Kim Dotcom and fibre

November 4th, 2012 at 10:43 am by David Farrar

The HoS reports:

is proposing free broadband to all New Zealanders as he tries to resurrect the ill-fated Pacific cable connecting New Zealand to the United States.

Dotcom last night revealed his ambitious plans to build the $400m cable – which would double New Zealand’s bandwidth – set up his new Me.ga company, creating jobs and a data centre to service the rest of the world.

He would provide New Zealand internet service providers such as Telecom and Vodafone with free access for individual customers and charge a fee to business and central government.

Kiwis would still be charged a fee by the internet companies, but it would be as low as one-fifth of current bandwidth plans and three to five times faster with no transfer limits.

The $400m would be partly funded by Mega, raising additional funds from investors.

He added he could fund the project by suing Hollywood studios and the US Government for their “unlawful and political destruction of my business”.

I am keen to get more international bandwidth for NZ, and more competition with international cables.

However this pledge can in no way affect the legal process that Dotcom is facing. The extradition hearing in March 2013 must be based on the law, and whether the charges by the US Government are ones that warrant extradition. It is not the job of the NZ court to determine guilt or innocence – that is the job of any actual trial in US courts.

If Dotcom wins in the US courts, then I’ll welcome his investment in fibre for NZ. But his pledge can not and should not affect the legal process underway.

Tags: ,

17 Responses to “Kim Dotcom and fibre”

  1. Sofia (817 comments) says:

    [Kim Dotcom] added he could fund the project by suing Hollywood studios and the US Government for their “unlawful and political destruction of my business”.

    However, what will be the New Zealand Government’s financial liability if it unfolds that they gave up sovereignty [and responsibility] by allowing the foreign FBI to take over and direct the whole Dotcom arrest operation?
    But then, with their inane Parliamentary Questions, could Labour and Winston really be that much in the dark?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. iMP (2,231 comments) says:

    Speaking of fantasists….WOW, brand new really good Sasquatch video has been released (shot 6 Sept 2012). Intriguing.

    http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/brand-new-sasquatch-video-shot-6-sept-2012/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (7,521 comments) says:

    “It is not the job of the NZ court to determine guilt or innocence – that is the job of any actual trial in US courts.”

    From the get go, this guy has been treated in complete denial of the presumption of innocence, that principle that has underpinned traditional British justice for so long.

    Key/ English signed off on the unwarranted invasion of his home, the illegal seizure of his assets, and the destruction of his business. Just to curry favour with the Obama besotted FBI, who were acting to shore up his failing support in Hollywood.

    And surely there must be some sort of judicial trial process before a NZ citizen can be hauled off to the US to face charges.

    I don’t like the way this has been turned into a National party attack process by Labour but frankly, Key and English have to bear some responsibility for such a travesty of justice.

    It is Dotcom this time but it could be anyone of us next time.

    Government bureaucrats and Key and English need to pay the price for such heavy handed abuse of process.

    [DPF: No Minister signed off on the raid, or the Police action. That must never happen, and did not. The Police are obliged uner treaties we have signed to arrest people whom certain countries issue arrest warrants for. That means those countries will also arrest people for NZ arrest warrants.

    There is a judicial process before he trial in the US. It is an extradition hearing and is scheduled for March 2013. A Judge will decide if there is a case for extradition. Deciding if there is a case, is different though to deciding guilt or innocence - that is the job of the full trial, if he is extradited.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. iMP (2,231 comments) says:

    OBAMA Internet fail. Ooops.

    Obama Fail: Tells People Without Power to Go to Internet for Help
    10/30/12

    From Politico.com: http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20121030009-power-fail.html#avu5fpiMPV70LUDp.99

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. seanmaitland (454 comments) says:

    I said on The Standard that if Cullen didn’t buy KiwiRail, then the NZ govt could have done a cable themselves – and got banned for a month – good grief, what idiots – must have hit a sore point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Nostalgia-NZ (4,896 comments) says:

    ‘It is not the job of the NZ court to determine guilt or innocence – that is the job of any actual trial in US courts.’

    Yes. But that have already indicated they want to be satisfied on a tested prima facie basis which may yet also be weighed with the procedural illegalities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Paulus (2,486 comments) says:

    Trying again to buy some sort of favouritism from a New Zealand PR exercise before his extradiition hearing – will not work legally (I hope).
    It has only cost him $10,000,000 in NZ Government Stock so far to buy residence
    - citizenship – Umm –
    he already has German and Finnish nationalites so what is with another.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. orewa1 (428 comments) says:

    Innocent until proven otherwise. Right now he is innocent so if he wants to invest in a cable and has such a novel new business model he should be given every encouragement. Bring it on!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    [DPF: ... The Police are obliged uner treaties we have signed to arrest people whom certain countries issue arrest warrants for. That means those countries will also arrest people for NZ arrest warrants.

    Only if the alleged offense is a crime in both countries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Reid (15,904 comments) says:

    I find it a bit superficial myself. Sam Morgan says they need a cornerstone investor with about a 100 million. I understand his total net worth is around 140 million. So is he really going to put 60% of his total money into one basket. Not unless he’s mental, which he isn’t.

    I suspect he’s said it because he knows he stands to lose the whole lot and if he can get public opinion on his side it’s another tool not to have that happen and if it costs 60% then hey, he’s still got the other 40%.

    Which is a big-time misread of the way the NZ judicial process works.

    I suggest everybody interested in the legal case read the Grand Jury indictment which is here:

    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/mega-indictment.pdf

    This details quite serious stuff almost all of it based on email and phone intercepts. This of course could only have been gathered through Echelon. Which raises the question of who gathered it because that is critical to the case both under our law if we were deciding it, and under US law who is deciding it. If it was NZ then everybody except Dotcom is completely fucked. The jurisdictions for Elechon under the UKUSA agreement are listed here – note that none of the countries mention who has jurisdiction of each other’s country. But of course discussion of that cannot be had in open court and Dotcom’s lawyers will use that fact to utmost advantage.

    The US earlier refused to provide their evidence summary which I thought was pretty stupid. I mean how the hell else is the NZ court supposed to decide whether there’s a prima facie case to answer?

    Remember also the reason the cable fell over a few months ago was because the US was implementing a regime at their end which would take all the profit out of it. So there is high risk and possibility of small to no return, based on current conditions.

    Dotcom’s a clever boy, he’s calculated there are enough people out there who watch endless soap operas and sports will think what a nice young man, for doing that for us. Isn’t he super. But read that indictment and make your own judgement on whether or not he does have a case to answer. Personally I think he does. However I also think the US courts have already made up their mind, in that the Hollyweird people’s pressure on the politicians to make sure the “right” judge is selected, will have been already applied and this is why everything has been done the way it has. This is Hollyweird Fights Back Global Test Case #1 for those people and nothing’s going to stop them, certainly not a stupid little tinpot country like us. If we don’t extradite there will be consequences and I think we will lose position in the TPP if not the entire thing. And the TPP’s bad enough already, let’s not make it worse. So there are interesting dynamics at play here.

    The key issue in the indictment to me is the way Mega was setup, because it meant a copyright owner could not request the source file be deleted but only the link to the source file and since multiple users could upload the same movie and each received a unique URL they could then distribute as required, this meant that only one of the links to the viewable file was deleted. And there are incepts between Dotcom and his staff in particular his CTO which indicate this was a deliberate strategy. So legally he probably should be extradicted. But ethically, when you know the system is rigged, should one extradite him even then? And don’t tell me it’s not rigged. Of course it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. nasska (10,606 comments) says:

    Reid

    In your opinion, should we offend Hollywood to the extent that we were excluded totally from the TPP deal just to show us what can happen to small countries who don’t roll over & play dead on command, how would it pan out for us?

    I have a gut feeling that the TPP represents a sell out for NZ. We gain jackshit & concede too much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    New Zealand could always pull out of the TPP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. DJP6-25 (1,267 comments) says:

    He stands a good chance of the whole case quietly being dropped by an incoming Romney Justice department. If the legal mistakes made here are any indication; a competent defence lawyer in the US should be able to find similar mistakes. That, and the advent of a new administration with no love for Hollywood, should be enough to save him.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Reid (15,904 comments) says:

    I’d love us to ditch the TPP nasska. The issue I have with the TPP is that all reports from all countries make it feel real bad and they have put secrecy over it more than is normal. To the point we don’t even get to discuss before ratification. That’s not good to me.

    But the TPP represents the first significant diplomatic rapproachment with the US since Hulun and Lange killed ANZUS and while the US will never admit it because that would mean admitting commercial enterprises influence the process, this is not so much a legal issue as a diplomatic one.

    And I might be wrong, TPP might be good news. But if it is, then how come they’re not going to let us look at it before it’s ratified.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. nasska (10,606 comments) says:

    Reid

    Exactly the way I see it……we will be made to pay for the sins of yesterday.

    The more secrecy involved the stronger the stench of rat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    DotCom is clearly New Zealander of the year.

    The bravest face against the U.S since Lange.

    It is amazing that New Zealanders tolerate the TPP being negotiated in absolute secrecy.

    Here’s a question to test you Neolibs – Do you think Tim Grosser and Murry McCully should be able to trade away New Zealand’s sovereignty? Did you vote for that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Reid (15,904 comments) says:

    The more secrecy involved the stronger the stench of rat.

    And yet our hyper-alert antenna-quivering eyes-everywhere media don’t apparently see a big story here. Aren’t they mental. Let’s hope Cam covers it in his first issue.

    Seriously though, while I’d like to see the TPP ditched, what I think will actually happen is we will need to make concessions, behind closed doors of course, which won’t be particularly beneficial.

    The TPP won’t be ditched. The US need us in this region as security partners with its focus on China containment. They won’t ditch it over Dotcom, but they’ll force concessions probably surprisingly enough, in the copyright arena, just to keep the donars constituents happy.

    DotCom is clearly New Zealander of the year.

    The bravest face against the U.S since Lange.

    Hamnida that’s the mentalist thing I’ve ever heard. Don’t you know what Lange’s idiotic stance cost us? I bet you can’t even name one area in which it cost us.

    Here’s a question to test you Neolibs – Do you think Tim Grosser and Murry McCully should be able to trade away New Zealand’s sovereignty? Did you vote for that?

    What do you think we think after reading our above? Does that give you any clue?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.