A couple weeks ago, I wrote about the announcement of a suite of internet measurement tools released with Google’s support. I had observed that the test sites were overwhelmed with traffic.

A reader wrote me to say that he finally connected with Google’s Measurement Lab website and he has some suggestions for future developments.

M-Lab is promoted as the result of a small group of academics having been approached by Google to research ways to provide users with tools to test their broadband connections. It offers these tools:

• Network Diagnostic Tool: Test your connection speed and receive sophisticated diagnosis of problems limiting speed.
• Glasnost: Test whether BitTorrent is being blocked or throttled.
• Network Path and Application Diagnosis: Diagnose common problems that impact last-mile broadband networks.
• DiffProbe (coming soon): Determine whether an ISP is giving some traffic a lower priority than other traffic.
• NANO (coming soon): Determine whether an ISP is degrading the performance of a certain subset of users, applications, or destinations.

My disciple suggests, with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, that researchers may want to work on the following:

1. wwwglasnostic – think www + glasnost + diagnostic – It would be a test to determine whether a content provider on the internet has done a special deal with any government to block politically “sensitive” information. Don’t the Chinese people have a right to know the degree and form of censorship that is being implemented re: certain subjects?
2. Ad$Probe – It would measure the amount of web advertising revenue that is being earned (and by whom) as a result of a user’s online wandering. Don’t internet users have a right to know how much money is being made as a result of their viewing or using anything online?

Any suggestions for other tools? Students – get working on your projects!

I was scanning the charges on one of my mobile phones phones and found the following:

Type of usage	Usage Description	You used	Unit of measure	Total cost ($)
Text Msg	US Text Messages – sent	1	Msgs	0.25
Text Msg	US txt msgs – sent	1	Msgs	0.60

It was not intuitively clear to me why one message was a quarter and another was 60 cents. And, as it turns out, it took an agent at the call centre almost 10 minutes to tell me that I had one message from Canada to the US and the other was a text message sent from the US to a US phone.

I suggested that the bill description could use some improvement and there was no way that the agent could take that input. He tried to tell me that the two different types of charges show up differently – it is obvious, isn’t it?

I thought that if it was so obvious, I wouldn’t have called, and the agent wouldn’t have needed 10 minutes to research why the two lines had different charges.

The real point of this exercise is to demonstrate the need to have a feedback loop from the call centre to examine what generates calls. What would it take to eliminate calls like this in the future? What if one line had read “Txt Msg – Canada to US” and the other said “Txt Msg – US originated”?

Simple issues like this don’t arise if telecom executives look at their own bills and read them the same way that their customers do.

At last week’s launch of the brand for Public Mobile, Alek Krstajic spoke of the cost savings associated with simple flat rate plans. When the bill is always $40, there are no calls with billing questions.

I am sure it is just my own warped sense of humour that gave me a smile when a number of parties asked the CRTC to delay one of the deadlines in its Internet Traffic Management Proceeding (PN 2008-19).

Indeed, the applications for what might be termed “applying regulatory traffic management” to the delivery of documents seemed to come precisely from those groups that are most likely to oppose the rights of internet service providers to manage their networks.

The CRTC had applications from the Consumers Groups, CIPPIC, CAIP and the Canadian Film & Television Production Association (CFTPA) who asked for delays for a variety of reasons. Among the reasons cited were difficulties in persuading administrative staff to assist on Monday, Ontario’s new Family Day holiday as well as the conflict with a CFTPA conference. In other words, these groups were prioritizing commitments and managing their workload within constrained human resource bandwidth.

the Consumer Groups submit that no party would be prejudiced by this minor adjustment to timing.

Isn’t that similar to one of the justifications for traffic management of file downloads?

Of course there are differences – but admit it, there is a certain irony in these applications, isn’ there?

In any case,the CRTC approved the extensions. Comments are due February 23.

Prior reading before submitting comments: the CRTC released a report that it commissioned entitled ISP Traffic Management Technologies: The State of the Art.

The purpose of this report is to review the state of the art in traffic management, looking in particular at current and emerging techniques and their potential for improving the ability of ISPs to manage Internet traffic.

The report canvasses the world of internet network management and importantly found that the majority of service providers do not believe that over-provisioning (the solution recommended most by those who oppose active network management) is an adequate long-term solution on its own.

Technorati Tags:
CRTC, Canada, traffic management, net neutrality, heavy reading

Michael Geist asks readers of his blog to flood the CRTC with input on its network management proceeding in advance of the submission deadline [which, by the way has just been extended to February 23].

I think that public engagement is a good thing, although a comment in the posting makes me wonder about “warning” our politicians:

Indeed, a strong response will send a signal to the CRTC about the public concern with net neutrality and serve as a warning to Canada’s politicians that they will have to step up to address the issue if the CRTC is unwilling to do so.

What is meant by “if the CRTC is unwilling to do so?”

The CRTC has already stepped up to address the issue. That is precisely why there has been a public notice issued, interrogatories directed to ISPs, a consultant report commissioned, public comment solicited, hearings scheduled, and then staff and Commissioner consideration of all the facts prior to releasing a Decision. Don’t we want a transparent process to assess such an important issue as opposed to a politicized lobbying effort with intimidation of politicians?

The CRTC has been more than willing to address the issue within a reasoned, legal framework. What can be behind this “warning to Canada’s politicians?”

Technorati Tags:
Michael Geist, CRTC

Telephony Online has an article about the availability of a portfolio of deep packet inspection products and services from Continuous Computing targeted at the mobile industry.

There was a quote from CTO Mike Coward that caught my eye and defines the essence of why DPI technologies are being considered by mobile service providers:

Everywhere else in the network, you can throw more bandwidth at the problem. You can lay more fiber and convert from 1 Gb/s to 10 Gig, but you can’t make more spectrum.

The CRTC is looking at network management practices of ISPs in the context of its Public Notice 2008-19.

Will thoughts turn to mobile internet in the course of comments that are due to be filed next week?

We have a special session looking at net neutrality issues at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit, taking place in June in Toronto. Early bird registration rates are available until the end of February. Have you registered yet?