Last week, Cisco announced medianet, a network architecture to accommodate the accelerating growth of video and rich media traffic on the internet.
Consider this to be the end of the stupid network theory.
A medianet is an intelligent network optimized for rich media that can help drive video strategy for enterprises, consumers and service providers. Cisco is the only company that, along with our partners, can address rich media from an end-to-end perspective by taking advantage of deep expertise in IP networking, video and consumer premise solutions.
According to Cisco’s Visual Networking Index Study, global IP traffic will reach 44 exabytes per month by 2012 with video being the dominant driver of growth, accounting for 90 percent of consumer IP traffic.
This has led Cisco to propose a comprehensive lineup of technologies under the medianet label.
To deliver the visual, social, and personalized media experience that customers demand, service providers need a broad range of new capabilities. They need a media-aware network that can manage unprecedented new content on an unprecedented scale.
Medianet applies intelligence in home, business and service provider networks, working together.
It is a recognition that a stupid network is not equipped to deliver the kinds of services that users are demanding.
The Globe and Mail is reporting on a story that has its roots on this blog more than two years ago.
It took more than two years for prosecutors to demonstrate to a grand jury that US freedoms of speech don’t protect the kind of venom that has spewed from websites under the control of Bill White, who describes himself as “commander” of the American National Socialist Party.
As the Globe and Mail story reports:
Thursday in Virginia, acting U.S. attorney Julia Dudley said some lines had clearly been crossed, as she announced the new charges against Mr. White. “When freedom of speech turns into threats against innocent people, it is the responsibility of the law enforcement community to intervene and protect its citizens,” she said.
Two years ago, we asked how Canada should defend its citizens from threats against its own citizens. We suggested that a regime is needed to establish sovereignty over such threats against Canadian citizens and Canadian residents.
There has been a lot of hostility directed against Canada’s Human Rights legislation over the past few months, but even the US considers that lines can be drawn that set bounds on First Amendment freedoms.
What is the right approach for Canada to apply on speech? How should Canada defend its citizens from threats that originate outside this country?
You can find the complete indictment here [pdf, 44KB].
Why do more ISPs in the UK and other parts of Europe use local loop unbundling than we see in Canada?
Ofcom, the UK regulatory authority, is proposing increases in prices for BT Openreach services, with loops rising to £85 per year – roughly C$150 – from £81.69 today. It represents an increase of about C$0.50 per month.
Interestingly, most loops in Ontario are less than this, running C$145 in rate band B and as low as C$78 in band A (which covers the city core).
Ofcom issued a 250 page consultation document [pdf, 933 KB] describing its proposal. In the document, Ofcom says that a third of all BT local exchanges have unbundled loops available, covering more than 80% of the population. The document says that 60% of the UK has access to 4 or more competitors.
It again raises the question in my mind as to why more Canadian ISPs aren’t taking control of their own service provision using local loops.
There are around 100 submissions currently listed on the CRTC’s New Media consultation website. The usual suspects came to the proceeding looking for internet service providers to become new sources of funding for Canadian cultural production.
Most interventions warned the CRTC to stay away from regulating the internet. Some were pretty basic, like Ron Turner’s eloquent contribution to the discussion:
You are talking bout poking yur nose into regulating internet in Canada—keep your nose out of it– none of your business– we got way too much government regulation already– why dont you go after the virus and spammer guys and for thaT you dont haver to regulate nothin for that—- MAKE YOURSELVES USEFUL NOT USELESS
And then there is John Renny’s submission:
I am disgusted and appalled to think that the CRTC are thinking or even thinking about regulating the Internet; you’ll keep your damn hands off of our Internet; I’m going after each and every one of your jobs; …
Who the hell do you think you are? …
Into this debate, a number of other parties waded with far less passion. Such as Google looking to keep the internet ‘awesome’:
Canadian content is flourishing on the Internet. The Commission should resist the temptation to try to fix what is not broken. Without regulation the Canadian broadcasting policy objectives have been, and will continue to be, implemented on the Internet. The New Media Exemption is the best regulatory approach to keeping the Internet awesome.
Barrett Xplore’s submission is strictly legal, indicating that the CRTC has no legal authority to impose such fees. Barrett suspects that some continue to believe that there are very few facilities based ISPs, a fact belied by the Deferral Account proceeding.
Most facilities based ISPs are explicitly exempted from provisions in the Broadcast Act:
For greater certainty, this Act does not apply to any telecommunications common carrier, as defined in the Telecommunications Act, when acting solely in that capacity.
Rogers has appended a legal opinion from Faskens which confirms that the CRTC has no legal authority to impose fees on the ISP sector.
Since the major ILECs and cablecos are also Broadcast Distribution Undertakings, perhaps this is what leads some to believe that the Commission has authority and administrative wherewithal to tax ISPs for subsidies. It will be interesting to see legal argument on the other side.
As CAIP notes in its submission:
The true issue at hand is that no amount of funding will compel audiences to watch content that is not compelling. … Canadians are simply finding the content they desire using online resources rather than traditional distribution methods.
There are many other issues being reviewed by the CRTC in this proceeding, as we wrote in October. Many of the parties noted constraints set out in the Public Notice that limited their ability to discuss accessibility and net neutrality. At least one party has noted the potential for overlap with the internet network management proceeding and has recommended merging the oral hearings.
Sometime today, you will be receiving our first email blast announcing The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit. For the past 3 months, Michael Sone and I have been working on development of the program for The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit, which will take place June 15-17 at The Toronto Congress Centre.
You can now visit the conference website to take a look on-line or download our preliminary brochure [pdf, 193KB].
You will see that we are working on some interesting new sessions dealing with many of the issues that have been raised on these pages. Over the next few months, I’ll take a closer look at some of the themes for discussion at the event.
Registrations have already started to come in – we can issue receipts right away to help meet your year end requirements. Be sure to hold the dates and we hope you will join us in June.
If you want to propose a speaker, just contact us. If you aren’t yet on our email list, please sign-up at this location.
