Recently in Net Neutrality Category
Canadians, fed up with the tactics of some Internet Service Providers are starting to organize and are becoming more vocal in support of Net Neutrality.
Stumble It!
A Net Neutrality Rally on Parliament Hill is planned for May 27th.
The early list of participants includes:
Michael Geist - http://www.michaelgeist.ca/
Charlie Angus - http://www.charlieangus.net/
CIPPIC - http://www.cippic.ca
Campaign for Democratic Media - http://www.democraticmedia.ca
TekSavvy Solutions - http://www.teksavvy.com
National Union of Public and General Employees - http://www.nupge.ca
National Capital Freenet - http://www.ncf.ca
For those of you interested in learning more about Net Neutrality, why Canadians are concerned, and what action you can take visit Campaign for Democratic Media!.
In a truly competitive market, consumer demand would influence the quality and cost of Internet services. If Internet Service Providers introduced traffic shaping or volume based pricing models, competitors would offer an alternative to which consumers would switch. The ISPs would have no choice but to modify their anti-competitive practices. Unfortunately, that is not the situation we are have in Canada. For many Canadians there are few, and in many situations, no alternatives. Canadian society allows monopolies because the benefits usually outweigh the resulting lack of choice. In return, the monopolies have a responsibility to consider the wishes of their Canadian consumers. If ISPs arrogantly flaunt consumer demand, then it is the responsibility of regulators to prevent the monopolies from imposing anti-competitive and anti-innovative tactics.
Stumble It!
A great video on Net Neutrality.
Canadians should be very concerned about what's happening to our Net!
Start speaking out:
Contact the CRTC
Find and contact your Member of Parliament
Stumble It!
Canadians should be very concerned about what's happening to our Net!
Start speaking out:
Contact the CRTC
Find and contact your Member of Parliament
Stumble It!
As reported in the Toronto Star, a large percentage of Canadian Internet users are about to be sent back to the primitive and restrictive usage-based billing models of the early Internet. Rogers is about to introduce consumption / usage billing to its Internet service.
The effect of this change is just as serious as the anti-competitive, anti-choice, anti-innovative tactics of traffic shaping already being employed by Rogers and Bell. Traffic shaping and usage based billing models allow the service providers to inhibit services that are competitive to their own. And make no mistake, if unhindered they will do just that!
Once the mechanism are in place it will be easy for them to protect themselves from competing and innovative new services. If one was to advise service providers on how to limit competition, the following would be great suggestions:
If a consumer calls to complain about your anti-competitive tactics do the following:
Immediately place the caller on hold while you laugh uncontrollably. After 30 minutes have passed and you have regained your composure, tell the caller that you will transfer the call to the complaints department and "accidentally" disconnect the call. Once the silly consumer calls back in, inform the complainer that in Canada, consumers have few if any alternative providers to choose from and that Bell and Rogers ensure that the same anti-competitive practices are imposed onto their competitors. Then sarcastically ask if you should transfer the call to the cancellation department.
If you care about the future of the Internet, your freedom to choose, innovation, competitiveness and affordability, I urge you to act now:
Contact the CRTC
Find and contact your Member of Parliament
Stumble It!
The effect of this change is just as serious as the anti-competitive, anti-choice, anti-innovative tactics of traffic shaping already being employed by Rogers and Bell. Traffic shaping and usage based billing models allow the service providers to inhibit services that are competitive to their own. And make no mistake, if unhindered they will do just that!
Once the mechanism are in place it will be easy for them to protect themselves from competing and innovative new services. If one was to advise service providers on how to limit competition, the following would be great suggestions:
- Are consumers choosing Internet Telephony services such as Vonage and Skype instead of your own? Randomly drop some of the competitors' packets. Problem solved!
- Are consumers listening to online radio broadcasts instead of your radio stations? No problem, just interfere with the audio stream. Problem solved!
- Are consumers dropping your TV service in favour of watching custom Internet video, based on their content and schedule preferences? We can't have that, now can we? Just introduce usage based billing. After the consumer gets a few $1,000 invoices the problem will be solved!
- Consumers complaining about your practices? Just tell them that it's for their own good. After all there is an "evil" 5% of Internet users that want to use the Internet for more than casual Web browsing and email. So you're real and noble intention, is that you want to protect the 95% of "good" Internet users. Problem solved!
- Don't mention the fact that for years, you've been reaping the profits of selling your services based on bandwidth that the vast majority of subscribers never used.
- Don't mention either that you realized that the demand for bandwidth was increasing but you chose to maximize profits instead of reinvesting in infrastructure.
- And finally, start inserting your own content into other unrelated Internet content and display it to your remaining "good" users to reinforce the message that you are in control of the Internet.
If a consumer calls to complain about your anti-competitive tactics do the following:
Immediately place the caller on hold while you laugh uncontrollably. After 30 minutes have passed and you have regained your composure, tell the caller that you will transfer the call to the complaints department and "accidentally" disconnect the call. Once the silly consumer calls back in, inform the complainer that in Canada, consumers have few if any alternative providers to choose from and that Bell and Rogers ensure that the same anti-competitive practices are imposed onto their competitors. Then sarcastically ask if you should transfer the call to the cancellation department.
If you care about the future of the Internet, your freedom to choose, innovation, competitiveness and affordability, I urge you to act now:
Contact the CRTC
Find and contact your Member of Parliament
Stumble It!
Here's a quick tutorial by Amber Mac on the subject of Net Neutrality. She accurately describes the important aspects of the subject.
Canadians must keep up the pressure on service providers and government. I am cautious on regulatory interference but the lack of Net Neutrality has the potential of seriously limiting innovation, competitiveness, consumer choice and Canada's ability to effectively compete in the global marketplace. If consumer pressure and impending lawsuits are not successfull, then government must step in and force service providers to treat all traffic equally.
Stumble It!
Canadians must keep up the pressure on service providers and government. I am cautious on regulatory interference but the lack of Net Neutrality has the potential of seriously limiting innovation, competitiveness, consumer choice and Canada's ability to effectively compete in the global marketplace. If consumer pressure and impending lawsuits are not successfull, then government must step in and force service providers to treat all traffic equally.
Stumble It!
I'm pleased to see that the subject of Net Neutrality in Canada is continuing to stimulate discussion and that the media is paying attention.
The CTV evening news had a segment on the subject this evening they called "Point, Click and Wait". The report described how Bell and Rogers have been shaping Internet traffic. A Bell spokesman indicated that left unchecked that the heavier users of the Internet would adversely affect the performance of all their customers and that they believe that would be unfair.
In my view, it has nothing at all to do with a concern for fairness. The real issue is that Service Providers have been raking in big profits for years from Internet users who were not using anywhere near the bandwidth capacity that they had been sold. The growth of bandwidth intensive applications did not happen overnight. Had the service providers been conducting proper capacity planning and reinvesting in the infrastructure there would be no concerns about congestion.
Let's hope that Canadians keep up the pressure on regulators and service providers to change their tactics. If allowed to continue its just a matter of time before service providers give preferential treatment to traffic that is in competition with their own services. If that happens, it will stifle innovation and competition (Bell's shaping of their ISP customers' traffic has already, in effect, negatively impacted competition) and will put Canadians at a disadvantage relative to other countries.
NOTE:
Net Neutrality is a term that describes the concept that all network traffic traveling over the Internet is treated equally. A lack of neutrality indicates that some traffic may be expedited or given other preferential treatment relative to other types of traffic. Another form of lack of Net Neutrality would be when a service provider does not hinder the routing of a particular traffic-type for an additional cost (Shaw has already used that tactic).
Stumble It!
The CTV evening news had a segment on the subject this evening they called "Point, Click and Wait". The report described how Bell and Rogers have been shaping Internet traffic. A Bell spokesman indicated that left unchecked that the heavier users of the Internet would adversely affect the performance of all their customers and that they believe that would be unfair.
In my view, it has nothing at all to do with a concern for fairness. The real issue is that Service Providers have been raking in big profits for years from Internet users who were not using anywhere near the bandwidth capacity that they had been sold. The growth of bandwidth intensive applications did not happen overnight. Had the service providers been conducting proper capacity planning and reinvesting in the infrastructure there would be no concerns about congestion.
Let's hope that Canadians keep up the pressure on regulators and service providers to change their tactics. If allowed to continue its just a matter of time before service providers give preferential treatment to traffic that is in competition with their own services. If that happens, it will stifle innovation and competition (Bell's shaping of their ISP customers' traffic has already, in effect, negatively impacted competition) and will put Canadians at a disadvantage relative to other countries.
NOTE:
Net Neutrality is a term that describes the concept that all network traffic traveling over the Internet is treated equally. A lack of neutrality indicates that some traffic may be expedited or given other preferential treatment relative to other types of traffic. Another form of lack of Net Neutrality would be when a service provider does not hinder the routing of a particular traffic-type for an additional cost (Shaw has already used that tactic).
Stumble It!
By now, any Canadian who pays attention to Net-Neutrality issues, has likely heard about the controversy surrounding the fact that Bell Canada has been throttling the traffic of its ISP customers. Worst, they began throttling the traffic without notifying their customers! Arrogance that only a monopoly could get away with.
Don't be fooled by their rationalization that they only throttle P2P traffic, and that much of that traffic is generated by teenagers involved in illegal activities. They know that this argument will appease many of its subscribers concerns because after all, "why should your bandwidth be negatively affected by some punk downloading illegal movies?"
Here's five reasons that Canadians should be concerned about the latest Bell revelations and Net-Neutrality:
1. Bell and others have been selling their services with the promise that their customers could utilize all of the available bandwidth on their connection. They knew that most subscribers would only actually use a small percentage of the available bandwidth. Allowing a large percentage of their customers to actually use the bandwidth they purchase, would require substantial infrastructure investments which would negatively impact profit margins. Unless there are intervening factors, Canadians can expect higher Internet access fees and the return to usage-based fees as in the early days of the Internet. Enjoy watching Internet video based on your content and time preferences? Be prepared to pay, big time!
2. There are various ways for applications to try and bypass the traffic-shaping algorithms. One method is to encrypt the traffic. That tactic won't work for long. A carrier determined to throttle "undesirable" traffic will simply shape all encrypted traffic if they can't differentiate the desirable from the undesirable. Be prepared to wait a long time for the large file download from the office to your PC over your corporate VPN. Oh, and you can just forget about making a VoIP business call over that corporate VPN. Of course, your company might be allowed to pay an additional fee so that the carrier allows traffic originating or terminating at your office router to flow unimpeded.
3. The world of communications technology is changing at a rapid pace. Internet telephony, video streaming, audio streaming and many others are changing the way people consume the related services. As a result many of the carriers' services are becoming less relevant. Given the opportunity, its only a matter of time until they make moves to protect their traditional telephone and audio/video broadcast services. Anyone that thinks that Bell and others will, in the interest of fair play, do nothing as their services are eroded away by competitors is living in a fantasy world. They will fight, and the easiest strategy is a defensive one (impeding competing traffic) as opposed to innovating (developing compelling and competitive services).
4. Some might argue that if you're not happy with Bell's service then switch to another provider. Once enough customers leave, competitive forces will persuade them to change their tactics. That's not likely to happen, since for most Canadians there are very few, if any, alternatives. Besides, switching providers won't help to improve your service if the very few available service providers are using the same tactics. And of course, Bell has just admitted that they are throttling the traffic of their ISP customers; further limiting consumer options.
5. The Internet has benefited society in innumerable ways. It continues to enable innovative new products and services. It empowers the individual to find and consume information in ways that were unimaginable just 15 years ago. If left unchallenged, service providers acting as Internet Traffic Cops and using self-serving criteria will determine on behalf of Canadians which services they should be allowed to get from the Internet without additional payments to the carrier.
6. I know, I know, I said five reasons. But this one is also important. If Bell is allowed to shape traffic in any manner they choose, other Canadian service providers will follow suit. If they don't, they will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
Stumble It!
Don't be fooled by their rationalization that they only throttle P2P traffic, and that much of that traffic is generated by teenagers involved in illegal activities. They know that this argument will appease many of its subscribers concerns because after all, "why should your bandwidth be negatively affected by some punk downloading illegal movies?"
Here's five reasons that Canadians should be concerned about the latest Bell revelations and Net-Neutrality:
1. Bell and others have been selling their services with the promise that their customers could utilize all of the available bandwidth on their connection. They knew that most subscribers would only actually use a small percentage of the available bandwidth. Allowing a large percentage of their customers to actually use the bandwidth they purchase, would require substantial infrastructure investments which would negatively impact profit margins. Unless there are intervening factors, Canadians can expect higher Internet access fees and the return to usage-based fees as in the early days of the Internet. Enjoy watching Internet video based on your content and time preferences? Be prepared to pay, big time!
2. There are various ways for applications to try and bypass the traffic-shaping algorithms. One method is to encrypt the traffic. That tactic won't work for long. A carrier determined to throttle "undesirable" traffic will simply shape all encrypted traffic if they can't differentiate the desirable from the undesirable. Be prepared to wait a long time for the large file download from the office to your PC over your corporate VPN. Oh, and you can just forget about making a VoIP business call over that corporate VPN. Of course, your company might be allowed to pay an additional fee so that the carrier allows traffic originating or terminating at your office router to flow unimpeded.
3. The world of communications technology is changing at a rapid pace. Internet telephony, video streaming, audio streaming and many others are changing the way people consume the related services. As a result many of the carriers' services are becoming less relevant. Given the opportunity, its only a matter of time until they make moves to protect their traditional telephone and audio/video broadcast services. Anyone that thinks that Bell and others will, in the interest of fair play, do nothing as their services are eroded away by competitors is living in a fantasy world. They will fight, and the easiest strategy is a defensive one (impeding competing traffic) as opposed to innovating (developing compelling and competitive services).
4. Some might argue that if you're not happy with Bell's service then switch to another provider. Once enough customers leave, competitive forces will persuade them to change their tactics. That's not likely to happen, since for most Canadians there are very few, if any, alternatives. Besides, switching providers won't help to improve your service if the very few available service providers are using the same tactics. And of course, Bell has just admitted that they are throttling the traffic of their ISP customers; further limiting consumer options.
5. The Internet has benefited society in innumerable ways. It continues to enable innovative new products and services. It empowers the individual to find and consume information in ways that were unimaginable just 15 years ago. If left unchallenged, service providers acting as Internet Traffic Cops and using self-serving criteria will determine on behalf of Canadians which services they should be allowed to get from the Internet without additional payments to the carrier.
6. I know, I know, I said five reasons. But this one is also important. If Bell is allowed to shape traffic in any manner they choose, other Canadian service providers will follow suit. If they don't, they will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
Stumble It!
