Canada Post should become a High Speed Internet Provider June 23, 2008

Some of us have been following the dispute that is raging across the country regarding traffic shaping. Both Bell Canada and Rogers Communications have admitted to using this practice in response to a small number of users taking over more than their fair share of the available bandwidth. There is no competition when all players in a market use similar technology, and provide similar services.

It is time for a new player to enter the market.

I would like to propose that Canada Post be given the mandate to provide the public with high speed internet service.

1. They have offices all over the country
2. They need to communicate with their offices
3. They already deal with the public
4. They have a mandate to provide mail service. This can be extended to internet mail service
5. They have excellent technology in ePost, though few seem to know of it. This technology can be used to augment their eMail services
6. Being national, Canada Post would allow a user to access their service from anywhere in the country

I see big wins all around.

The existing providers could use the competition.

To Throttle or not to Throttle? June 19, 2008

Canadian Telco’s have decided that a small number of users (10% according to some figures) are abusing the Bell Acceptable Use Policy and using too much bandwidth. These users are spoiling the Internet experience for the others who are dutifully abiding by the spirit of the policy. Technologies allowing Deep Packet Inspection are being used to throttle – or shape, which is such a better word – Internet traffic.

All the discussions on the topic that I have seen have revolved around the ethical merits of throttling, or the violation of contractual agreements, or privacy rights infringed. But how do the Telco’s go about deciding what constitutes abuse?

No one appears to know exactly how much internet traffic is too much. The type of traffic being throttled is typically that created by peer to peer networks such as those taking advantage of BitTorrent downloads. This assumes that all such downloads are for illicit purposes, and therefore should be discouraged. Bell Canada is very careful to not make that assertion.  All they say is that they want to maximise the experience for all users.

Bell Canada offers the “Total Internet Max” browsing experience for CDN$89.95 a month. This includes 100GB of usage per month. They also provide usage insurance of CDN$10.00 a month for an additional 30GB of activity.

How does the user know how much bandwidth has been consumed? The information is located online, of course, the irony of which should be obvious. The user is using up their bandwidth to find out how much bandwidth they are using. Technically, surcharges could be incurred during this investigation.

How do you know if are incurring the wrath of the Deep Packet Inspectors? Well you don’t. Unless you are downloading something huge using a BitTorrent service, in which case, you will be throttled. Sorry, your traffic will be throttled.

The information made available online when you sign up for a Sympatico Internet account makes no mention of the shaping or throttling of Internet traffic. Speak to a representative and they make no mention of it either.  In fact, the representative I spoke with, charming as she was, knew nothing about this and had to speak to her supervisor. The latter said Bell does not throttle traffic. I was finally transferred to Customer Service who said the only people able to answer my question were in Tech Support, but I need an account to talk with them.

It was finally agreed that my telephone account was sufficient to let me through. The Tech Support rep, again a charming individual, informed me that the shaping takes place in peak hours defined as being between 6 and 10PM.

I also took a look at the Bell Acceptable Use Policy, which is far ranging. I encourage everyone to read it. Transmitting chain letters is not allowed, for instance. Paragraph two is the one used to justify the shaping of traffic:

Restricting or inhibiting any other user from using or enjoying the Internet, impairing the operations or efficiency of the Service or creating an unusually large burden on our networks, or otherwise generating levels of Internet traffic sufficient to impede other users’ ability to transmit or receive information.
In summary, my major objections to Bell (and Rogers) shaping of Internet traffic are:

1. Numbers are not made available defining what constitutes the shaping of traffic
2. No one is informed about the rules governing shaping
3. No information is made available defining the load and traffic we are being saved from.

Do the owners of the road have the right to determine how much traffic flows through their property? The answer is probably yes.

What rights do users have? Or what rights should the user expect to have?

Links:

Bell Acceptable Use Policy

The different types of traffic being generated on the Web are described in this very interesting (though a bit geeky) article. Note the article dates from 1998!

Fiber to the door June 18, 2008

According to a story in Wired News, Verizon is expanding its investment in Fiber Optic lines to the door. They are bringing 50mbps to the consumer and are already experimenting with 100mbps. Prices range from US$89.95 in New York, to US$139.95 a month in California.

Meanwhile, the powers that be in Canada are throttling our service. Wait, a correction is in order, they are throttling the service of the 10% of the users who are abusing their agreements, so the rest of us can continue taking advantage of the 5 to 16mbps they are providing. Bell Canada is promoting their new fiber optic service with speeds “up to 16mbps” at a price of CDN$84.95.

Which makes more business sense? Throttling back your clients? Or increasing the bandwidth?

I suppose from a strictly dollars and cents issue, throttling may be less expensive. The work is done at the server level with new technologies purchased for this purpose. ComCast in the U.S. has set the precedent.

Installing Fiber, on the other hand, requires planning and foresight.  The logistics for the installation are daunting.  Verizon has set that standard. While the rest of the Telco’s sit and watch, Verizon is providing its customers an incredible experience, and is setting the stage for new and enhanced features.

The future, if one is to believe the pundits, is that the Internet will become the be-all and end-all of everything. Our TV will come from there, our files, pictures, music, will all be stored online, available from anywhere, anytime. The Cloud, as it is referred to, will conquer all. In which case, we will need much faster access and more bandwidth.

The choice is to follow the lead set by ComCast or that of Verizon.

Social Networks June 14, 2008

Facebook, My Space, Orkut, and so many more. A comprehensive list is available on Wikipedia.

There is a lot of talk about the demise of eMail in favour of communicating exclusively through social networks. What fun! Log into Facebook, see what your friends are doing, saying, what pictures they have posted, the bits of brilliance emanating from far and wide. Ok, so there goes 30 minutes or more. I have 36 friends on Facebook. Paltry compared to the 360 of one of my friends. How do they keep up with the shenanigans of 360 people?

And what if some of their friends are members of some of the other networks. Do they log in to see what their friends are doing there? Do they get notified of their activities through – GASP! – eMail?

This does not make sense. Don’t get me wrong. I do see the value of the networks. You can reconnect with people you have not seen in ages. Keep in touch with far (and not so far) flung friends and relatives. Sure beats receiving annual updates from people, and more importantly, having to write annual updates. And LinkedIn is proving that social networks can be a very valuable business tool.

But there is something truly amiss with social networks. I am on Facebook and logged in before writing this. I had 17 invitations to take part in various activities and read all sorts of posts from my friends. I had to install SuperWall, and FunWall, and splash something, and an updated version of Shockwave, and… sorry I got lost in there somewhere.

I have now watched countless videos my friends thought I would enjoy. Apparently guessing the right answers to the Are You Irish section makes me a true blood Irish with great knowledge of Irish history. My knowledge of movies is very poor, as is my knowledge of TV shows I never watched, and I am apparently quite smart and… was that a beautiful sunny day outside?

New companies are popping up as aggregators of social networks, while others are creating social networks of social networks. Who has time for this? Far from killing eMail, social networks might just help spur on eMail as the simplest means of communicating between friends.

Now if we could only do something about all that unwanted mail.

Programming and the restricted user June 13, 2008

I run a couple of networks for clients. We have elected to restrict all users. No installation of programs and so on. One of the benefits of this strategy is that there have been no infections on the desktops or the network. Makes my job a lot easier. This is not a control issue. Users can still change their desktops and personalise their environment. Just no installation of programs.

Microsoft has very cleverly allowed programmers to install .ini files and other elements of a program that need to be modified in the user section to which even the restricted user has access. So why do companies insist on placing these files in either the Windows or Program Files folders? Or in its own folder in the root directory?

Some programs require that the registry be modified for each user that logs into a computer. This creates its own nightmare scenario. Filezilla, for instance, creates an XML file where all these parameters are saved. Clever solution. But then the Site Manager in Filezilla requires the user to have limited access to the Filezilla folder which begs the question – WHY? I do not mean to pick on Filezilla. Wonderful program. And they are by no means the only culprits.

It would surely be simpler to place these files in locations that are managed by users and do not require an administrator to intervene.

I have not had a clear answer from anyone.

Programming: must be complicated June 13, 2008

I figured out the other day that programming computers must be very tough.

We are all very fond of bashing Microsoft. But if you think about it, they have managed to create an operating system that works on over 80% of the computers out there. This is not a closed loop where they control the hardware environment. It is wide open and out of Microsoft’s control.

Microsoft also attempted to make things easy for the end user. Drag and drop utilities from anywhere to anywhere, an interface that encourages sharing between applications and so on. The side effect of this ease of use has made computers vulnerable to viruses and trojans. And before you start commenting on the security of the MAC, be aware that attacks on the MAC are beginning to appear and the operating system is showing the same vulnerabilities as Windows.

Microsoft has begun locking down the computer. Each lock-down appears to reveal another potential point of entry, which is followed by another patch and so it continues. And again, the MAC is subject to the same list of patches, as is the Linux operating system.

Adobe has also been subjected to some issues recently as well, with Adobe Acrobat showing potential vulnerabilities, as has Flash. Sun’s Java environment has joined the list. All these programs keep releasing new versions and patches, which creates a non-ending spiral of updates to correct vulnerabilities.

We are not talking about one company having these problems. The list is getting longer each day and includes the leading software companies: Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Symantec, Mozilla, and on and on. It seems that no one is immune to this, and we cannot blame Microsoft for the problems faced by all these companies.

The programmers in these companies are very smart people. And the companies seem to know what they are doing. It just must be really difficult to program.