

Proposed Mexican Telecom Law Would Be a Disaster for Internet Freedom - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/proposed-mexican-telecom-law-would-be-disaster-internet-freedom

======
armandososa
Mexican here.

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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlatelolco_massacre))
so it is obvious that he wants to control, censor and shut-down the internet.

------
ar7hur
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.

~~~
WildUtah
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.

~~~
thaumasiotes
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?

~~~
WildUtah
"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.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> 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.

------
sogen
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...

------
beedogs
It seems like the entire planet is headed inexorably toward a locked-down,
oppressed future, both online and off.

------
baldeagle
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.

~~~
brownbat
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...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YKL8jFBHRCsJ:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303277704579349283584121344+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
[cache because the original story seems to be broken on WSJ]

------
magoghm
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.

------
sogen
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.

------
lalos
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.

~~~
harshreality
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?

~~~
chaostheory
> 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?

~~~
harshreality
> 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)?

~~~
chaostheory
> 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?

~~~
harshreality
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?

~~~
chaostheory
> 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?

------
judk
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.

~~~
chaostheory
> 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.

