Telecom Trends

exemptions?

By this you mean:
-Lets have a fast lane for this persons content,
-and a slow lane for that persons content.

Gee, your bright.

Seriously, how much does Bell pay you to write and spew thi crap on this web site?

You flip-flop more than a fish outa water.
 

I think its the P2P stuff that everyone is trying to discourage. That should be easily identifiable to an ISP compared to Virus Updates.
 

To the Saturday 3:39pm anonymous fan - when you are trying to criticize me with sarcasm, you may find it more effective if you learn the difference between "your bright" and "you're bright". But, although I have no trouble with the idea that content providers (whether corporate or individual) could pay for preferred access - that was not the point of this posting.

To the both Saturday's and Sunday's anonymous commenters - my posting dealt with download caps, not bandwidth caps. If subscribers only have 10, 25, 50, 60 GB of downloads available in a month (whether off P2P or iTunes or whatever), I am suggesting that ISPs may want to exempt downloads that work to protect the network as well and end user equipment.

As Sunday's commenter noted, it can be differentiated by the DPI equipment; will ISPs exempt extraordinarily large or frequent updates associated with virus protection? Perhaps they will exempt their partners' updates, but not their competitors.
 

Hi I'm a non-english anonymous user who spelled "you are" as "your" instead of you're.

Would you ask that ISP's block all spelling mistakes on the internet? I bet you would.

My sincerest apologies for not being a welcome english user by the blog writer.

Anon-fan
My sincerest apologies for being Anon. Which by "your" posting history shows you have little regard for. May I suggest you remove the anon feature?

Anyhoo...
(I spelled "anyhoo" like this intentionally in case the spelling police come out again.)

Then by your own statements, ISP's should exclude anything that has the potential for exploit and for which exploits exists.

This is NOT only the operating systems that are affected.

This is NOT only anti-virus (security) software that is affected.

How clueless does one have to be to suggest that these two items are all that a person needs to be updated, for free, by the content (security) provider that the ISP ALLOWS for free (which security provider would they not honor for free)?

Would an ISP allow free updating for ALL Operating systems? There are many flavours of linux out there.

How about if another major exploit came out again for "WoW" (one of the most popular online games)? Would the ISP allow the 30-gig FREE updates for this security patch to "protect their network"?

Also WoW uses P2P for its updating mechanism. What happens now?

In a given month, the average user probably needs to update about 10% of all software on their system.

Your last scentence sums it all up:
"Perhaps they will exempt their partners' updates, but not their competitors."

Which is content control by the ISP.

Again this is in direct relation to the 1st anon comment.

Slow lane, fast lane, paid content, free content.

round-n-round, which equates to full control of what people use the net for.

Then you get into the mess of favorites (competition) and the pushing the ISP's favorites monopolist choice.

Real life example, Sympatico-MSN.

By pushing this they then punish anyone running linux, BE-OS Mac-OS.

This will then punish those on a lower income who may use "Open-Office" as opposed to "MS-office". Those who use freely available security software instead of MS-one-care.

Now we are into:
the have and the have-nots.

Was this the intention of the creator of the internet?

Where does the exploitation of the people end?

The internet should be as it was meant to be; open, free and accessable to all, regardless of income, regardless of the users choice.

Your example and this blog entry punishes the "have-nots", the lower-income users.

Hope mon english was good enough pour vous.
 

And what about:

1. Authorized downloads of software that now take forever
2. Authorized high bandwidth gaming activity
3. Off-site backups that now take forever plus
4. Authorized video streams that now break up all the time
5. Unauthorized downloads of MP3 music files which are, whether you like it not, legal in Canada - according to the Copyright Board itself if done on an “audio recording medium” - due to the music industry’s very own legislated levy scheme. The Board strongly suggests that a computer hard drive would be an “audio recording medium”, even if the music industry has not sought a levy on such a medium.
6. Etc. Etc. Etc.???

Mark - I’m surprised that you have already largely judged this issue in favour of the ISPs and seem concerned now only with details. This is a good issue on which to be, if you’ll pardon the pun, at least “neutral.”

The exemption that’s arguably needed is full throttle absolutely neutral bandwidth without any hidden agendas by our ISPs, which are effectively duopolies in any particular market. In other words, “net neutrality. And worse still, the throttling architecture is being imposed on resellers, eliminating probably the most important remaining vestige of real competition in ISP service.

No wonder Canada is getting its reputation for having some of the worst telecom and ISP services at the highest prices anywhere.

Download volume caps (or extra cost above a certain level) may be slightly less odious conceptually than bandwidth caps. But both are prone to anti-competitive agendas, conflicts of interest, collusion with copyright owners and other behaviour that should be anathema for the internet. Now, it seems, we will have both - download and bandwidth caps. And duopolies to exploit the worst possibilities of both.

Ironically, the ISPs are inviting, it seems, both regulation and litigation - because if they can control what they consider to be infringing content with their deep packet inspection (“DPI), they arguably ought to be held responsible for it.

We look forward to seeing the make up of your panel on net neutrality and hope that it will be well balanced.

Howard
 

If this conference is indictivite of this blog, then "balance" is surely not on the agenda.

Wish I could afford to attend to see just how "balanced" it will be.