November 2010 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

European Commission sets out strategy to strengthen EU data protection rules

by Andrea Glorioso

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1462&format=H… European Commission sets out strategy to strengthen EU data protection rules What happens to your personal data when you board a plane, open a bank account, or share photos online? How is this data used and by whom? How do you permanently delete profile information on social networking websites? Can you transfer your contacts and photos to another service? Controlling your information, having access to your data, being able to modify or delete it – these are essential rights that have to be guaranteed in today's digital world. To address these issues, the European Commission today set out a strategy on how to protect individuals' data in all policy areas, including law enforcement, while reducing red tape for business and guaranteeing the free circulation of data within the EU. This policy review will be used by the Commission with the results of a public consultation to revise the EU’s 1995 Data Protection Directive. The Commission will then propose legislation in 2011. "The protection of personal data is a fundamental right," said Vice-President Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. "To guarantee this right, we need clear and consistent data protection rules. We also need to bring our laws up to date with the challenges raised by new technologies and globalisation. The Commission will put forward legislation next year to strengthen individuals' rights while also removing red tape to ensure the free flow of data within the EU’s Single Market." Today's strategy sets out proposals on how to modernise the EU framework for data protection rules through a series of key goals: * Strengthening individuals' rights so that the collection and use of personal data is limited to the minimum necessary. Individuals should also be clearly informed in a transparent way on how, why, by whom, and for how long their data is collected and used. People should be able to give their informed consent to the processing of their personal data, for example when surfing online, and should have the "right to be forgotten" when their data is no longer needed or they want their data to be deleted. * Enhancing the Single Market dimension by reducing the administrative burden on companies and ensuring a true level-playing field. Current differences in implementing EU data protection rules and a lack of clarity about which country's rules apply harm the free flow of personal data within the EU and raise costs. * Revising data protection rules in the area of police and criminal justice so that individuals' personal data is also protected in these areas. Under the Lisbon Treaty, the EU now has the possibility to lay down comprehensive and coherent rules on data protection for all sectors, including police and criminal justice. Naturally, the specificities and needs of these sectors will be taken into account. Under the review, data retained for law enforcement purposes should also be covered by the new legislative framework. The Commission is also reviewing the 2006 Data Retention Directive, under which companies are required to store communication traffic data for a period of between six months and two years. * Ensuring high levels of protection for data transferred outside the EU by improving and streamlining procedures for international data transfers. The EU should strive for the same levels of protection in cooperation with third countries and promote high standards for data protection at a global level. * More effective enforcement of the rules, by strengthening and further harmonising the role and powers of Data Protection Authorities. Improved cooperation and coordination is also strongly needed to ensure a more consistent application of data protection rules across the Single Market. The way forward The Commission's policy review will serve as a basis for further discussion and assessment. The Commission is calling on all stakeholders and the public to comment on the review's proposals until 15 January 2011. Submissions can be made on the Commission’s public consultation web site: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/news_consulting_0006_en.… Building on this, the Commission will present proposals for a new general data protection legal framework in 2011, which will then need to be negotiated and adopted by the European Parliament and the Council. In addition, the Commission will examine other measures, such as encouraging awareness-raising campaigns on data protection rights and possible self-regulation initiatives by industry. Background EU data protection rules (the 1995 Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC) aim to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular the right to data protection, as well as the free flow of data. This general Data Protection Directive has been complemented by other legal instruments, such as the e-Privacy Directive for the communications sector. There are also specific rules for the protection of personal data in police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA). The right to the protection of personal data is explicitly recognised in Article 8 of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the Lisbon Treaty. The Treaty provides the legal basis for rules on data protection for all activities within the scope of EU law under Article 16. In 2009, the Commission launched a review of the current legal framework on data protection, starting with a high-level conference in May 2009, followed by a public consultation running until the end of 2009. Targeted stakeholders consultations were organised throughout 2010. In January 2010, Vice-President Viviane Reding announced the Commission's intention to modernise EU data privacy rules in a speech on Data Protection Day (see IP/10/63 and SPEECH/10/441) in her previous role as Information Society Commissioner. Today’s Communication was produced in agreement with Neelie Kroes, EU Commissioner in charge of the Digital Agenda. Justice Directorate-General Newsroom: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/intro/news_intro_en.htm Homepage of Vice-President Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/reding/index_en.htm MEMO/10/542

Nov. 4, 2010

Fwd: [report-release-list] Berkman Center: “Accountability and Transparency at ICANN: An Independent Review”

by Andrea Glorioso

FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [report-release-list] Berkman Center: “Accountability and Transparency at ICANN: An Independent Review” Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 09:33:10 -0400 From: Seth Young <syoung(a)cyber.law.harvard.edu> Reply-To: report-release-and-press-list(a)eon.law.harvard.edu, Seth Young <syoung(a)cyber.law.harvard.edu> Organization: Berkman Center To: report-release-and-press-list(a)eon.law.harvard.edu Good morning, The Berkman Center for Internet & Society is pleased to announce that the final draft of its independent review of accountability and transparency at ICANN has been posted by the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT); see  *http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03nov10-en.htm* . From the ATRT's announcement:  =====  The Accountability and Transparency Review Team issues this request for Public Comment on a set of draft proposed Recommendations that it has developed as part of its review of ICANN’s execution of its commitments to accountability and transparency under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC). The ATRT is required to provide final Recommendations to the ICANN Board no later than December 31, 2010. The draft proposed recommendations are based on the public comments and inputs received to date, interactions with the ICANN Community at the 37th ICANN meeting in Brussels, interviews, fact-finding and analysis by the ATRT. They are also based on input from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. The Berkman Center was selected to act as an Independent Expert, as provided by the AoC, and was asked by the ATRT to provide its own analysis focusing on the provisions of paragraph 9.1 of the AoC. The Berkman Center conducted primary and secondary research including a set of case studies and a series of interviews to produce a Final Report which is attached as Appendix A. The ATRT considered the recommendations in the Berkman Center’s Final Report as it developed the draft proposed Recommendations that are being published for Public Comment. Translations of the Berkman Center Final Report are being prepared and will be promptly issued. ===== For the full announcement, with links to the ATRT’s draft proposed recommendations, translations, instructions for commenting, and the Berkman Center’s Final Report, visit http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03nov10-en.htm  . The Final Report dives deep into a selected set of issues embedded in the broad topic of transparency and accountability at ICANN. A large, coordinated team effort at the Berkman Center was required to achieve this depth and focus in the short time frame available for the study. Thanks to everyone at the Berkman Center – and our collaborators – who contributed long hours to this timely work! In January 2011, the Berkman Center will make publicly available additional research materials that were gathered in the course of the Center’s production of its Final Report. The page for this project on the Berkman Center website is http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/icann_review . As always, we welcome your feedback. After the ATRT’s submission of its final report to the ICANN Board, the research team at the Berkman Center looks forward to discussing its work with colleagues and commenters. Seth Young Communications Berkman Center for Internet & Society  Harvard University -- The Berkman Center for Internet & Society -- http://cyber.law.harvard.edu -- exploring cyberspace, sharing in its study, and helping pioneer its development To change your Berkman Center mailing list subscriptions, please visit: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/getinvolved

Nov. 4, 2010

U.S. Cyber Command has achieved FOC

by Paolo Brini

Cyber Command Achieves Full Operational Capability Department of Defense announced today that U.S. Cyber Command has achieved full operational capability (FOC). http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14030 Ciao, Paolo

Nov. 4, 2010

R: John Palfrey's Net Neutrality proposal to FCC

by Blengino

Allo stao credo (temo) di si, ma deve rispondere un civilista. -----Messaggio originale----- Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di Stefano Quintarelli Inviato: giovedì 4 novembre 2010 9.10 A: J.C. DE MARTIN Cc: Nexa Center Oggetto: Re: [nexa] John Palfrey's Net Neutrality proposal to FCC e' giusto che la scelta sia in capo agli utenti ho una domanda per gli avvocati (in basso) imlicitamente significa che ciascuno puo' richiedere, on top al suo collegamento best effort, che il suo semicircuito sia trattato con determinati livelli di servizio VideoTube ======= Operatore ======= Utente parte degli equivoci nascono dal considerare sempre connessioni end-to-end se Videotube si accorda con operatore per avere alta priorità nel delivery dello streaming, sono cavoli suoi, fintanto che Videotube non decide come deve essere gestito il mio vialetto di accesso, ovvero la mia coda locale (il mio "semicircuito"). ecco la domanda per gli avvocati: puo' il funzionamento del traffico sul MIO segmento di accesso essere determinato da accordi fatti dall'oepratore con altri, diversi da me ? perche' se io sono legittimato a non avere il mio traffico "mangled" sul mio segmento di accesso (salvo ragioni di non service-disruption), gia' solo gestire l'opt-in per l'operatore e' un problema.. ciao, s. On 04/11/10 06.26, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > A citizens' choice framework for net neutrality > > 3 November 2010 > > Iâ€™ve just submitted a comment to the FCC with respect to a proposal for a compromise solution on network neutrality. Iâ€™m very grateful to the many friends who provided constructive criticism during the drafting and refinement of the ideas. Hereâ€™s the text: > > * * * > > Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to submit ideas regarding a path forward on the topic of Net Neutrality. In this memo, I propose that the FCC should pursue a compromise solution on Net Neutrality that both preserves the open Internet and permits opportunity for reasonable product differentiation and network management on IP networks. > > The central tenet of this plan would be to locate the choice to differentiate services with the consumer, not with the Internet Service Provider. The overriding policy goal is to create incentives for increasing bandwidth infrastructure rather than monetizing or encouraging scarcity. And the plan should prioritize Managed Services that support national purposes as set forth in the National Broadband Plan. > > The Citizensâ€™ Choice Framework would include the following elements: > > [...] > > Continua qui: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2010/11/03/a-citizens-choice-framework… > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa -- blog.quintarelli.it www.eximia.it www.reeplay.it _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Nov. 4, 2010

Re: [nexa] John Palfrey's Net Neutrality proposal to FCC

by Stefano Quintarelli

e' giusto che la scelta sia in capo agli utenti ho una domanda per gli avvocati (in basso) imlicitamente significa che ciascuno puo' richiedere, on top al suo collegamento best effort, che il suo semicircuito sia trattato con determinati livelli di servizio VideoTube ======= Operatore ======= Utente parte degli equivoci nascono dal considerare sempre connessioni end-to-end se Videotube si accorda con operatore per avere alta priorità nel delivery dello streaming, sono cavoli suoi, fintanto che Videotube non decide come deve essere gestito il mio vialetto di accesso, ovvero la mia coda locale (il mio "semicircuito"). ecco la domanda per gli avvocati: puo' il funzionamento del traffico sul MIO segmento di accesso essere determinato da accordi fatti dall'oepratore con altri, diversi da me ? perche' se io sono legittimato a non avere il mio traffico "mangled" sul mio segmento di accesso (salvo ragioni di non service-disruption), gia' solo gestire l'opt-in per l'operatore e' un problema.. ciao, s. On 04/11/10 06.26, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > A citizens' choice framework for net neutrality > > 3 November 2010 > > Iâ€™ve just submitted a comment to the FCC with respect to a proposal for a compromise solution on network neutrality. Iâ€™m very grateful to the many friends who provided constructive criticism during the drafting and refinement of the ideas. Hereâ€™s the text: > > * * * > > Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to submit ideas regarding a path forward on the topic of Net Neutrality. In this memo, I propose that the FCC should pursue a compromise solution on Net Neutrality that both preserves the open Internet and permits opportunity for reasonable product differentiation and network management on IP networks. > > The central tenet of this plan would be to locate the choice to differentiate services with the consumer, not with the Internet Service Provider. The overriding policy goal is to create incentives for increasing bandwidth infrastructure rather than monetizing or encouraging scarcity. And the plan should prioritize Managed Services that support national purposes as set forth in the National Broadband Plan. > > The Citizensâ€™ Choice Framework would include the following elements: > > [...] > > Continua qui: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2010/11/03/a-citizens-choice-framework… > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa -- blog.quintarelli.it www.eximia.it www.reeplay.it

Nov. 4, 2010

Fwd: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD) Lunacy!

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Begin forwarded message: > From: Ian Peter <ian.peter(a)ianpeter.com> > Date: 04 novembre 2010 07:11:23 GMT+01:00 > To: "'governance(a)lists.cpsr.org'" <governance(a)lists.cpsr.org> > Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD) Lunacy! > Reply-To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org,Ian Peter <ian.peter(a)ianpeter.com> > > From Lauren Weinstein - copied from his blog. > > The Executive Summary - "The DNS and the domain name infrastructure made > sense in an era before the universal availability of search engines and > online directories. But for such massive costs and complexities -- such as > those inevitably stemming from the ICANN TLD expansion -- to be incurred > simply to map names to Internet sites is now both technically and > economically obsolete and abominable". > > Internet co-founder Robert Kahn is one of just a number of people working on > alternative resource discovery systems more akin to todays needs. > > Ian Peter > > Lauren's missive follows. > > It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD) Lunacy! > > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000776.html > > > Greetings. I'm going to keep this relatively short and sweet, since > I've written of my concerns about ICANN's handling of Top-Level > Domains (TLDs) many times in the past. > > The existing Domain Name System (DNS) has been leveraged in multiple > ways into something akin to a protection racket, with vast sums of > money being funneled to existing and wannabe registries, registrars -- > and to ICANN itself -- with little or no resulting tangible benefits > to the Internet community at large. That is, unless you consider ever > increasing levels of costs and confusion to be some sort of benefits. > Dot-com is still the single TLD that most Internet users recognize as > fundamental among the increasingly disruptive clutter -- and you > haven't seen anything yet compared with the pandemonium about to be > unleashed. > > "Protective registrations" by trademark owners and other concerned > parties in new TLDs have become an enormous profit center for various > players in the DNS ecosystem, with boasting about the income that will > be derived through such arm-twisting techniques now being commonplace. > > The amount of money involved is staggering. In a few days, ICANN may > release their new "guidebook" for upcoming TLD applicants > ( http://bit.ly/9BZUNu [ars technica] ). The application fee alone for > a single new TLD is reported to be almost $200K, payable to ICANN. > The cost of running a new TLD if you're accepted? A whole bunch, > likely including (but not limited to) big moola to ICANN every year. > > ICANN plans to limit the number of new TLDs to only (only???) about > 1000 per year -- maybe half that in the first year. Let's see, > $185,000 times 1000 ... Nice chunk of change. > > Of course, ICANN claims that these fees are justified by the costs > involved in processing these applications. Assuming this is true, I > can't think of a better proof that the entire process is rotten and > dysfunctional to the core. > > The DNS and the domain name infrastructure made sense in an era before > the universal availability of search engines and online directories. > But for such massive costs and complexities -- such as those > inevitably stemming from the ICANN TLD expansion -- to be incurred > simply to map names to Internet sites is now both technically and > economically obsolete and abominable. > > It's time to end the TLD madness. It will take both time and some > heavy lifting. But there are alternative methodologies -- more > efficient, extensible, and far more economical, much better suited to > the Internet of the 21st century, and we need to start working on them > now. > > Vested interests -- basically the entire "domain-industrial > complex" -- who stand to profit mightily by exploiting the continuation > and expansion of the unnecessary, counterproductive, and obsolete domain > name system, can be expected to fight any efforts at significant > changes, using every weapon in their arsenals. Various other parties > will also fight such changes -- since as we've increasingly seen the > DNS provides an ideal mechanism for centralized censorship and > heavy-handed intellectual property enforcement regimes -- through the > disabling on demand of Web site name-based addressability. > > Be that all as it may, this is a battle -- nay, perhaps a war -- > necessary for the best interests of both the Internet and its global > community of users. > > Please let me know if you'd be interested in participating. > > Thanks. Take care. > > --Lauren-- > Lauren Weinstein (lauren(a)vortex.com) > http://www.vortex.com/lauren > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 > Co-Founder, PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility): http://www.pfir.org > Founder, NNSquad (Network Neutrality Squad): http://www.nnsquad.org > Founder, GCTIP (Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance): > http://www.gctip.org > Founder, PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com > Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com > Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein > Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance(a)lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >

Nov. 4, 2010

John Palfrey's Net Neutrality proposal to FCC

by J.C. DE MARTIN

A citizens' choice framework for net neutrality 3 November 2010 I’ve just submitted a comment to the FCC with respect to a proposal for a compromise solution on network neutrality. I’m very grateful to the many friends who provided constructive criticism during the drafting and refinement of the ideas. Here’s the text: * * * Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to submit ideas regarding a path forward on the topic of Net Neutrality. In this memo, I propose that the FCC should pursue a compromise solution on Net Neutrality that both preserves the open Internet and permits opportunity for reasonable product differentiation and network management on IP networks. The central tenet of this plan would be to locate the choice to differentiate services with the consumer, not with the Internet Service Provider. The overriding policy goal is to create incentives for increasing bandwidth infrastructure rather than monetizing or encouraging scarcity. And the plan should prioritize Managed Services that support national purposes as set forth in the National Broadband Plan. The Citizens’ Choice Framework would include the following elements: [...] Continua qui: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2010/11/03/a-citizens-choice-framework…

Nov. 4, 2010

Fwd: [Discussioni] COMUNICATO: "Liberare il Software nel settore pubblico" a Torino il 29 e 30 Novembre

by Marco Ciurcina

FYI (mi pare non sia passato in lista). m.c. --------- Messaggio inoltrato --------- Oggetto: [Discussioni] COMUNICATO: "Liberare il Software nel settore pubblico" a Torino il 29 e 30 Novembre Data: sabato 23 ottobre 2010, 11:03:31 Da: info(a)softwarelibero.it A: annunci(a)softwarelibero.it 23 OTTOBRE 2010 COMUNICATO STAMPA http://www.softwarelibero.it/EOLE_2010 ========================================= La terza conferenza europea sugli aspetti legali del software libero si terrà a Torino il 29 e il 30 novembre 2010 ========================================= La terza edizione dell’European Open Source and Free Software Law Event (EOLE), dal titolo "Liberare il Software nel settore pubblico", si terrà a Torino il 29 e 30 novembre 2010. La conferenza annuale, che in questa edizione è sponsorizzata dall'Associazione per il Software Libero, è organizzata da un gruppo di avvocati di diversi paesi europei e quest'anno tratterà con particolare attenzione i molteplici aspetti relativi all'uso ed allo sviluppo del Software Libero nella Pubblica Amministrazione. Il tema scelto per la conferenza di Torino - che segue quelle di Parigi del 2008 e di Bruxelles del 2009 - è oggetto di dibattiti politici e solleva complesse questioni, che verranno affrontate e approfondite grazie all’intervento di giuristi, membri dei governi e operatori privati provenienti da tutta Europa e dagli altri continenti. Il programma dei due giorni è disponibile sul sito: http://www.eolevent.eu. L’evento 2010, rivolto agli avvocati, agli amministratori e decisori pubblici, alle aziende ed ai privati interessati al tema del Software Libero, è ospitato dalla Regione Piemonte. La partecipazione alla conferenza è libera e gratuita, previa iscrizione sul sito. ========================================== Chi siamo ========================================== L'Associazione per il Software Libero (Assoli) è un'organizzazione senza scopo di lucro costituita nel 2000 per promuovere la libertà nell'utilizzo di programmi informatici e difendere i diritti degli utilizzatori di Software Libero. Per raggiungere i suoi scopi l'Associazione promuove lo sviluppo e l'uso di Software Libero nella Pubblica Amministrazione, nelle scuole, nelle imprese pubbliche e private ed in tutti gli ambiti del tessuto sociale. Negli ultimi anni l'Associazione ha realizzato campagne d'informazione ed azioni giudiziarie ed ha interagito con la P.A. per promuovere politiche pubbliche a favore del Software Libero. ========================================== Contatti ========================================== web: http://softwarelibero.it mail: info(a)softwarelibero.it Tel: (+39) 06 99291342 Fax: (+39) 06 83391642 -- Lista di annunci dell'Associazione Software Libero http://softwarelibero.it/ _______________________________________________ http://lists.softwarelibero.it/mailman/listinfo/discussioni Totale iscritti: 396 al 09/07/2009 Questa è una lista di discussione pubblica aperta a tutti. I messaggi di questa lista non rispecchiano necessariamente le posizioni dell'Associazione per il Software Libero. ------------------------------------------

Nov. 3, 2010

Decisions on PSI - sums up on our EVPSI and LAPSI websites

by Cristiana Sappa

Dear All, You can now find on the LAPSI (header material) and the EVPSI (header materiali) websites short sums up of Court/Administrative Authorities decisions on PSI. The sums up of any decisions are in English and in their original languages. We started to sum up some Italian decisions, but this initiative is not limited to the Italian material. Feel free at any time to:a) suggest us a decision to be commented when its original text is in Italian, English, French or Spanish. b) sum up a decision that you wish to see uploaded on the LAPSI/EVPSI website in both English and its original language. More details on the rules of selection, drafting and uploading activities are on the above mentioned websites (in English and Italian). We warmly encourage you to contribute to this initiative. Should you have some material of interest, please submit it to Angelo Maria Rovati : angelomaria.rovati(a)unipv.it. You may also submit it to Claudio Artusio: claudioartusio(a)gmail.com or to myself. Kind Regards, Cristiana SappaLAPSI and EPSI project manager

Nov. 3, 2010

R: R: Decreto Pisanu - Articolo su Lavoce.info

by Fiorello Cortiana

Quoto Stefano, per questo da tempo parlo di una Pubblic Company alla quale conferire reti e cavidotti e condividere l'ecosistema digitale, bene comune del nostro tempo Fiorello -----Messaggio originale----- Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di Stefano Quintarelli Inviato: martedì 2 novembre 2010 14.21 Cc: nexa Oggetto: Re: [nexa] R: Decreto Pisanu - Articolo su Lavoce.info questo, imho, e' figlio della solita ideaa di concorrenza basata sulle infrastrutture. (il padre illustre e' Martin Cave) dato che la concorrenza deve puntare a produrre infrastrutture alternative (e non a condividerle) il pubblico non puo' intervenire senno' avrebbe un effetto distorsivo del mercato. salvo poi scoprire che di rete ce ne puo' essere solo una ed allora sarebbe bene *obbligare* la condivisione. bisognerebbe dire "il mondo nel 2010 si e' sviluppato in modo diverso da come immaginavamo nel 1990; l'introduzione dei cellulari e della concorernza ha abbassato i margini disonibili per investimento nella rete fissa e la ladder of investment si e' fermata ai primi due gradini, in quasi tutta europa". certo... se l'obiettivo socialmente desiderabile e' quello di promuovere l'uso delle reti (quelle esistenti e quelle da costruire) perche' se l'obietivo socialmente desiderabile e' non palesare gli errori, allora continuiamo come siamo che va bene. ciao, s. On 02/11/10 13.50, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: > pensate alla Provincia di Milano che sta finendo di disporre 4.000Km di fibra sotto i piedi dei milanesi, sic! > > Fiorello > > ________________________________ > > Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it > [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di Sergio Sette > Inviato: martedì 2 novembre 2010 13.17 > A: Stefano Quintarelli > Cc: nexa > Oggetto: Re: [nexa] Decreto Pisanu - Articolo su Lavoce.info > > > Concordo con Stefano. In particolare il codice delle comunicazioni, soprattutto laddove vieta alle P.A. di fornire servizi alla cittadinanza sfruttando le proprie infrastrutture. > Se il mio ente volesse fornire un servizio alla cittadinanza, anche usando totalmente le proprie infrastrutture (e chiaramente pagando al gestore il traffico internet), non lo potrebbe fare ma dovrebbe delegare, ovviamente pagando, ad azienda iscritta come operatore. Questo è un freno non indifferente non solo al wifi ma anche per esempio alla posa di fibra. Un ente pubblico come il mio (un comune) che per sua natura avrebbe la possibilità di cablare la città, perchè mai lo dovrebbe fare se poi non può utilizzarla direttamente ? > > Sergio Sette > > > Il giorno 02 novembre 2010 12:18, Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> ha scritto: > > > il wifi per essere operabile in italia deve funzioanre a massimo 100mW, > contro i 150-250mW tipici di un cellulare > > non ci sono vincoli al piazzamento di antenne > > i vincoli residui tolta la pisanu riguardano il codice delle > comunicazioni e le misure di protezine. (annessi e connessi) > > ciao, s. > > > > On 02/11/10 00.04, Enrico Bertacchini wrote: > >> > > In-Reply-To: <4CCF2CCF.3080006(a)digitalpolicy.it> > > Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 00:04:49 +0100 > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Message-Id: <CA83685A-1D7A-49FF-B447-F249A86A8516(a)gmail.com> > > References: <4CCEFB0A.8070208(a)polito.it> <WC20101101203026.820117(a)penalistiassociati.it> <4CCF2CCF.3080006(a)digitalpolicy.it> > > To: Nexa Center <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > > X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) > > > > Cari amici,=20 > > vi segnalo un articolo apparso su LaVoce.info = > > riguardante il dibattito sull'abolizione del Decreto Pisanu. > > > > http://www.lavoce.info/articoli/pagina1001978.html > > > > Buona Lettura > > > > Ciao > > > > Enrico > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > nexa mailing list > > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > -- > blog.quintarelli.it > www.eximia.it > www.reeplay.it > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > > > -- blog.quintarelli.it www.eximia.it www.reeplay.it _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Nov. 3, 2010