The topic of CBC Radio’s Spark this week is Access. It includes an interview with a representative from Bell, discussing Net Neutrality and traffic shaping.
They also have the full, unedited audio with the Bell rep on the Spark Blog.
I’m curious. What do you think?
There have been a lot of people writing on the Internet about Bell Canada’s plans for traffic shaping.
I’ve been planning to leave Bell for a while, and this thing doesn’t make me want to change my mind. However, I thought I’d give them a chance to talk for themselves, so I logged onto their no-very-helpful chat service. And I asked the following question:
ME:
I have a question regarding Bell’s plans for traffic shaping, and why this could ever be considered good for the customer. Should this occur (which I hear is expected by April 7), why should I continue to keep my internet service with you?
THEM:
I apologize for the inconvenience, We didn’t get the update yet, But once we come know about this we would definitely be glad to assist you further and fix the issue.
I wondered what they meant by "fix the issue", so I asked. They didn’t correct their statement, but instead replied:
THEM:
Bell is using Internet Traffic Management in order to ensure and to deliver bandwidth fairly to our customers during peak Internet usage.
So the rep told me that they are already shaping traffic. I pushed and prodded for a bit, and then I got this gem:
THEM:
Please understand our concern,this traffic shaping will not affect your Internet speed.
ME:
Is that a guarantee?
THEM:
Yes, It will not affect your Internet speed
REJOICE EVERYONE. Traffic shaping will not affect your speed!
That said, don’t get too excited, the rep did admit that they hadn’t been briefed on the subject yet.
THEM:
But still we are not updated about the traffic shaping. We will definitely let you know about this as soon as possible. and glad we would be glad to assist you.
So. To summarize: Bell says that traffic shaping will not affect the speed of my ‘high speed’ internet. Unless, of course, they find out when they are briefed on it, that it does.
What do you think about that? I call bullshit.
Via Michael Geist: Bell Canada has a new “Unlimited” Bandwidth plan for wireless.
The Catch is (naturally) in the fine print:
You shall not use or allow others to use the Service or your Device if such use:
So, there’s a limit on the “unlimited bandwidth” but they won’t say what it is (save that its at their discretion). And you can’t use VOiP (unless they are the provider - sorry, no Skype).
The Justice Department said today that Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic. The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to “Net neutrality,” the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user.
Now, I’m a Canadian, and not subject to the decision of the US Justice Department, but let’s face it, where the US goes, so goes the rest of the world. A tiered internet system pretty much destroys the internet. If users can’t access any web site whenever they want it, then the internet is, in effect, being censored by their ISP. If I want to read a blog that is critical of (for example) a government body, and my phone company/ISP’s management supports that body, they can slow down access to the web site, unless the owner of the site pays a fee. There’s a word for that: extortion.
But the USJD has a justification:
The Justice Department said imposing a Net neutrality regulation could hamper development of the Internet and prevent service providers from upgrading or expanding their networks. It could also shift the “entire burden of implementing costly network expansions and improvements onto consumers,”
Yes, because the internet, as its worked so far, has hampered the development of technology. I call bullshit.
Truth is, what we have here, is an example of extensive Lobbying on the part of the ISPs, who are able to convince policymakers (many of whom aren’t exactly technologically savvy) of their side of the story. Because the ISPs can afford expensive lobbyists, who can woo and cajole the policymakers, their opinion is given more weight than that of the people who actually know about this kind of thing.
But why should anyone worry, right? After all, the phone companies (many of whom are also ISPs) all have their user’s best interests at heart. Right? After all, its not like they would make up fees to get more money from their customers. Right?
A while ago, Leo Lingas painted this great picture of Klingons crossing the Delaware.
Yesterday, this picture made Boingboing (which I’m sure will have a huge affect on his page views). Shortly thereafter, Wil Wheaton also linked to it, with a rave about its awesomeness.
So… congratulations to Leo.
I got an email from Phil Rickaby today.
No, I didn’t send an email to myself. Nor was it spam (though Gmail initially thought it was). Turns out that there’s another Phil Rickaby out there. Fortunately, he’s not an actor. I suspect that this is the Phil Rickaby I often see in my “vanity feed”. This Phil Rickaby is an athelete, and articles such as this one often come up in my feed.
If this is the Athletic Phil Rickaby who has emailed me, that’s kinda cool, since I’ve often wondered who this fellow is.
I’ve emailed him back to try and find out if he’s who I think he is. We’ll see.
According to BoingBoing, an Australian court has ruled that it is illegal to link to copyrighted material. According to this ruling, if I was to link to copyrighted material, say on YouTube, I’ve committed a crime.
Did you see what I did just there? Yeah, I linked to copyrighted material on YouTube.
Fortunately, that ruling only applies to Australia, but I do have some fear that it does not bode well for the internets at large. After all, the net was built on links. Without links, there would be no Google.
Hopefully this stays in Australia, but with the increase in the power given to the “fake copyright lobby”, I’m afraid it won’t be.
The “fake copyright lobby” are those bulldogs who try to make copyright law more powerful than it is. The copyright laws that are currently on the books were intended to prevent one publisher (for example) from printing material that was owned by another. It was never intended to be used against the individuals.
In the parlance of the internet, linking to something is the equivalent of saying “this is cool”. Why can’t the “fake copyright lobby” see that linking to something isn’t a challenge to their copyright? Its a compliment. Its no different from (as I said above) saying ‘this is cool, you should check it out’.
Actually, I think the “fake copyright lobby” knows this. What’s happening is that its a money grab. Its an attempt by corporations to solidify a hold on information and content. To control, as much as possible, the information that’s “out there”. There’s a small group of consultants, who are convincing the corporations about the benefits of doing so (and these consultants are making a lot of money).
I have an idea. Its a little radical, but maybe it might work: stop treating consumers like potential theives. Encourage their enthusiasm about the work your company and your artists create. If they are enthusiastic, cultvate this enthusiasm. Don’t punish them for loving your work.
I know its crazy (according to the current conventional wisdom), but it just might work.
Years ago, Jim Zubkavich created a web comic called the Makeshift Miracle. This isn’t a daily or weekly comic like PVP or Penny Arcade. The Makeshift Miracle was a single story, told a gorgeous panel a day.
It was awesome. And it floored me.
Now, Jim has put the art together in book form, and remastered the art to make it look even more amazing. You should buy it. You can buy it right from Jim, by clickety-clicking on this banner:
Do it. You know you wanna.
If you enjoyed the post, make sure you subscribe to the RSS feed.
© 2008 TypeBased. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress. Design by 
