In the debate about LLU, much has been made of Property.

From the listing above, most of the debate has conflated two meanings of the word, where their separation would clarify what is being discussed and alleviate the fears of those who are concerned about State confiscation.

1.c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title

This definition covers both the meanings that need to be seperated, the tangible copper, that LLU does not threaten. LLU would not take away Telecom's ownership of the physical infrastructure. There is no suggestion that access would be "given," it would be charged, at a rate who's fairness depends on your faith in the State to set prices.

5. A special capability or power; a virtue

The power of the local loop is that Telecom retains the monopoly control of it at the physical level, and we are beginning to see an ominous growth in efforts to control the use made of the services that run over this otherwise impartial infrastructure, "deep packet inspection" and limited performance to preclude the paying customer from making uses of the service which impact the operators profitabiility. NB. These efforts are sometimes presented under the aegis of protecting other customers from abuses by a small minority.

LLU is about sharing the virtue, not removing the tangible, and if you think that is confiscatory, remember you don't own the mineral resources under your land in this country, nor do you own the airspace above it. These virtues of your property are shared.

All that being said, I agree with those who argue LLU is too late, and implementation now, with changing network architectures underway, will be too vigorously opposed by the incumbent and their skill at twisting out of legislative and regulatory constraint suggests this is their new core competency. Evidence from Australia and the fate of their CDMA cellular network suggest their network decisions aren't as good as they could be. We await the outcome of the Next Generation Network investment, it does in fact more resemble the old, application specific approach of the PSTN, expanded to a "Triple Play," but limited to only the three plays that the operator believes will help them retain their current margins.

Fortunately, the Internet architecture routes around defects, and the worse the behaviour of incumbents, both local and alien, the more apparent the need for a "Third Way" becomes. Implementations, not further discussion and reports, are what is needed. The momentum of municipal networks, both wired and wireless, driven by standards and the lowering cost of entry, both at the center and edge of networks, is growing, despite efforts by beneficiaries of the current model, legislative and otherwise.

There is a growing appreciation of the difference between the connection, and the services delivered over it. One demands co-operation, the other benefits from competition.

Only networks of the people, by the people, for the people deserve protection by the collective.

Will this harm the incumbents? Possibly, left to their own selfish devices, they haven't proved terribly adept at adapting. And if it did harm them, isn't the Bentham utilitiarian approach to favour the greatest good for the greatest number apt?

Generally I'd observe that the dissemination of content that the Courts attempt to suppress, in the interests of Justice of course, was simply another case of content control being weakened by the Internet's democratisation of distribution.

However the limited distribution on paper at Wellington Railway Station is so retro as to suggest it is more a gesture, a deliberate provocation of the status quo, rather than any serious attempt to inform the public. Otherwise they would use the Internet.

How long the legal system believes it can sustain its control of distribution of information before it moves to a new model of jurisprudence will be as interesting to watch as the struggles of the recording and distribution industries.

Interdiction of information may have always been futile in one way or another. Constable Abbot was no doubt well known to anyone who intended him harm, the folding of the 4th Estate, with one exception, before another police action, is another example of the "great and good" protecting their own patches at the expense of the public knowlege.

Do we need to know? Good question, but a better one to ask would be, Do you trust them? Given the components of the system and their known behaviour, Politicians, Lawyers and Police, it would seem the more transparency in the law, the better.

Doubt comes in at the window when inquiry is denied at the
door.

-- Benjamin Jowet