EFF Decries 'Brazen Land-Grab' Attempt on 900 MHz 'Commons' Frequency Used By Amateur Radio (eff.org) 143
An EFF article calls out a "brazen attempt to privatize" a wireless frequency band (900 MHz) which America's FCC's left " as a commons for all... for use by amateur radio operators, unlicensed consumer devices, and industrial, scientific, and medical equipment." The spectrum has also become "a hotbed for new technologies and community-driven projects. Millions of consumer devices also rely on the range, including baby monitors, cordless phones, IoT devices, garage door openers."
But NextNav would rather claim these frequencies, fence them off, and lease them out to mobile service providers. This is just another land-grab by a corporate rent-seeker dressed up as innovation. EFF and hundreds of others have called on the FCC to decisively reject this proposal and protect the open spectrum as a commons that serves all.
NextNav [which sells a geolocation service] wants the FCC to reconfigure the 902-928 MHz band to grant them exclusive rights to the majority of the spectrum... This proposal would not only give NextNav their own lane, but expanded operating region, increased broadcasting power, and more leeway for radio interference emanating from their portions of the band. All of this points to more power for NextNav at everyone else's expense.
This land-grab is purportedly to implement a Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) network to serve as a US-specific backup of the Global Positioning System(GPS). This plan raises red flags off the bat. Dropping the "global" from GPS makes it far less useful for any alleged national security purposes, especially as it is likely susceptible to the same jamming and spoofing attacks as GPS. NextNav itself admits there is also little commercial demand for PNT. GPS works, is free, and is widely supported by manufacturers. If Nextnav has a grand plan to implement a new and improved standard, it was left out of their FCC proposal. What NextNav did include however is its intent to resell their exclusive bandwidth access to mobile 5G networks. This isn't about national security or innovation; it's about a rent-seeker monopolizing access to a public resource. If NextNav truly believes in their GPS backup vision, they should look to parts of the spectrum already allocated for 5G.
The open sections of the 900 MHz spectrum are vital for technologies that foster experimentation and grassroots innovation. Amateur radio operators, developers of new IoT devices, and small-scale operators rely on this band. One such project is Meshtastic, a decentralized communication tool that allows users to send messages across a network without a central server. This new approach to networking offers resilient communication that can endure emergencies where current networks fail. This is the type of innovation that actually addresses crises raised by Nextnav, and it's happening in the part of the spectrum allocated for unlicensed devices while empowering communities instead of a powerful intermediary. Yet, this proposal threatens to crush such grassroots projects, leaving them without a commons in which they can grow and improve.
This isn't just about a set of frequencies. We need an ecosystem which fosters grassroots collaboration, experimentation, and knowledge building. Not only do these commons empower communities, they avoid a technology monoculture unable to adapt to new threats and changing needs as technology progresses. Invention belongs to the public, not just to those with the deepest pockets. The FCC should ensure it remains that way.
NextNav's proposal is a direct threat to innovation, public safety, and community empowerment. While FCC comments on the proposal have closed, replies remain open to the public until September 20th. The FCC must reject this corporate land-grab and uphold the integrity of the 900 MHz band as a commons.
NextNav [which sells a geolocation service] wants the FCC to reconfigure the 902-928 MHz band to grant them exclusive rights to the majority of the spectrum... This proposal would not only give NextNav their own lane, but expanded operating region, increased broadcasting power, and more leeway for radio interference emanating from their portions of the band. All of this points to more power for NextNav at everyone else's expense.
This land-grab is purportedly to implement a Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) network to serve as a US-specific backup of the Global Positioning System(GPS). This plan raises red flags off the bat. Dropping the "global" from GPS makes it far less useful for any alleged national security purposes, especially as it is likely susceptible to the same jamming and spoofing attacks as GPS. NextNav itself admits there is also little commercial demand for PNT. GPS works, is free, and is widely supported by manufacturers. If Nextnav has a grand plan to implement a new and improved standard, it was left out of their FCC proposal. What NextNav did include however is its intent to resell their exclusive bandwidth access to mobile 5G networks. This isn't about national security or innovation; it's about a rent-seeker monopolizing access to a public resource. If NextNav truly believes in their GPS backup vision, they should look to parts of the spectrum already allocated for 5G.
The open sections of the 900 MHz spectrum are vital for technologies that foster experimentation and grassroots innovation. Amateur radio operators, developers of new IoT devices, and small-scale operators rely on this band. One such project is Meshtastic, a decentralized communication tool that allows users to send messages across a network without a central server. This new approach to networking offers resilient communication that can endure emergencies where current networks fail. This is the type of innovation that actually addresses crises raised by Nextnav, and it's happening in the part of the spectrum allocated for unlicensed devices while empowering communities instead of a powerful intermediary. Yet, this proposal threatens to crush such grassroots projects, leaving them without a commons in which they can grow and improve.
This isn't just about a set of frequencies. We need an ecosystem which fosters grassroots collaboration, experimentation, and knowledge building. Not only do these commons empower communities, they avoid a technology monoculture unable to adapt to new threats and changing needs as technology progresses. Invention belongs to the public, not just to those with the deepest pockets. The FCC should ensure it remains that way.
NextNav's proposal is a direct threat to innovation, public safety, and community empowerment. While FCC comments on the proposal have closed, replies remain open to the public until September 20th. The FCC must reject this corporate land-grab and uphold the integrity of the 900 MHz band as a commons.
NextNav might be shooting themselves in the foot. (Score:5, Informative)
A legal agreement... (Score:5, Insightful)
... won't make all these other devices magically disappear so any mobile operators that did use the spectrum would face a lot of interferance issues particularly if hams with high powered kit decided they'd still use the spectrum anyway.
I imagine FCC investigators and police have better things to do than chase down hams and mums with baby monitors on the frequencies.
Re: (Score:2)
any mobile operators that did use the spectrum would face a lot of interferance issues
Couldn't even be bothered to read the summary eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Read it fine thanks. Feel free to point out the part where it says these devices will be confiscated.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just mobile operators. 915MHz is the US licence free band that anyone can use. A lot of wireless tech operates there. Things like alarm systems, key fobs, weather stations, smart meters, all kinds of stuff.
I would assume that they are asking for part of this spectrum, parts which are not in use by unlicenced stuff and cell networks. They may find though that the unlicenced gear is causing interference outside its band, due to becoming faulty and the person who bought it not noticing, or because it's jus
Re: (Score:2)
Not many amateurs can operate in that band above 35 watts ERP, and that would ordinarily be a repeater. mW levels are not uncommon.
And it is common to use a reflector dish or Yagi array, since the power levels are so low you need to be directional.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not many amateurs can operate in that band above 35 watts ERP"
Ie about 10x more powerful than a phone.
Re: A legal agreement... (Score:2)
Or about .07% of the proposed licensing. About 1/4 of a typical cell tower transmitter in similar bands.
Yes, we forget, the overwhelming number of amateur users in this band are using >1W, for relatively short-range communications. Most are better described as experimental users.
Re: (Score:2)
won't make all these other devices magically disappear
I would suggest the FCC put a license condition that the licensee must pay for an effective replacement solution, equipment, software, and migration costs for any affected existing user or owner of equipment that uses the frequency range.
For example: Every 900 Mhz cordless phone needs to be replaced to change to a different frequency or technology. The licensee should be Required to pay to existing Owners of cordless phones: the full replacement cost
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's definitely a high price, but someone has to pay for it anyway if they move forward with their plan, And I would say it should Not be the utility companies or their customers getting stuck with the bill. The 10 billion or so in costs should be theirs alone If they get to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine FCC investigators and police have better things to do than chase down hams and mums with baby monitors on the frequencies.
I dunno, the music and movie studios have managed to convert the police and federal agencies into their own personal private enforcement arm. I would not consider baby monitors to be safe at all.
Good luck with that (Score:4, Informative)
Unnecessary (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rent-seeking is the right word (Score:3)
What NextNav did include however is its intent to resell their exclusive bandwidth access to mobile 5G networks. This isn't about national security or innovation; it's about a rent-seeker monopolizing access to a public resource.
Rent-seeking is the right word. I wonder if they have purchased a couple of Congresscritters? Or maybe offered a revolving-door deal to some FCC bureaucrat?
Far more of the spectrum should be available for public use. Selling exclusive access to physics makes little sense. Just as an example: where I live, radar detectors are illegal. So: someone can generate radio waves, send them at me, and I am not allowed to receive them? Stupid nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
Far more of the spectrum should be available for public use.
Is that really true? People barely use the spectrum we have now. I'm not arguing that we should have less, but there's public allocations all over the spectrum.
Re: (Score:3)
This comes down to the supreme court Chevron ruling. The FCC no longer has authority to control the spectrum. Per the court’s new findings this means congress has to debate and pass a law to settle the matter.
How do you feel about congress debating wavelengths, spectrum width, propagation, modulation schemes, etc etc.
This is what you wanted. Enjoy the “series of tubes” guy making engineering choices.
Re: (Score:2)
'How do you feel about congress debating wavelengths, spectrum width, propagation, modulation schemes, etc etc.'
Not substantially differently than having the FCC debate it. The risks of politicizing or monetizing these decisions is not so different.
Re: (Score:2)
Not substantially differently than having the FCC debate it. The risks of politicizing or monetizing these decisions is not so different.
Bullshit. It's very different.
Which is better? Who knows. Almost certainly the FCC, which is literally exactly why these agencies were created in the first place.
Re: Rent-seeking is the right word (Score:3)
Many amateurs, and many cell providers, would complain the FCC acts arbitrarily, ignores good engineering advice, and caves to commercial uses too easily. They get lobbied just like Congress. Different complaints, same results.
Re: Rent-seeking is the right word (Score:2)
They are not called amateur radio operators because they're necessarily less skilled, nor less knowledgeable, nor less capable. Merely that it is not their day job. Amateur radio operators in fact, have traditionally and since the beginning enhanced and expanded the art through experimentation, engineering, and practice. I know you're just trolling, but amateur in this context doesn't mean anything you think it means. Mind you, I agree that the best government is the least government. But complaining about
Re: (Score:2)
They are not called amateur radio operators because they're necessarily less skilled, nor less knowledgeable, nor less capable.
I said as much- did you miss that? However, its undeniable that the probability of them being so is higher than the professionals and academics utilized by the FCC.
Merely that it is not their day job.
Yes, and the people working for the FCC- it is their day job. And further- the focus of their graduate education.
Amateur radio operators in fact, have traditionally and since the beginning enhanced and expanded the art through experimentation, engineering, and practice.
The art? Get the fuck out of here.
We're talking about regulation of the airwaves.
I know you're just trolling
It may seem that way to someone with opinions as fucking braindead as yours.
but amateur in this context doesn't mean anything you think it means.
It means exactly what I think it means, and what I said it means. You're tryi
Re: (Score:2)
However, its undeniable that the probability of them being so is higher than the professionals and academics utilized by the FCC.
Its undeniable what?
There are certainly many educated people at the FCC. However, there are certainly more educated people among amateur radio operators. The chance of an individual amateur radio operator knowing more than an individual SME at the FCC is no doubt fairly low, but there are certainly more highly educated operators than there are employees at the FCC who are highly educated about the issues involved. Most of the people who work there are paper pushers who will know jack diddly about e.g. radio
Re: (Score:2)
Its undeniable what? There are certainly many educated people at the FCC. However, there are certainly more educated people among amateur radio operators. The chance of an individual amateur radio operator knowing more than an individual SME at the FCC is no doubt fairly low, but there are certainly more highly educated operators than there are employees at the FCC who are highly educated about the issues involved. Most of the people who work there are paper pushers who will know jack diddly about e.g. radio propagation.
I'm not sure what windmill you're tilting at here, but it isn't mine, so I'm going to cut and paste the parts of it that are actually relevant to the discussion.
The chance of an individual amateur radio operator knowing more than an individual SME at the FCC is no doubt fairly low
Bingo.
Ergo the logic, the opinion of the average radio amateur is fucking useless, and absolutely not worth the opinion of the FCC in aggregate.
Discussion of the extremes is less than pointless. The smartest guy in the universe may be an amateur radio operator. It doesn't change the statistics.
No, sir, you get the fuck out of here. We are talking about competence, and those who are actively experimenting with radio regularly are very likely to know at least as much as FCC employees. Indeed, expansion of knowledge is one of the reasons why amateur radio exists.
Oh, shut the fuck up, you stupid twat.
We are talking
Re: (Score:2)
"Ergo the logic, the opinion of the average radio amateur is fucking useless, and absolutely not worth the opinion of the FCC in aggregate."
And there we have it. The incumbent users of this resource are, seemingly by your definitions, less qualified to advocate or argue for its continued use than, say, the professional regulators who are 'experts' at their work.
And then we face the dilemma - do we trust the largely self-proclaimed experts? I offer into evidence the last 23 or more years of the US government
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they would. They're amateurs. They complain about a lot of things they're too stupid to understand.
I would love for you to take the ARRL technician level test.
Re: (Score:2)
It exists precisely to think the population of morons who operate the equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
It exists precisely to think the population of morons who operate the equipment.
What? Your average ham radio operator has a hell of a lot more RF knowledge than any politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why Congress shouldn't be regulating things.
However, the Office of the Chief Engineer of the FCC is not a politician.
He is a degreed Engineer in the field of Electrical Engineering. In terms of probability of being so, any person in that office is about a 0.999:0.001 ratio vs the general public, including amateur operators.
We have an FCC full of actual scientists and engineers precisely because smart people need to keep the stupid people in check.
If Congress does it, then we've got st
Re: Rent-seeking is the right word (Score:4, Insightful)
"'How do you feel about congress debating wavelengths, spectrum width, propagation, modulation schemes, etc etc.'
Not substantially differently than having the FCC debate it."
That's a celebration of ignorance.
There is literally no way that your average congresscreep could understand the issues at play.
Letting Congress directly manage literally anything technical would be an absolute shit show.
Look at what their meddling has done to NASA.
Re: Rent-seeking is the right word (Score:2)
Unlike NASA, the FCC has a fairly narrow focus. NASA seems to think they ought to reach out to potential partners based on race, ethnicity, faith, etc... they've lost focus. Congress should be asking why they over promise and under deliver so effortlessly and at such great expense. Yes. Space is expensive. More reason to do it right the first time.
Re: Rent-seeking is the right word (Score:2)
"Congress should be asking why they over promise and under deliver so effortlessly"
Congress is making the promises that NASA has to keep. They should ask themselves that question.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA is making promises NASA can't keep.
Re: (Score:2)
To be a little fair to Ted, the Internet really IS closer to being like a series of tubes than it is to being like a dump truck for the purposes of the analogy he was trying to draw (probably after an intern drew it for him and he barely understood it). But your overall point stands.
Re: (Score:2)
This comes down to the supreme court Chevron ruling. The FCC no longer has authority to control the spectrum.
That seems unlikely. The end of Chevron deference is a bad thing, but it doesn't strip all rulemaking authority from government agencies. It only means that when the law is ambiguous courts will now try to interpret it on their own rather than deferring to the interpretation of the relevant agency. If congress has explicitly and unambiguously given rulemaking authority to an agency, they still have it.
How do you feel about congress debating wavelengths, spectrum width, propagation, modulation schemes, etc etc.
I don't know the law in this area, but it seems very, very likely to me that Congress has explicitly deleg
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the cellular users have been clamoring for this spectrum off and on for decades, usually quietly and avoiding publicity. The FCC rightly has pointed them to their unused portions of what they already bought.
If they want exclusive access, pay for it (Score:2)
why give it to one company nationwide ? (Score:2)
If the FCC can auction it itself to the telcos via auction?
For timing there are other options (like the EU's Galileo and UK's GNSS in partnership with OneWeb), as for positioning the afforementioned one + land based systems in other bands.
instead of playing kingmaker by giving the band to an intermediary, who will then sublease it, the FCC could get more money by directly auctioning the spectrum to the telcos.
Asfor the "think of the childrenusing that band for ISaM purposes, pretty much the rest of the
Proposal (Score:2)
It's not going to happen.
Mr monopoly says "I want to own it all!" (Score:2)
Mr monopoly says "I want to own it all!"
International (Score:2)
Radio waves don't just stop at national borders -shouldn't spectrum be controlled by an international body?
Re: (Score:2)
Radio waves don't just stop at national borders -shouldn't spectrum be controlled by an international body?
It sorta is. ITU-T and ITU-R + a bunch of regional treaties trying to harmonize stuff...
But the ITU-T/R dictums are "recomendations"
Havingt said that, the USoA is know to kinda-sorta march at the beat of their own drum (Tanembaum Dixit), so, they deviate from the rest of the world.
Amataur Radio is our Last Lines of Communication (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They're Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not land grab yet... at least until the big paleface chief at Washington says to hunt bison somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC link isn't working for me, but presumably they are not trying to grab that entire frequency range because there are large numbers of devices operating on the licence-free 915MHz band already, and they clearly aren't going to stop no matter what the FCC decides. Everything from car key fobs to burglar alarms to model aircraft.
To be fair, the summary does underplay the need for a backup to GPS for timing as a national security issue. There is a genuine need for it, because a lot of stuff relies on the
Re: They're Americans (Score:2)
Re: They're Americans (Score:5, Informative)
"High precision" internet time services are not all that high precision. NTP is in the range of milliseconds, PTP can do down to 10s of nanoseconds but only under ideal conditions on a local network, not over the internet.
GPS can get down to single digit nanoseconds. Very useful for stuff like 4G/5G where you want to synchronize transmitters to avoid interference. It's also used for stuff like the electricity grid where you want to monitor frequency with great precision to improve stability.
GPS also acts as a frequency reference. There are other sources of frequency, but anything terrestrial is going to run into the problem of either having too low carrier frequency to get that kind of precision, or not enough range.
It's one of the reasons why you also have Galileo, GLONAS, and Compass global satellite navigation systems (GNSS). Japan has some GPS enhancement satellites too, and I think India is looking at their own system. None of them are willing to rely on US controlled GPS for such vital services.
Re: They're Americans (Score:2, Informative)
NTP can get to microsecond accuracies if you do it properly and have 3-5 NTP servers. For your household computer syncing against a single server may be acceptable, but the NTP protocols have methods of eliminating the effects and randomness of network latency, if you need nanosecond accuracies there is PTP
Re: (Score:2)
You can't get microsecond accuracy with NTP over the internet in any sort of reliable way, it isn't possible. Certainly not for a large number of devices spread over a wide geographic area, with differing types of internet connections.
If you could, multiple governments would not be spending large sums of money building something better. Even the UK is desperately trying to revive LORAN for timing applications, because it was booted out of Galileo after brexit.
Or maybe they could. You should call them and le
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't there a bunch of terrestrial RF time services that can be used as an alternative to GPS, such as WWVB in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
WWVB and similar low frequency time services are only accurate down to hundreds of milliseconds. Anything in those frequency bands suffers from things like reflection off the ionosphere resulting in multi-path, and so forth. The British are trying to measure and cancel out such things, but it isn't going well.
The other issue is that you need to know exactly how far you are from the transmitter to subtract out the travel time for the radio waves. GNSS systems obviously have that capability built in - it's ho
Re: (Score:2)
WWVB is in a VLF band, 60KHz, around 5000 meters. This signal is used by those clever 'radio-controlled' clocks, etc...
A somewhat specialized service.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get there but it won't be reliable, chronyd is a great implementation that will get you much closer than ntpd. You are very likely to be 'close' to a few servers in most metropolitan areas that you could get a very accurate time from a clock.
There are other problems though, the clock in your device is simply not reliable enough, which is what you are alluding to some of those other projects are trying to solve. The other problem is not all higher stratum clocks currently agree on any exact time, bec
Re: (Score:3)
WWV broadcasts 10,000 W on 5 MHz, 10 MHz, and 15 MHz; and 2500 W on 2.5 MHz and 20 MHz. These signals are useful to amateur radio operators and others for frequency reference, gross time synch, and evaluating current propagation conditions.
Especially the 5MHz and 10MHz signals are very useful for aligning receivers and transmitters,. My radios that have channel memory have at least 5 & 10MHz, and 20MHz if there is room. Shortwave listeners can also use these to calibrate dials.
WWV is, as I wrote, a gros
Re: (Score:2)
My mistake, I was thinking of the low frequency one. In any case a quick search suggests they advertise 1us for their PPS. I couldn't immediately find coverage for the MHz range signals, only the 60kHz one.
Re: They're Americans (Score:2)
WWVB is a very different service than all the WWV broadcasts.
Re: They're Americans (Score:5, Informative)
EILIF: Why do we "need" a backup for GPS for precise time? What's wrong with accessing high precision time services via the Internet?
For that matter, isn't Europe's Galileo positioning service also usable as a backup - actually with better precision (1 meter) compared to GPS which is about 3 meters?
As for time accuracy - From this source: https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/ty... [cao.go.jp]
How is GPS time compared to Galileo time?
GPS and Galileo System Time - Internal navigation time scales. GPS Time is specified to be kept to within 1 us modulo 1 second of UTC (USNO) and in practice has not exceeded 50 ns for the past eight years.
Galileo System Time is specified to be kept to within 50 ns of TAI.
GPS backup? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's harder to jam these lower frequencies, and they may be suggesting deploying more transmitters to make it even more difficult.
The Russians seem to have difficulty jamming stuff anyway. Look at how successful Ukraine's unmanned drones are. Most of it is off the shelf gear on common frequencies. You can buy jammers on AliExpress, and yet they seem to be working quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
Land grabbing is in their DNA. We can't expect them to do otherwise...
You gonna have to explain that this only happens in 'Murrica. I understand you hate us - but this is a place where people are supposed tro post with actual insight, not just Russian propaganda.
Re: (Score:3)
He's called Bruce, that means he's probably Australian.
Re: (Score:2)
Because user names always reflect the user's RL name and are never, ever any sort of inside joke that only close friends get.
Re: (Score:2)
Because user names always reflect the user's RL name and are never, ever any sort of inside joke that only close friends get.
Yeah, but my whole point is that RF "theft" is not confined to us 'Murricans. From Pirate Stations to jamming to squatting, it's a worldwide phenomenon.
One of the things recognized pretty quickly by nations is that without some cooperation by all nations, the RF spectrum will be destroyed. So we have an organization, the ITU, to help govern its use. https://www.itu.int/en/publica... [itu.int]
It isn't simple, due to the varied way that RF radiation acts, based on frequency, leading to the strange effects lie wo
Re: (Score:2)
Bruce has close friends?
Definitely Australian.
Re: (Score:2)
Bruce is a Scottish name, and Bannockburn was fought long before America was invented.
This Monty Python Sketch (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what he said, there was no "only". Landgrabbing happens everywhere.
The thing alluded to here is that the Americas were populated by (European) peoples who came and grabbed the land, genociding (accidentally through diseases, or on purpose) the local populations. And that this approach to "commons" might have remained in the culture, potentially making it more probable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The irony of americans throwing out the British for their "freedom" while simultaniously enslaving africans and oppressing the native americans is hypocrisy on a grand scale that the US still doesn't seem to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it was dwarfed by the global British Empire, from whom they learned it.
You are correct. And not only the British. Humanity has a long and sordid history of this crap. I always like to direct people to this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Just so they can figure out who has clean hands in this sad situation. I'll just point out that Europe was involved in a genocide action in the 1990's.
We can learn from our mistakes if we admit them and try to do better. Or we can point fingers at one place, blame it for every ill, and act like our hands are clean and pure. Whic
Re: (Score:2)
Your claim about "the American revolt
Oh please that's desperate (Score:2)
The US produced its 'declaration of independence' promising rights to 'all' - and then produced a constitution that explicitly denied those rights to a significant number of people. And has been doing so ever since; only citizens get full protection from the rights in the constitution (see Guantanamo Bay...) Remember all 'Americans' before the revolt were culturally British and identified as such, so suggesting they weren't among those who had 'supported slavery for over 1000' won't fly.
The English courts a
Re: (Score:2)
The slavery abolition was probably the final straw for the "patriots." After the 7 years war was over, the British "gained" a bunch of territory west of the Appalachian mountains. Colonists were excited to expand their growth into the new territory. However, "in 1763, King George issued a Royal Proclamation forbidding any European settlement in British territories west of the Appalachians in North America, partly as a concession to allied Native American groups like the Iroquois Confederacy who fought with
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Americans had no say in British policy. "Without representation" was a key trigger for the revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
"while the Brits themselves had supported slavery for over 1000."
Oh look, a number plucked fresh out of an arse.
Re: Except the British empire ended it earlier (Score:2)
So what number do you think is accurate?
Re: (Score:2)
The US supported slavery for ~90 years, continuing what the Brits had started, while the Brits themselves had supported slavery for over 1000.
Your claim about "the American revolt ... cost the African Americans an extra 30 years of slavery" is unprovable.
Slavery and human sacrifice has existed in Africa for thousands of years
Re:They're Americans (Score:5, Informative)
The American founders were intent on eliminating aristocracy and special privilege. Democracy was part of that, but most of all they wanted equality under the law and no special privileges or favors from title, and also no interference from the Church, and to implement what Jefferson called a government of "pure republicanism". They largely succeeded on that in their day. This type of modernized "pure republican" government was 1) required for later reforms and 2) all they could achieve at the time, because it was already very hard to get a coalition of colonies to rebel, and they partly failed at that. The northern colonies later known as Canada did not join, and they also failed to drive the British off the continent during the War of 1812, so American independence was only a partial victory that could have easily fallen if the British had had the will. And compromising with the Southern slaveowning colonies was a requirement, because otherwise they would have had two fronts on the North and South. Remember that Spain was still occupying modern Florida at that time, and there was all kinds of shenanigans with Spain and Mexico right up through the 1800s until the modern Mexican border was established.
You just can't fault the American founders for being imperfect. The thing is the American founders were progressives, and assumed that progress would continue, and later generations would grab the torch and continue progressing. We have done so to a large degree, but it's taken a long time and with major setbacks. The next reforms were expected to be abolition of slavery and land reform. Thomas Jefferson wrote that slavery was the single greatest threat to the new nation, and he wasn't wrong, as the war of succession proved. We did abolish slavery, barely.
According to the arc of progress, we should now be moving toward equity reforms, especially economic ones. The founders believed strongly in land reform, believing land must be owned in common and that everyone should be given access to land because "small landowners" were the "most precious part of the state" (Jefferson). This ideas was taken up rigorously and formulated into Georgism by Henry George, but by 1870 America had lost its will to continue progressing, and Georgist economics are not appreciated or even widely known.
Other warnings we ignored (which are intimately related to the Georgism one) are the warnings against financialization of the economy. "that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale" and "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
The will to continue reforming the government does not exist in modern America. Don't blame the founders for merely throwing off British aristocracy, blame the following generations for failing to continue the progressive reforms or even backpedaling them.
Re: (Score:2)
the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
We certainly do have a trickle-up economy here. Not that we really have a fix. I'm not sure how you think the "people" would do better.
But yes, there is support on both sides of the aisle for maintaining the status quo and it wouldn't matter what great plan was formulated.
Re: (Score:2)
What's "trickle up"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to be 'that guy', but the US founders hated Democracy. It was, to no degree, what the founders conceived or what they saw as beneficial.
What they created is the now greatly-disparaged-by-many constitutional republic as initially conceived by Aristotle, with separations of power and distinct allowances and requirements for the different parts of government so they could avoid tyranny (which a democracy not only does not avoid, but usually accelerates).
Re:They're Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
The irony of americans throwing out the British for their "freedom" while simultaniously enslaving africans and oppressing the native americans is hypocrisy on a grand scale that the US still doesn't seem to understand.
Actually, most of us do understand our bad actions. Except for a few, we own them and are quite sorry for them . Have the Europeans came to accept their part in the genocides they've created? You eternal greivance appears to be pretty selective, let me remind you of the Holodomor in Ukraine, the great leap forward famines intentionally induced in China. Just getting started.
Now we move on to the European actions. Nothing quite like the trans-Europe attempts to perform a genocide against its Jewish population. And don't even blame it on only the Germans. It could not have happened with the very active cooperation of the countries they took over and set up their camps in. Or the ever popular Armenian Genocide.
And that brings us to modern times. The Bosnian Genocide of the 1990's by the Serbs and their Allies. That isn't a typo - This was carried out between 1992, and 1995.
People who live in glass houses, shouldn't be throwing bricks.
So mod me as troll is you like, or flamebait. No one has clean hands, and it might be important if you want to make this a US only thing - So go to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and purge it for your narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
People who live in glass houses, shouldn't be throwing bricks.
Disagree. If everyone is in a glass house, then they are protected forever from the consequences of their actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"You eternal greivance appears to be pretty selective,"
I'm not sure why pointing out a fact is an eternal grievance. Nowhere did I say europeans hadn't done the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They're Americans (Score:2)
Ask the Hawaiians. Oh wait, it's OK to overthrow a king and annex a country when you write a special law just for this one single time!
It's OK when we do it!
Re: (Score:3)
Factually speaking, the US even offered to send in the US military to reclaim the country for the Hawaiian Queen, as long as she promised not to cut the fucking heads off of the Hawaiian Americans that were involved in the coup.
Re: (Score:3)
What fucking clown world are you living in? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
In 1893, local businessmen and politicians, composed of six non-native Hawaiian Kingdom subjects, five American nationals, one British national, and one German national,[30] all of whom were living in Hawaii, overthrew the regime and took over the government.
Historians suggest that businessmen were in favor of overthrow and annexation to the U.S. in order to benefit from more favorable trade conditions.[31][32][33][34]
United States
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be accusing 6 Hawaiian subjects and 7 non-Hawaiians orchestrating a coup as an action of the US Government.
Bit strange.
Historians suggest that businessmen were in favor of overthrow and annexation to the U.S. in order to benefit from more favorable trade conditions.[31][32][33][34]
Of course they were.
Same reason the Texans were- safety and economy.
The fact that the people who orchestrated the coup desired annexation by the US is not surprising in the slightest.
United States Government Minister John L. Stevens summoned a company of uniformed U.S. Marines from the USS Boston and two companies of U.S. sailors to Honolulu to take up positions at the U.S. Legation, Consulate and Arion Hall on the afternoon of January 16, 1893. This deployment was at the request of the Committee of Safety, which claimed an "imminent threat to American lives and property." Stevens was accused of ordering the landing on his own authority and inappropriately using his discretion. Historian William Russ concluded that "the injunction to prevent fighting of any kind made it impossible for the monarchy to protect itself."[35]:350
100 some-odd marines were stood in front of the US ministry within Hawaii.
These marines did not aim their guns at anyone, did not march on the palace, and
Re: They're Americans (Score:2)
this is a place where people are supposed tro post with actual insight
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!1!!
Eet's just so ridiculous!
Re: (Score:2)
Land grabbing is in their DNA. We can't expect them to do otherwise...
If it is, we know how it got there: By transfer from the country that produced the world's most popular holiday!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They're Americans (Score:2)
Maybe they need to bring democracy to 900MHz? Ever thought of that?
Re: (Score:3)
Make it unlicenced spectrum like 2.4GHz
It already is; the 'land grab' is the desire to turn it into licensed-only spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
It already is. Most consumer cordless phones and wireless microphones operate on this frequency.