Possibly of interest to some on this list: Bell Canada are throttling BitTorrent and other P2P traffic within their network. This means that if you have a DSL connection, regardless of who it's from, your traffic will be shaped. TekSavvy's Rocky Gadreault posted this at DSLREports.com:
"They're now openly acknowledging that they are rolling out a full throttling process. They plan to have things fully throttled by April 7th. All BT and P2P traffic will be affected. They claim they are allowed to do so according to their Terms and Services under the Fair Usage Policy in the tariffed contracts."
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Rick Innis <rick.in...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Possibly of interest to some on this list: Bell Canada are throttling > BitTorrent and other P2P traffic within their network. This means > that if you have a DSL connection, regardless of who it's from, your > traffic will be shaped. TekSavvy's Rocky Gadreault posted this at > DSLREports.com:
> "They're now openly acknowledging that they are rolling out a full > throttling process. They plan to have things fully throttled by April > 7th. All BT and P2P traffic will be affected. They claim they are > allowed to do so according to their Terms and Services under the Fair > Usage Policy in the tariffed contracts."
Then do something... complain to the CRTC... We can all just do
nothing or we can say that it is unacceptable for Bell and Rogers to
determine which bits are good and which are bad. They want common
carrier status so they aren't liable for content on their lines but
throttle traffic because they don't want to invest in infrastructure.
Jon
On Mar 26, 2:26 pm, "Jordan Christensen" <thebi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just moved into a new place and have Teksavvy set to start in 2
> weeks. I have to say, I'm a little pissed off here.On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Rick Innis <rick.in...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Possibly of interest to some on this list: Bell Canada are throttling
> > BitTorrent and other P2P traffic within their network. This means
> > that if you have a DSL connection, regardless of who it's from, your
> > traffic will be shaped. TekSavvy's Rocky Gadreault posted this at
> > DSLREports.com:
> > "They're now openly acknowledging that they are rolling out a full
> > throttling process. They plan to have things fully throttled by April
> > 7th. All BT and P2P traffic will be affected. They claim they are
> > allowed to do so according to their Terms and Services under the Fair
> > Usage Policy in the tariffed contracts."
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:39 PM, jon....@gmail.com <jon....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then do something... complain to the CRTC... We can all just do > nothing or we can say that it is unacceptable for Bell and Rogers to > determine which bits are good and which are bad. They want common > carrier status so they aren't liable for content on their lines but > throttle traffic because they don't want to invest in infrastructure.
> Jon
> On Mar 26, 2:26 pm, "Jordan Christensen" <thebi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I just moved into a new place and have Teksavvy set to start in 2
> > weeks. I have to say, I'm a little pissed off here.On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Rick Innis <rick.in...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Possibly of interest to some on this list: Bell Canada are throttling > > > BitTorrent and other P2P traffic within their network. This means > > > that if you have a DSL connection, regardless of who it's from, your > > > traffic will be shaped. TekSavvy's Rocky Gadreault posted this at > > > DSLREports.com:
> > > "They're now openly acknowledging that they are rolling out a full > > > throttling process. They plan to have things fully throttled by April > > > 7th. All BT and P2P traffic will be affected. They claim they are > > > allowed to do so according to their Terms and Services under the Fair > > > Usage Policy in the tariffed contracts."
Kudos to Teksavvy for their positive actions in favor of network neutrality. They have raised the alarm - not it is up up to others to also complain not only to the CRTC but also to MPs
regards,
Robert --- Robert Guerra <rgue...@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
On 26-Mar-08, at 2:40 PM, Jordan Christensen wrote:
> I definitely plan to. Not having a choice for unthrottled consumer > internet in Toronto is bordering on absurd.
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:39 PM, jon....@gmail.com > <jon....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Then do something... complain to the CRTC... We can all just do >> nothing or we can say that it is unacceptable for Bell and Rogers to >> determine which bits are good and which are bad. They want common >> carrier status so they aren't liable for content on their lines but >> throttle traffic because they don't want to invest in infrastructure.
>> Jon
>> On Mar 26, 2:26 pm, "Jordan Christensen" <thebi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I just moved into a new place and have Teksavvy set to start in 2
>>> weeks. I have to say, I'm a little pissed off here.On Wed, Mar 26, >>> 2008 at 12:02 PM, Rick Innis <rick.in...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Possibly of interest to some on this list: Bell Canada are >>>> throttling >>>> BitTorrent and other P2P traffic within their network. This means >>>> that if you have a DSL connection, regardless of who it's from, >>>> your >>>> traffic will be shaped. TekSavvy's Rocky Gadreault posted this at >>>> DSLREports.com:
>>>> "They're now openly acknowledging that they are rolling out a full >>>> throttling process. They plan to have things fully throttled by >>>> April >>>> 7th. All BT and P2P traffic will be affected. They claim they are >>>> allowed to do so according to their Terms and Services under the >>>> Fair >>>> Usage Policy in the tariffed contracts."
I think the most interesting angle from a CRTC point of view is that
throttling could potentially lead to less competition in the telephony
business. i.e. are Bell and other ISPs throttling VoIP phone
companies like Vonage?
Seb.
On Mar 26, 2:39 pm, "jon....@gmail.com" <jon....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then do something... complain to the CRTC... We can all just do
> nothing or we can say that it is unacceptable for Bell and Rogers to
> determine which bits are good and which are bad. They want common
> carrier status so they aren't liable for content on their lines but
> throttle traffic because they don't want to invest in infrastructure.
> Jon
> On Mar 26, 2:26 pm, "Jordan Christensen" <thebi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I just moved into a new place and have Teksavvy set to start in 2
> > weeks. I have to say, I'm a little pissed off here.On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Rick Innis <rick.in...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Possibly of interest to some on this list: Bell Canada are throttling
> > > BitTorrent and other P2P traffic within their network. This means
> > > that if you have a DSL connection, regardless of who it's from, your
> > > traffic will be shaped. TekSavvy's Rocky Gadreault posted this at
> > > DSLREports.com:
> > > "They're now openly acknowledging that they are rolling out a full
> > > throttling process. They plan to have things fully throttled by April
> > > 7th. All BT and P2P traffic will be affected. They claim they are
> > > allowed to do so according to their Terms and Services under the Fair
> > > Usage Policy in the tariffed contracts."
I'm quite disappointed by many of the statements made in this thread.
The Internet is not an unlimited free resource, and pretending that it is allows the few to ruin it for the many. If you're not familiar with the phrase "the tragedy of the commons", please look it up.
And if you're a heavy user and don't think you should have to pay any more than a light user, please don't present selfishness as part of some noble cause.
Is it not the case that most if not all ISP's do offer several tiers
of service to accomodate these heavy users? Are you suggesting that
those who already pay for premium access should still be penalized for
the sake of those who chose "lite" broadband connections? Or do you
advocate some means of billing for both quality and quantity of
bandwidth?
As an internet veteran your views on these issues would be most
welcome.
On Mar 28, 1:42 am, "Rohan Jayasekera" <1...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I'm quite disappointed by many of the statements made in this thread.
> The Internet is not an unlimited free resource, and pretending that it is
> allows the few to ruin it for the many. If you're not familiar with the
> phrase "the tragedy of the commons", please look it up.
> And if you're a heavy user and don't think you should have to pay any more
> than a light user, please don't present selfishness as part of some noble
> cause.
Hmm, evidently I should clarify. Neither of my two comments was against net neutrality, nor in favour of throttling, nor in favour of ISPs' charging more to those who already pay more for premium access. I'm just getting really sick of hearing cowboy tactics and selfishness and dreaming in Technicolor wrapped up in the flag of the worthy goal of having the Internet as a friendly and accommodating resource. Most or all of us in TorCamp share a certain ideal for the Internet; let's work toward it in a principled and realistic way. This may take some self-discipline when people are getting penalized for perfectly reasonable activities, but I think it's worth it.
> I'm quite disappointed by many of the statements made in this thread.
> The Internet is not an unlimited free resource, and pretending that it is > allows the few to ruin it for the many. If you're not familiar with the > phrase "the tragedy of the commons", please look it up.
This is some kind of joke, right? You are aware that every single internet user is paying for services? To companies like Bell Canada whose revenue was $4,500,000,000 (not a typo) in the last three months?
> And if you're a heavy user and don't think you should have to pay any > more than a light user, please don't present selfishness as part of some > noble cause.
Yes, it's utterly selfish and tragic that someone who has paid for a T1 connection should actually be able to upload and download at 1.544 Mbps. Why, if they actually use the full capacity of the line, they're just a bunch of thieves. In fact, any T1 client who uses it more than once a week to drive to church on Sundays is just a low-down scoundrel, and if they complain that the line doesn't actually deliver 1.544 Mbps, it's pure selfishness.
Bell, on the other hand, who sold you that T1 line, shouldn't be held to actually deliver what they sold. That's not how business works! They should able to sell T1 lines to everyone without bothering to provision for it, and just slow down the end-user as necessary to make sure that the 500 T1 lines they sold to clients don't exceed the capacity of the one T1 line they use as an upstream connection. That's just good business practices, nothing shady in there at all.
Rohan, I'd like to sell you a new car. It will have up to 4 wheels and up to one engine and up to 4 seats inside. Also, I get to revise the deal any time after you've purchased the car. I might revise it to have fewer seats or engines or wheels, but the amount you paid for the car will not be revised downwards. Don't complain if I revise it though; that's just selfish. Keep making your monthly payments and STFU.
Not everyone in Canada is familiar with the product offerings in the rest of the world regarding broadband. In most industrialized nations, you can get a broadband connection ten times as fast as anything offered in Canada for half the price, with no throttling. Canadians are paying monopoly prices (high!) for monopoly levels of service (low!). You can either do something about this situation or you can be like Rohan, "Thank you sir may I have another beating?"
I agree with your sentiment that we ought to concentrate any effort
toward addressing this issue in a principled and realistic way. But
Speaking up simply to express disappointment with the attitudes of the
interested parties, and then people jumping down a guys throat for
stating his opinions on those efforts don't seem like an effective use
of our time.
There's been varied discussion on the dslreports forums (
http://www.dslreports.com/forums/23 ) about campaigning public
officials, sundry awareness ideas, meatspace protests, and in extreme
cases DDOS'ing BCE's networks and call center staff.
Perhaps as upstanding TO geeks we can help direct this unspent energy
in a more positive way?
-Rob
On Mar 28, 9:39 am, Michael Sims <jelli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday 28 March 2008, Rohan Jayasekera wrote:
> > I'm quite disappointed by many of the statements made in this thread.
> > The Internet is not an unlimited free resource, and pretending that it is
> > allows the few to ruin it for the many. If you're not familiar with the
> > phrase "the tragedy of the commons", please look it up.
> This is some kind of joke, right? You are aware that every single internet
> user is paying for services? To companies like Bell Canada whose revenue
> was $4,500,000,000 (not a typo) in the last three months?
> > And if you're a heavy user and don't think you should have to pay any
> > more than a light user, please don't present selfishness as part of some
> > noble cause.
> Yes, it's utterly selfish and tragic that someone who has paid for a T1
> connection should actually be able to upload and download at 1.544 Mbps.
> Why, if they actually use the full capacity of the line, they're just a
> bunch of thieves. In fact, any T1 client who uses it more than once a week
> to drive to church on Sundays is just a low-down scoundrel, and if they
> complain that the line doesn't actually deliver 1.544 Mbps, it's pure
> selfishness.
> Bell, on the other hand, who sold you that T1 line, shouldn't be held to
> actually deliver what they sold. That's not how business works! They
> should able to sell T1 lines to everyone without bothering to provision for
> it, and just slow down the end-user as necessary to make sure that the 500
> T1 lines they sold to clients don't exceed the capacity of the one T1 line
> they use as an upstream connection. That's just good business practices,
> nothing shady in there at all.
> Rohan, I'd like to sell you a new car. It will have up to 4 wheels and up
> to one engine and up to 4 seats inside. Also, I get to revise the deal any
> time after you've purchased the car. I might revise it to have fewer seats
> or engines or wheels, but the amount you paid for the car will not be
> revised downwards. Don't complain if I revise it though; that's just
> selfish. Keep making your monthly payments and STFU.
> Not everyone in Canada is familiar with the product offerings in the rest of
> the world regarding broadband. In most industrialized nations, you can get
> a broadband connection ten times as fast as anything offered in Canada for
> half the price, with no throttling. Canadians are paying monopoly prices
> (high!) for monopoly levels of service (low!). You can either do something
> about this situation or you can be like Rohan, "Thank you sir may I have
> another beating?"
Very well put. If I pay for 5 meg down/1 meg up, then that is what I
expect. Bell and Rogers are over selling their network. As people use
what they pay for the network can't handle it because its been
oversold. Not because a few greedy people are ruining it for others.
Greedy Telcos are selling bandwidth they don't have.
Jon
On Mar 28, 9:39 am, Michael Sims <jelli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday 28 March 2008, Rohan Jayasekera wrote:
> > I'm quite disappointed by many of the statements made in this thread.
> > The Internet is not an unlimited free resource, and pretending that it is
> > allows the few to ruin it for the many. If you're not familiar with the
> > phrase "the tragedy of the commons", please look it up.
> This is some kind of joke, right? You are aware that every single internet
> user is paying for services? To companies like Bell Canada whose revenue
> was $4,500,000,000 (not a typo) in the last three months?
> > And if you're a heavy user and don't think you should have to pay any
> > more than a light user, please don't present selfishness as part of some
> > noble cause.
> Yes, it's utterly selfish and tragic that someone who has paid for a T1
> connection should actually be able to upload and download at 1.544 Mbps.
> Why, if they actually use the full capacity of the line, they're just a
> bunch of thieves. In fact, any T1 client who uses it more than once a week
> to drive to church on Sundays is just a low-down scoundrel, and if they
> complain that the line doesn't actually deliver 1.544 Mbps, it's pure
> selfishness.
> Bell, on the other hand, who sold you that T1 line, shouldn't be held to
> actually deliver what they sold. That's not how business works! They
> should able to sell T1 lines to everyone without bothering to provision for
> it, and just slow down the end-user as necessary to make sure that the 500
> T1 lines they sold to clients don't exceed the capacity of the one T1 line
> they use as an upstream connection. That's just good business practices,
> nothing shady in there at all.
> Rohan, I'd like to sell you a new car. It will have up to 4 wheels and up
> to one engine and up to 4 seats inside. Also, I get to revise the deal any
> time after you've purchased the car. I might revise it to have fewer seats
> or engines or wheels, but the amount you paid for the car will not be
> revised downwards. Don't complain if I revise it though; that's just
> selfish. Keep making your monthly payments and STFU.
> Not everyone in Canada is familiar with the product offerings in the rest of
> the world regarding broadband. In most industrialized nations, you can get
> a broadband connection ten times as fast as anything offered in Canada for
> half the price, with no throttling. Canadians are paying monopoly prices
> (high!) for monopoly levels of service (low!). You can either do something
> about this situation or you can be like Rohan, "Thank you sir may I have
> another beating?"
Interesting discussion. The current situation is clearly unacceptable to this community.
If there is going to be an effective response to this, I think it is important to start defining a few key positions and see if this community wants to mobilize behind them. Let me propose two to start:
1. Traffic shaping based on type of data stream, the originator or the destination breaks the common carrier principle and should be opposed in all forms. 2. Last-mile providers should not be able to use their natural monopoly to inhibit competition by 3rd party ISPs in any way.
Now, if these are two primary principles, the question is how are these not broken while addressing very real physical network limitations? How can those physical network limitations themselves be overcome? What is the Quality of Service? Response time? Bandwidth? Total download capacity/cap?
Rohan's point was that Internet services are not an unlimited free resource. He's right. Pretending that economics doesn't apply adds nothing to the discourse.
Jon is also absolutely correct, the big boys are overselling their networks. That means that we've been living under an illusion that our networks have more capacity than they actually do. This relates directly to Rohan's "tragedy of the commons" problem.
Caps/overages are one way to deal with the pricing of a limited resource. Are those prices fair? I don't know.
More importantly and more critically, where the hell is the investment strategy by last mile providers to increase the infrastructure capacity? Where is my fibre connection?
On a related matter, WaterfrontToronto's iWaterfront committee has been proposing for some time that the new neighbourhoods in East Bayfront and West Donlands would be "intelligent communities", with ultra broadband fibre to the home on an open access network. Such a development could be a model to other places in the city and beyond and shift the dialogue to where I believe it should be: on investing in the infrastructure of the digital future.
Thoughts?
On 28-Mar-08, at 10:04 AM, jon....@gmail.com wrote:
> Very well put. If I pay for 5 meg down/1 meg up, then that is what I > expect. Bell and Rogers are over selling their network. As people use > what they pay for the network can't handle it because its been > oversold. Not because a few greedy people are ruining it for others. > Greedy Telcos are selling bandwidth they don't have.
> Jon
> On Mar 28, 9:39 am, Michael Sims <jelli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Friday 28 March 2008, Rohan Jayasekera wrote:
>>> I'm quite disappointed by many of the statements made in this >>> thread.
>>> The Internet is not an unlimited free resource, and pretending >>> that it is >>> allows the few to ruin it for the many. If you're not familiar >>> with the >>> phrase "the tragedy of the commons", please look it up.
>> This is some kind of joke, right? You are aware that every single >> internet >> user is paying for services? To companies like Bell Canada whose >> revenue >> was $4,500,000,000 (not a typo) in the last three months?
>>> And if you're a heavy user and don't think you should have to pay >>> any >>> more than a light user, please don't present selfishness as part >>> of some >>> noble cause.
>> Yes, it's utterly selfish and tragic that someone who has paid for >> a T1 >> connection should actually be able to upload and download at 1.544 >> Mbps. >> Why, if they actually use the full capacity of the line, they're >> just a >> bunch of thieves. In fact, any T1 client who uses it more than >> once a week >> to drive to church on Sundays is just a low-down scoundrel, and if >> they >> complain that the line doesn't actually deliver 1.544 Mbps, it's pure >> selfishness.
>> Bell, on the other hand, who sold you that T1 line, shouldn't be >> held to >> actually deliver what they sold. That's not how business works! >> They >> should able to sell T1 lines to everyone without bothering to >> provision for >> it, and just slow down the end-user as necessary to make sure that >> the 500 >> T1 lines they sold to clients don't exceed the capacity of the one >> T1 line >> they use as an upstream connection. That's just good business >> practices, >> nothing shady in there at all.
>> Rohan, I'd like to sell you a new car. It will have up to 4 wheels >> and up >> to one engine and up to 4 seats inside. Also, I get to revise the >> deal any >> time after you've purchased the car. I might revise it to have >> fewer seats >> or engines or wheels, but the amount you paid for the car will not be >> revised downwards. Don't complain if I revise it though; that's just >> selfish. Keep making your monthly payments and STFU.
>> Not everyone in Canada is familiar with the product offerings in >> the rest of >> the world regarding broadband. In most industrialized nations, you >> can get >> a broadband connection ten times as fast as anything offered in >> Canada for >> half the price, with no throttling. Canadians are paying monopoly >> prices >> (high!) for monopoly levels of service (low!). You can either do >> something >> about this situation or you can be like Rohan, "Thank you sir may I >> have >> another beating?"
For example, if a vendor came out with a router product that enabled peer-to-peer routing via sparse wireness-n, (building to building), what saturation would we need for in-toronto networking to not need the Telcos?
Or maybe this could be a strategy used by TekSavvy to free them of their dependency on DSL?
> Interesting discussion. The current situation is clearly unacceptable > to this community.
> If there is going to be an effective response to this, I think it is > important to start defining a few key positions and see if this > community wants to mobilize behind them. Let me propose two to start:
> 1. Traffic shaping based on type of data stream, the originator or the > destination breaks the common carrier principle and should be opposed > in all forms. > 2. Last-mile providers should not be able to use their natural > monopoly to inhibit competition by 3rd party ISPs in any way.
> Now, if these are two primary principles, the question is how are > these not broken while addressing very real physical network > limitations? How can those physical network limitations themselves be > overcome? What is the Quality of Service? Response time? Bandwidth? > Total download capacity/cap?
> Rohan's point was that Internet services are not an unlimited free > resource. He's right. Pretending that economics doesn't apply adds > nothing to the discourse.
> Jon is also absolutely correct, the big boys are overselling their > networks. That means that we've been living under an illusion that > our networks have more capacity than they actually do. This relates > directly to Rohan's "tragedy of the commons" problem.
> Caps/overages are one way to deal with the pricing of a limited > resource. Are those prices fair? I don't know.
> More importantly and more critically, where the hell is the investment > strategy by last mile providers to increase the infrastructure > capacity? Where is my fibre connection?
> On a related matter, WaterfrontToronto's iWaterfront committee has > been proposing for some time that the new neighbourhoods in East > Bayfront and West Donlands would be "intelligent communities", with > ultra broadband fibre to the home on an open access network. Such a > development could be a model to other places in the city and beyond > and shift the dialogue to where I believe it should be: on investing > in the infrastructure of the digital future.
> Thoughts?
> On 28-Mar-08, at 10:04 AM, jon....@gmail.com wrote:
> > Very well put. If I pay for 5 meg down/1 meg up, then that is what I > > expect. Bell and Rogers are over selling their network. As people use > > what they pay for the network can't handle it because its been > > oversold. Not because a few greedy people are ruining it for others. > > Greedy Telcos are selling bandwidth they don't have.
> > Jon
> > On Mar 28, 9:39 am, Michael Sims <jelli...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Friday 28 March 2008, Rohan Jayasekera wrote:
> >>> I'm quite disappointed by many of the statements made in this > >>> thread.
> >>> The Internet is not an unlimited free resource, and pretending > >>> that it is > >>> allows the few to ruin it for the many. If you're not familiar > >>> with the > >>> phrase "the tragedy of the commons", please look it up.
> >> This is some kind of joke, right? You are aware that every single > >> internet > >> user is paying for services? To companies like Bell Canada whose > >> revenue > >> was $4,500,000,000 (not a typo) in the last three months?
> >>> And if you're a heavy user and don't think you should have to pay > >>> any > >>> more than a light user, please don't present selfishness as part > >>> of some > >>> noble cause.
> >> Yes, it's utterly selfish and tragic that someone who has paid for > >> a T1 > >> connection should actually be able to upload and download at 1.544 > >> Mbps. > >> Why, if they actually use the full capacity of the line, they're > >> just a > >> bunch of thieves. In fact, any T1 client who uses it more than > >> once a week > >> to drive to church on Sundays is just a low-down scoundrel, and if > >> they > >> complain that the line doesn't actually deliver 1.544 Mbps, it's pure > >> selfishness.
> >> Bell, on the other hand, who sold you that T1 line, shouldn't be > >> held to > >> actually deliver what they sold. That's not how business works! > >> They > >> should able to sell T1 lines to everyone without bothering to > >> provision for > >> it, and just slow down the end-user as necessary to make sure that > >> the 500 > >> T1 lines they sold to clients don't exceed the capacity of the one > >> T1 line > >> they use as an upstream connection. That's just good business > >> practices, > >> nothing shady in there at all.
> >> Rohan, I'd like to sell you a new car. It will have up to 4 wheels > >> and up > >> to one engine and up to 4 seats inside. Also, I get to revise the > >> deal any > >> time after you've purchased the car. I might revise it to have > >> fewer seats > >> or engines or wheels, but the amount you paid for the car will not be > >> revised downwards. Don't complain if I revise it though; that's just > >> selfish. Keep making your monthly payments and STFU.
> >> Not everyone in Canada is familiar with the product offerings in > >> the rest of > >> the world regarding broadband. In most industrialized nations, you > >> can get > >> a broadband connection ten times as fast as anything offered in > >> Canada for > >> half the price, with no throttling. Canadians are paying monopoly > >> prices > >> (high!) for monopoly levels of service (low!). You can either do > >> something > >> about this situation or you can be like Rohan, "Thank you sir may I > >> have > >> another beating?"
On Mar 28, 12:10 pm, "Mar...@Cleaver.org" <Mar...@Cleaver.org> wrote:
> How feasible are mesh network technologies?
Um...not very? What is the wireless mesh connected to? Somebody's
DSL, cable or fibre. The problem remains. Wireless-as-the-last-mile
is another illusion. The landline nodes are controlled by the same
monopoly providers.
LOLZ! Bell Canada's spokesman updated his Facebook status to say he's "realizing how little seperates most journalists from lemmings." Wow, please Digg this to show how arrogant these people are.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Mark Kuznicki <mark.kuzni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 12:10 pm, "Mar...@Cleaver.org" <Mar...@Cleaver.org> wrote: > > How feasible are mesh network technologies?
> Um...not very? What is the wireless mesh connected to? Somebody's > DSL, cable or fibre. The problem remains. Wireless-as-the-last-mile > is another illusion. The landline nodes are controlled by the same > monopoly providers.
Done and done! I also sent Jason a Facebook message thanking him for giving us something to rally around and wishing him a happy Monday morning back at the office.
> LOLZ! Bell Canada's spokesman updated his Facebook status to say he's > "realizing how little seperates most journalists from lemmings." Wow, > please Digg this to show how arrogant these people are.
On Mar 28, 10:58 am, Mark Kuznicki <mark.kuzni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Traffic shaping based on type of data stream, the originator or the
> destination breaks the common carrier principle and should be opposed
> in all forms.
> 2. Last-mile providers should not be able to use their natural
> monopoly to inhibit competition by 3rd party ISPs in any way.
These are very good points !!
1) Traffic Shaping is preferential treatment - That is , Rogers can
Permit Packets flow fr Yahoo IP's rather then Goog's IP
This type of shaping can happen at the ATM nodes. This is not visible
downstream. So no 3rd party ISP can detect and all the more reasons
that the community keeps tabs on these issues. Backbone Providers
don't own the internet. The community does, we pay for it.
2) Downstream 3rd party providers are caught between the devil and the
deep blue sea. If I have a Dedicated T1 line for my users /business
whatever, what forum is available for them to address breach of SLA's.
They are will be fighting with a monolathic corporate entity, with
zero support from the legal bodies. CRTC seems to be cohorts with
backbone providers. So the issue is slant already in favour of BT /
Rogers etc etc.
This is simple unfair practices !!
>Bell Canada's spokesman updated his Facebook status to say he's "realizing >how little seperates most journalists from lemmings."
And he can't spell either.
The scary thing is that he might be right, sort of. Reporters don't usually have time to research things thoroughly and can therefore be hoodwinked by slick spokespeople, just like ordinary members of the public can. However, there is a potential solution: my impression has always been that journalists are thrilled to have well organized alternate sources that they can call on to get the other side of the story. Is there a way that a somewhat diffuse organization like TorCamp could become such a source? Not to present any kind of official position, but just to say things like "many of our members are very concerned that ..."
I for one think it is time to get mobilized generally, including with media. This an opportunity to move the neutrality, competitiveness, innovation, culture, citizen journalism AND startup agendas in this country around a single issue that everyday Canadians will be able to understand and empathize with.
We need to start thinking about a position that represents the diverse interests of TorCampers and our friends across the country. We need to engage partners in the startup, tech, academic, venture, media and nonprofit worlds on a shared agenda and position. See my earlier positions as a possible starting point.
Citizen Ziggy, Gabe Sawhney, Tom Purves and I were talking about the possibly of organizing a Canadian equivalent of the Freedom to Connect conference happening in Washington on Monday and Tuesday this week: http://freedom-to-connect.net/ . (Any TorCamp people going?)
We could even combine this with a BarCamp Canada and get our Montreal, Ottawa, Waterloo, Vancouver and other BarCamp communities all together at the same time. We haven't had a major BarCamp in far too long!
>> Bell Canada's spokesman updated his Facebook status to say he's >> "realizing >> how little seperates most journalists from lemmings."
> And he can't spell either.
> The scary thing is that he might be right, sort of. Reporters don't > usually > have time to research things thoroughly and can therefore be > hoodwinked by > slick spokespeople, just like ordinary members of the public can. > However, > there is a potential solution: my impression has always been that > journalists are thrilled to have well organized alternate sources > that they > can call on to get the other side of the story. Is there a way that a > somewhat diffuse organization like TorCamp could become such a > source? Not > to present any kind of official position, but just to say things > like "many > of our members are very concerned that ..."
Never been to a barcamp, but I'm game. I also fully agree with the
cry of blogswarm, the louder the better.
Soliciting some help from the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan board was
mentioned on the swarm today, which I perhaps naively thought was a
good idea at the time. This morning when I got in I found that a
Teksavvy customer had gone ahead with that idea and got a fairly
unthrilling response from what seems like a PR voice.
> I for one think it is time to get mobilized generally, including with
> media. This an opportunity to move the neutrality, competitiveness,
> innovation, culture, citizen journalism AND startup agendas in this
> country around a single issue that everyday Canadians will be able to
> understand and empathize with.
> We need to start thinking about a position that represents the diverse
> interests of TorCampers and our friends across the country. We need
> to engage partners in the startup, tech, academic, venture, media and
> nonprofit worlds on a shared agenda and position. See my earlier
> positions as a possible starting point.
> Citizen Ziggy, Gabe Sawhney, Tom Purves and I were talking about the
> possibly of organizing a Canadian equivalent of the Freedom to Connect
> conference happening in Washington on Monday and Tuesday this week:http://freedom-to-connect.net/ > . (Any TorCamp people going?)
> We could even combine this with a BarCamp Canada and get our Montreal,
> Ottawa, Waterloo, Vancouver and other BarCamp communities all together
> at the same time. We haven't had a major BarCamp in far too long!
> On 29-Mar-08, at 5:30 PM, Rohan Jayasekera wrote:
> >> Bell Canada's spokesman updated his Facebook status to say he's
> >> "realizing
> >> how little seperates most journalists from lemmings."
> > And he can't spell either.
> > The scary thing is that he might be right, sort of. Reporters don't
> > usually
> > have time to research things thoroughly and can therefore be
> > hoodwinked by
> > slick spokespeople, just like ordinary members of the public can.
> > However,
> > there is a potential solution: my impression has always been that
> > journalists are thrilled to have well organized alternate sources
> > that they
> > can call on to get the other side of the story. Is there a way that a
> > somewhat diffuse organization like TorCamp could become such a
> > source? Not
> > to present any kind of official position, but just to say things
> > like "many
> > of our members are very concerned that ..."
As an editor for InfoQ, I'd be happy to pass on a news item or article on the effect of this on "cloud computing" (software as a service) which is becoming part of some businesses' architectures. One way to do it is for you to blog on the subject and send me a link, which a news writer can then write up, if they want. Or, you could write the news item yourself, and we'll just edit it as needed and run it under your name. The target audience should probably be enterprise architects, and I think I'd pass it on to our Architecture lead. We far outrank The Server Side at this point, for "authority," about 1/3 of our readers are execs, and we translate our news into Chinese and Japanese, so if you want visibility with a broad spectrum of readers, this might help.
It strikes me that Google and Amazon play a big role as advertisers and speakers at conferences InfoQ organizes... surely this impacts their immanent incursion into the domain of enterprise computing?
phro wrote: > Never been to a barcamp, but I'm game. I also fully agree with the > cry of blogswarm, the louder the better.
> Soliciting some help from the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan board was > mentioned on the swarm today, which I perhaps naively thought was a > good idea at the time. This morning when I got in I found that a > Teksavvy customer had gone ahead with that idea and got a fairly > unthrilling response from what seems like a PR voice.
> On Mar 29, 6:09 pm, Mark Kuznicki <mark.kuzni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I for one think it is time to get mobilized generally, including with >> media. This an opportunity to move the neutrality, competitiveness, >> innovation, culture, citizen journalism AND startup agendas in this >> country around a single issue that everyday Canadians will be able to >> understand and empathize with.
>> We need to start thinking about a position that represents the diverse >> interests of TorCampers and our friends across the country. We need >> to engage partners in the startup, tech, academic, venture, media and >> nonprofit worlds on a shared agenda and position. See my earlier >> positions as a possible starting point.
>> Citizen Ziggy, Gabe Sawhney, Tom Purves and I were talking about the >> possibly of organizing a Canadian equivalent of the Freedom to Connect >> conference happening in Washington on Monday and Tuesday this week:http://freedom-to-connect.net/ >> . (Any TorCamp people going?)
>> We could even combine this with a BarCamp Canada and get our Montreal, >> Ottawa, Waterloo, Vancouver and other BarCamp communities all together >> at the same time. We haven't had a major BarCamp in far too long!
>> On 29-Mar-08, at 5:30 PM, Rohan Jayasekera wrote:
>>>> Bell Canada's spokesman updated his Facebook status to say he's >>>> "realizing >>>> how little seperates most journalists from lemmings."
>>> And he can't spell either.
>>> The scary thing is that he might be right, sort of. Reporters don't >>> usually >>> have time to research things thoroughly and can therefore be >>> hoodwinked by >>> slick spokespeople, just like ordinary members of the public can. >>> However, >>> there is a potential solution: my impression has always been that >>> journalists are thrilled to have well organized alternate sources >>> that they >>> can call on to get the other side of the story. Is there a way that a >>> somewhat diffuse organization like TorCamp could become such a >>> source? Not >>> to present any kind of official position, but just to say things >>> like "many >>> of our members are very concerned that ..."
>>> Rohan
--
Deborah Hartmann Agile Process Improvement Coach Lead Editor for InfoQ.com/Agile deborah.hartmann.net 416.996.4337
"My advice is to do it by the book, get good at the practices, then do as you will. Many people want to skip to step three. How do they know? " -- Ron Jeffries
I haven't really been involved in these discussions, but after reading
the thread I thought I would chime in.
I agree with the majority of the points made with regards to the
perhaps shady practices of providers in trying to over-extend the
capabilities of their infrastructure. I also understand the issues
being raised here is the throttling of P2P services. However, I would
like to propose a shift in perspective:
The underlying problem here is the perception of an unlimited
infrastructure and capabilities; however, that just isn't the case. We
all know that every resource has limits, attempts to optimize those
resources should be the priority not maximizing resources.
A good example of net usage and resource loading is the gregarious
move of developers and content providers in maximizing resource usage
rather than looking at methods of reducing the current footprint of
data files. The Majority of people now have an understanding that data
storage is cheap, and I agree it's fairly cheap; however something
that slips minds is that as cheap as data storage is, data
transportation is still a fairly expensive proposition (specially in
Canada). The solution appears to be one where the problem should be
redefined; Not, "How much high quality data can I put through this
limited pipe.", but rather "How can we minimize the data size?" I
know that there are a lot of researcher and devleopers working on
developing Compressions algorithms and efficient transport methods,
but that is not what I'm trying to say, why can't we do with less data
to start with? Instead of worrying about compressing a large file,
what if the file was already tiny but did all the functions that the
end user needed?
Quality would suffer a bit I agree, but do we really need to watch
those shows in 1080p on the plane on our way somewhere? Efficiency of
data seems to be more important than pipe size. This reminds me of an
old saying: "A well placed word has more effect than encyclopedias."
John Lee
Wandering Historian
On Apr 1, 11:54 am, Deborah Hartmann <debo...@hartmann.net> wrote:
> As an editor for InfoQ, I'd be happy to pass on a news item or article
> on the effect of this on "cloud computing" (software as a service) which
> is becoming part of some businesses' architectures. One way to do it is
> for you to blog on the subject and send me a link, which a news writer
> can then write up, if they want. Or, you could write the news item
> yourself, and we'll just edit it as needed and run it under your name.
> The target audience should probably be enterprise architects, and I
> think I'd pass it on to our Architecture lead. We far outrank The Server
> Side at this point, for "authority," about 1/3 of our readers are execs,
> and we translate our news into Chinese and Japanese, so if you want
> visibility with a broad spectrum of readers, this might help.
> It strikes me that Google and Amazon play a big role as advertisers and
> speakers at conferences InfoQ organizes... surely this impacts their
> immanent incursion into the domain of enterprise computing?
> Any takers? Does the topic seem to fit with InfoQ's site? Ping me
> offlist: deborah AT NOSPAM infoq DOT com
> ciao
> deb
> phro wrote:
> > Never been to a barcamp, but I'm game. I also fully agree with the
> > cry of blogswarm, the louder the better.
> > Soliciting some help from the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan board was
> > mentioned on the swarm today, which I perhaps naively thought was a
> > good idea at the time. This morning when I got in I found that a
> > Teksavvy customer had gone ahead with that idea and got a fairly
> > unthrilling response from what seems like a PR voice.
> > On Mar 29, 6:09 pm, Mark Kuznicki <mark.kuzni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I for one think it is time to get mobilized generally, including with
> >> media. This an opportunity to move the neutrality, competitiveness,
> >> innovation, culture, citizen journalism AND startup agendas in this
> >> country around a single issue that everyday Canadians will be able to
> >> understand and empathize with.
> >> We need to start thinking about a position that represents the diverse
> >> interests of TorCampers and our friends across the country. We need
> >> to engage partners in the startup, tech, academic, venture, media and
> >> nonprofit worlds on a shared agenda and position. See my earlier
> >> positions as a possible starting point.
> >> Citizen Ziggy, Gabe Sawhney, Tom Purves and I were talking about the
> >> possibly of organizing a Canadian equivalent of the Freedom to Connect
> >> conference happening in Washington on Monday and Tuesday this week:http://freedom-to-connect.net/ > >> . (Any TorCamp people going?)
> >> We could even combine this with a BarCamp Canada and get our Montreal,
> >> Ottawa, Waterloo, Vancouver and other BarCamp communities all together
> >> at the same time. We haven't had a major BarCamp in far too long!
> >> On 29-Mar-08, at 5:30 PM, Rohan Jayasekera wrote:
> >>>> Bell Canada's spokesman updated his Facebook status to say he's
> >>>> "realizing
> >>>> how little seperates most journalists from lemmings."
> >>> And he can't spell either.
> >>> The scary thing is that he might be right, sort of. Reporters don't
> >>> usually
> >>> have time to research things thoroughly and can therefore be
> >>> hoodwinked by
> >>> slick spokespeople, just like ordinary members of the public can.
> >>> However,
> >>> there is a potential solution: my impression has always been that
> >>> journalists are thrilled to have well organized alternate sources
> >>> that they
> >>> can call on to get the other side of the story. Is there a way that a
> >>> somewhat diffuse organization like TorCamp could become such a
> >>> source? Not
> >>> to present any kind of official position, but just to say things
> >>> like "many
> >>> of our members are very concerned that ..."
> >>> Rohan
> --
> Deborah Hartmann
> Agile Process Improvement Coach
> Lead Editor for InfoQ.com/Agile
> deborah.hartmann.net
> 416.996.4337
> "My advice is to do it by the book,
> get good at the practices,
> then do as you will.
> Many people want to skip to step three.
> How do they know? " -- Ron Jeffries
I haven't really been involved in these discussions, but after reading
the thread I thought I would chime in.
I agree with the majority of the points made with regards to the
perhaps shady practices of providers in trying to over-extend the
capabilities of their infrastructure. I also understand the issues
being raised here is the throttling of P2P services. However, I would
like to propose a shift in perspective:
The underlying problem here is the perception of an unlimited
infrastructure and capabilities; however, that just isn't the case. We
all know that every resource has limits, attempts to optimize those
resources should be the priority not maximizing resources.
A good example of net usage and resource loading is the gregarious
move of developers and content providers in maximizing resource usage
rather than looking at methods of reducing the current footprint of
data files. The Majority of people now have an understanding that data
storage is cheap, and I agree it's fairly cheap; however something
that slips minds is that as cheap as data storage is, data
transportation is still a fairly expensive proposition (specially in
Canada). The solution appears to be one where the problem should be
redefined; Not, "How much high quality data can I put through this
limited pipe.", but rather "How can we minimize the data size?" I
know that there are a lot of researcher and devleopers working on
developing Compressions algorithms and efficient transport methods,
but that is not what I'm trying to say, why can't we do with less data
to start with? Instead of worrying about compressing a large file,
what if the file was already tiny but did all the functions that the
end user needed?
Quality would suffer a bit I agree, but do we really need to watch
those shows in 1080p on the plane on our way somewhere? Efficiency of
data seems to be more important than pipe size. This reminds me of an
old saying: "A well placed word has more effect than encyclopedias."
John Lee
Wandering Historian
On Apr 1, 11:54 am, Deborah Hartmann <debo...@hartmann.net> wrote:
> As an editor for InfoQ, I'd be happy to pass on a news item or article
> on the effect of this on "cloud computing" (software as a service) which
> is becoming part of some businesses' architectures. One way to do it is
> for you to blog on the subject and send me a link, which a news writer
> can then write up, if they want. Or, you could write the news item
> yourself, and we'll just edit it as needed and run it under your name.
> The target audience should probably be enterprise architects, and I
> think I'd pass it on to our Architecture lead. We far outrank The Server
> Side at this point, for "authority," about 1/3 of our readers are execs,
> and we translate our news into Chinese and Japanese, so if you want
> visibility with a broad spectrum of readers, this might help.
> It strikes me that Google and Amazon play a big role as advertisers and
> speakers at conferences InfoQ organizes... surely this impacts their
> immanent incursion into the domain of enterprise computing?
> Any takers? Does the topic seem to fit with InfoQ's site? Ping me
> offlist: deborah AT NOSPAM infoq DOT com
> ciao
> deb
> phro wrote:
> > Never been to a barcamp, but I'm game. I also fully agree with the
> > cry of blogswarm, the louder the better.
> > Soliciting some help from the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan board was
> > mentioned on the swarm today, which I perhaps naively thought was a
> > good idea at the time. This morning when I got in I found that a
> > Teksavvy customer had gone ahead with that idea and got a fairly
> > unthrilling response from what seems like a PR voice.
> > On Mar 29, 6:09 pm, Mark Kuznicki <mark.kuzni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I for one think it is time to get mobilized generally, including with
> >> media. This an opportunity to move the neutrality, competitiveness,
> >> innovation, culture, citizen journalism AND startup agendas in this
> >> country around a single issue that everyday Canadians will be able to
> >> understand and empathize with.
> >> We need to start thinking about a position that represents the diverse
> >> interests of TorCampers and our friends across the country. We need
> >> to engage partners in the startup, tech, academic, venture, media and
> >> nonprofit worlds on a shared agenda and position. See my earlier
> >> positions as a possible starting point.
> >> Citizen Ziggy, Gabe Sawhney, Tom Purves and I were talking about the
> >> possibly of organizing a Canadian equivalent of the Freedom to Connect
> >> conference happening in Washington on Monday and Tuesday this week:http://freedom-to-connect.net/ > >> . (Any TorCamp people going?)
> >> We could even combine this with a BarCamp Canada and get our Montreal,
> >> Ottawa, Waterloo, Vancouver and other BarCamp communities all together
> >> at the same time. We haven't had a major BarCamp in far too long!
> >> On 29-Mar-08, at 5:30 PM, Rohan Jayasekera wrote:
> >>>> Bell Canada's spokesman updated his Facebook status to say he's
> >>>> "realizing
> >>>> how little seperates most journalists from lemmings."
> >>> And he can't spell either.
> >>> The scary thing is that he might be right, sort of. Reporters don't
> >>> usually
> >>> have time to research things thoroughly and can therefore be
> >>> hoodwinked by
> >>> slick spokespeople, just like ordinary members of the public can.
> >>> However,
> >>> there is a potential solution: my impression has always been that
> >>> journalists are thrilled to have well organized alternate sources
> >>> that they
> >>> can call on to get the other side of the story. Is there a way that a
> >>> somewhat diffuse organization like TorCamp could become such a
> >>> source? Not
> >>> to present any kind of official position, but just to say things
> >>> like "many
> >>> of our members are very concerned that ..."
> >>> Rohan
> --
> Deborah Hartmann
> Agile Process Improvement Coach
> Lead Editor for InfoQ.com/Agile
> deborah.hartmann.net
> 416.996.4337
> "My advice is to do it by the book,
> get good at the practices,
> then do as you will.
> Many people want to skip to step three.
> How do they know? " -- Ron Jeffries
|
