a voice.
If this law comes to pass, we'll be pretty much without a voice.
The bill mandates that telecommunication companies retain all customers' communication data for 12 months. Do they really mean ALL the data? Everything I watch on Netflix, Crunchyroll & YouTube? All the games I download from Steam, PSN & the eShop? All the data from my ssh & scp sessions (which should be useless to anybody)?
It seems to me that they do not understand what they are asking for.
For those who don't know, between Azcárraga-Televisa (Sky/Megacable/Megared/Cablevision/Yoo/etc), and Slim (Telmex/Telcel/Dish), they account for 99.9% of Mexican internet access.
You may be thinking "who cares I don't live in Mexico" but here is a relevant poem by Martin Niemöller.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."
This is relevant since citizens from all over the world must be involved with laws that affect the internet and if we don't care about other countries it may cause a domino effect until it reaches yours. We are all citizens of the Internet.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."
This is relevant since citizens from all over the world must be involved with laws that affect the internet and if we don't care about other countries it may cause a domino effect until it reaches yours. We are all citizens of the Internet.
Except that, and all similar statements, are pretty much talking about a slippery slope within a single body politic. Because I'm not out protesting against North Korea's or China's policies, I'm contributing to the decay of civil liberties and internet freedom in the United States? I don't think so. Mexico is not a China or a North Korea, but there's political separation between any countries that can't be ignored.
I don't mind too much if EFF gives some support to Mexican organizations opposing this, but I think the main effort against it should originate from Mexico. Nothing makes conservative Americans more upset than hearing Central or South American leaders lecture the United States on policy. We should be cautious about lecturing or trying to influence other countries. Saving people from themselves is a noble goal, but it has a low success rate, is highly stressful and is not for everyone.
Political corruption and dissociation between the wishes of the people and the actions of government is a problem in most representative democracies, and I don't mean to trivialize that.
It's also seems plausible to me that Central and South American governments might pursue these sorts of policies partly as an evolution of surveillance against gang and drug crime, and therefore partly at the behest of certain U.S. political interests. Which would mean it's quite a political tangle.
Is Mexico's internet policy more significant than China's to the internet as a whole? Will lawmakers or courts of the U.S. or Europe look to Mexico to decide how to proceed on issues of civil liberties on the internet? In other words, is this the best place for freedom-minded technologists to put what little political muscle they have to work?
I don't mind too much if EFF gives some support to Mexican organizations opposing this, but I think the main effort against it should originate from Mexico. Nothing makes conservative Americans more upset than hearing Central or South American leaders lecture the United States on policy. We should be cautious about lecturing or trying to influence other countries. Saving people from themselves is a noble goal, but it has a low success rate, is highly stressful and is not for everyone.
Political corruption and dissociation between the wishes of the people and the actions of government is a problem in most representative democracies, and I don't mean to trivialize that.
It's also seems plausible to me that Central and South American governments might pursue these sorts of policies partly as an evolution of surveillance against gang and drug crime, and therefore partly at the behest of certain U.S. political interests. Which would mean it's quite a political tangle.
Is Mexico's internet policy more significant than China's to the internet as a whole? Will lawmakers or courts of the U.S. or Europe look to Mexico to decide how to proceed on issues of civil liberties on the internet? In other words, is this the best place for freedom-minded technologists to put what little political muscle they have to work?
> Except that, and all similar statements, are pretty much talking about a slippery slope within a single body politic.
Is it? Can it not ever apply beyond that? Did the poet make it clear that it only applies to a single body politic?
> Nothing makes conservative Americans more upset than hearing Central or South American leaders lecture the United States on policy.
Is it that important when it upsets some people? Besides some of their lectures are valid especially the ones concerning narcotics legalization.
> We should be cautious about lecturing or trying to influence other countries.
Looking at your previous example, I feel that you're confusing a non-profit organization with the US government.
> Saving people from themselves is a noble goal, but it has a low success rate, is highly stressful and is not for everyone.
Are you saying that the EFF should just give up and quit because the challenge / problem is too difficult?
> Is Mexico's internet policy more significant than China's to the internet as a whole?
Does this really matter? A victory is still a victory no matter how small. I also doubt that the EFF is expending as much resources for this as they would for a SOPA or TPP. Using this logic should people stop fighting for civil liberties in small towns since they're not as big or important as big metros?
Is it? Can it not ever apply beyond that? Did the poet make it clear that it only applies to a single body politic?
> Nothing makes conservative Americans more upset than hearing Central or South American leaders lecture the United States on policy.
Is it that important when it upsets some people? Besides some of their lectures are valid especially the ones concerning narcotics legalization.
> We should be cautious about lecturing or trying to influence other countries.
Looking at your previous example, I feel that you're confusing a non-profit organization with the US government.
> Saving people from themselves is a noble goal, but it has a low success rate, is highly stressful and is not for everyone.
Are you saying that the EFF should just give up and quit because the challenge / problem is too difficult?
> Is Mexico's internet policy more significant than China's to the internet as a whole?
Does this really matter? A victory is still a victory no matter how small. I also doubt that the EFF is expending as much resources for this as they would for a SOPA or TPP. Using this logic should people stop fighting for civil liberties in small towns since they're not as big or important as big metros?
> Is it? Can it not ever apply beyond that? Did the poet make it clear that it only applies to a single body politic?
It can be, of course, but there are political realities when trying to influence public policy in another country.
> Looking at your previous example, I feel that you're confusing a non-profit organization with the US government.
Unlike governments, non-profits have no political pull in foreign countries other than to get citizens of those countries motivated to organize their own political blocs. Which the EFF should try to do, to a point. But U.S. citizens getting involved is, quite frankly, political interference. We can write all the rhetoric we want on the internet about how logging internet traffic is stupid, and how Mexico shouldn't do it (of course that's true), but is it going to change policymakers' minds in Mexico? I very much doubt it. And internet-using freedom-loving Mexicans willing to get politically involved probably don't need the U.S. based EFF to tell them about political machinations within Mexico.
The U.S. government could use some of its muscle and convince the Mexican government to shelve this proposal, but how well would that go over, when the NSA is selectively logging anything it wants anywhere in the world (anywhere that it can get at and tap)?
It can be, of course, but there are political realities when trying to influence public policy in another country.
> Looking at your previous example, I feel that you're confusing a non-profit organization with the US government.
Unlike governments, non-profits have no political pull in foreign countries other than to get citizens of those countries motivated to organize their own political blocs. Which the EFF should try to do, to a point. But U.S. citizens getting involved is, quite frankly, political interference. We can write all the rhetoric we want on the internet about how logging internet traffic is stupid, and how Mexico shouldn't do it (of course that's true), but is it going to change policymakers' minds in Mexico? I very much doubt it. And internet-using freedom-loving Mexicans willing to get politically involved probably don't need the U.S. based EFF to tell them about political machinations within Mexico.
The U.S. government could use some of its muscle and convince the Mexican government to shelve this proposal, but how well would that go over, when the NSA is selectively logging anything it wants anywhere in the world (anywhere that it can get at and tap)?
> It can be, of course, but there are political realities when trying to influence public policy in another country.
Yes, but what does that have to do with constricting the meaning of the poem?
> Unlike governments, non-profits have no political pull in foreign countries other than to get citizens of those countries motivated to organize their own political blocs.
The EFF is all about raising awareness. How does this hurt anyone? Why is it stupid to help raise awareness of an issue in another country?
Yes, but what does that have to do with constricting the meaning of the poem?
> Unlike governments, non-profits have no political pull in foreign countries other than to get citizens of those countries motivated to organize their own political blocs.
The EFF is all about raising awareness. How does this hurt anyone? Why is it stupid to help raise awareness of an issue in another country?
To rephrase: Acting on the spirit of the poem, and other similar philosophy, without taking heed of certain caveats I elaborated upon, is political foolishness, and perhaps the primary reason enlightened liberals have a lot of trouble getting things done in the world.
> Why is it stupid to help raise awareness...
Take a look at the only place I used the word "stupid". Hint: it has nothing to do with the EFF.
I'm attempting to inject some balance, and some political reality, into what I think is head-in-the-clouds liberalism.
I don't know that the EFF is doing anything that hurts people right now; this was but one press release on their website. But anyone, like the poster who started this subthread, who tries to make Mexico's issues the world's issues, has to contend with allocation of limited organization resources (opportunity costs). If organizations in the rest of the world put resources into interfering in Mexico's primarily internal policies, and get nothing out of it, when they could have been fighting policies that more directly affect those organizations' members, is that not harm?
> Why is it stupid to help raise awareness...
Take a look at the only place I used the word "stupid". Hint: it has nothing to do with the EFF.
I'm attempting to inject some balance, and some political reality, into what I think is head-in-the-clouds liberalism.
I don't know that the EFF is doing anything that hurts people right now; this was but one press release on their website. But anyone, like the poster who started this subthread, who tries to make Mexico's issues the world's issues, has to contend with allocation of limited organization resources (opportunity costs). If organizations in the rest of the world put resources into interfering in Mexico's primarily internal policies, and get nothing out of it, when they could have been fighting policies that more directly affect those organizations' members, is that not harm?
> To rephrase: Acting on the spirit of the poem, and other similar philosophy, without taking heed of certain caveats I elaborated upon, is political foolishness
How is it foolish when the cost is low and what does this have to do with being a liberal (ftr I am not a liberal)? Of course let's not forget that your original point was that you felt the poem had a very limited scope.
> has to contend with allocation of limited organization resources (opportunity costs).
Is the cost of writing and posting an article online expensive? What opportunity costs are they missing by writing a single article?
How is it foolish when the cost is low and what does this have to do with being a liberal (ftr I am not a liberal)? Of course let's not forget that your original point was that you felt the poem had a very limited scope.
> has to contend with allocation of limited organization resources (opportunity costs).
Is the cost of writing and posting an article online expensive? What opportunity costs are they missing by writing a single article?
In wish EFF would be more impartial in its language and let then facts speak for themselves. They can make there case by spreading factual information and requesting an activist response. I don't trust anyone who tells me how I should feel.
> In wish EFF would be more impartial in its language and let then facts speak for themselves.
The EFF is not a news agency. They're an advocacy group. They don't need to be impartial when it comes to civil rights and freedom just as the NRA doesn't need to be impartial when it comes to firearms.
The EFF is not a news agency. They're an advocacy group. They don't need to be impartial when it comes to civil rights and freedom just as the NRA doesn't need to be impartial when it comes to firearms.
This is a big deal for us. The PRI party who was ousted in year 2000 after 70 years ruling Mexico, just regained power in 2012 after using all their corruption, media and populism machinery.
Our president is (or pretends to be) an idiotic ignorant who can't name three books he has ever read. His only opposition comes from social media, twitter and Facebook because he pretty much has all the traditional media in his pocket.
El PRI has an historic record of being trigger happy against their enemies even when these are unarmed students (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlatelolco_massacre) so it is obvious that he wants to control, censor and shut-down the internet.