A new report out of the SeaBoard Group suggests that the rhetoric out of many in the net neutrality camp is sensationalistic and unhelpful for the future health of the internet:

Treating the Internet as some sort of pastoral elysium rather than a tool to be managed and used, we argue, would have dire consequences for the future health of the Internet should legislators/regulators attempt to embrace these misguided notions.

The SeaBoard report dispels what it calls a faulty romanticized version of the internet, saying that such a vision is based on false precepts. Further, SeaBoard says that net neutrality regulations would “impede the growth, potency and relevance of the Internet in the future.”

Sandvine released its latest study [Exec Summary pdf] that analyzes global broadband trends. The report finds:

• Online entertainment-based applications such as gaming, video streaming, social networking and VoIP communications dominate peak evening hours between 6:00 and 11:00 p.m.
• Peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic remains dominant in the upstream direction totaling 61 per cent of network traffic and is also responsible for more than 22 per cent of downstream bandwidth consumption worldwide
• web traffic and streaming videos account for 59 per cent of downstream bandwidth consumption.

Sandvine president Dave Caputo notes that P2P bulk file transfer applications unaffected by changes to network utilization, contrasted with real-time applications that are sensitive to jitter and latency during times of peak usage. Sandvine advocates network traffic optimization techniques that balance network capacity, application requirements and subscriber quality of experience in real-time.

If the CRTC or Canada’s 40th Parliament addresses net neutrality, will they adopt the language of the Telecom Policy Review Panel?

A Montreal woman was convicted today of mischief and related charges because she placed more than 10,000 calls to 911 in a 15 month period. That works out to about one call per hour, 24 hours per day, 7 days a week over that period.

A Quebec Court judge on Tuesday refused to grant a joint Crown / defense recommendation of a nine-month suspended sentence for Marie-Ève Dean, saying she would likely do it again if she didn’t get therapy.

According to the CBC account,

A court-ordered report submitted in Dean’s case described her as “vengeful, aggressive and immature” and a person who hates the police.

I wonder if she is registered on the Do Not Call List. Imagine her taking revenge on a telemarketing company!

Technorati Tags:
DNCL, 911

It has been a couple years since we first looked at the issue of applying Canadian law to block illegal content entering the country over the internet.

At the time, the case had involved a US-based website that advocated harm against a Canadian. Because of international territorial boundaries, US law enforcement was unwilling to act on the host site.

The owner of that site may have finally crossed the line. The Roanoke Times reports that Bill White has been arrested and is being held without bond, at least until the Virgina judge can review more material on the potential danger posed by returning him to the streets.

The judge was concerned about a couple postings, including one that reads:

As long was we live in a society in which laws are not enforced against Jews, Marxists and other privileged members of the bourgeoisie, I will take advantage of that and use the lawless chaos they’ve created to push my view, which is that all Jews and Marxists … should be shot, rather than debated — along with their fellow travelers and chosen pets in the Negro ‘rights’ movement.

White hosts his content on his own servers. The servers were taken down late last week, in response to a warrant authorizing the seizure of electronic files and other records “that may contain all evidence of the crime of threatening” a juror in a 2004 Chicago trial of another white supremacist.

The Canadian case is cited in the warrant, as are postings calling for the assassination of a US presidential candidate. The arrest warrant is limited to the case of threatening the use of force against the jury foreman.

The trial is expected to take place in Chicago.

Shaw has found itself caught in a squeeze between two arms of the City of Thunder Bay. A review of CRTC Decisions this year indicates that there isn’t a great deal of warmth in the relationship between Shaw and the city owned phone company, TBayTel.

There are some facilities that Shaw leases from TBayTel. A year ago, TBayTel tried to discontinue the lease arrangements, but the CRTC denied the application to withdraw service in March.

Shaw asked the CRTC to order the phone company to sell them the lines. Last Friday, the CRTC said that such an order would require a level of interference in the operations of the telco that would not be justified. The CRTC denied Shaw’s application.

Now, those lines are attached to poles owned by a combination of the phone company and Thunder Bay Hydro, which also happens to be entirely owned by the City.

Thunder Bay Hydro has been separately charging Shaw for each hydro pole that supports the plant used by Shaw, even though the wires are owned by TBayTel. But, the rates TBayTel charges Shaw includes a fee for the poles, whether telco or hydro owned. Which means that Shaw is paying double for some of the poles.

So, Shaw went to the CRTC looking for TBayTel’s rates to be changed to reflect the fact that Shaw is paying for the hydro poles separately.

Unfortunately, the CRTC said that they aren’t the right ones to provide relief:

The fact that Shaw is paying Thunder Bay Hydro support structure rates for a facility that Shaw does not own is not justification to reduce TBayTel’s PSO service rate. The Commission notes that it is not the appropriate body from which to seek relief with respect to the rates charged to Shaw by Thunder Bay Hydro.

It appears that the next step is for Shaw to go to the Ontario Energy Board. Why are they paying the electric company for wires owned by TBayTel?

Technorati Tags:
Shaw, TBayTel

The CRTC has issued a public notice to take a fresh look at a few of the telemarketing rules, showing that consumer protection continues to be a focus.

In addition, the Commission issued an Erratum, correcting a few minor errors in the original Decision on dealing with complaints in respect of its Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules.

The new public notice is calling for comments on 3 areas:

1. Political parties are exempt from the Do Not Call List (DNCL) rules, but currently, independent candidates are subject to those rules. Should the exemption be expanded?
2. Current DNCL registrations expire after 3 years, because of original concerns that people move or discontinue service. Should the registration period be permanent?
3. The CRTC has rules on acceptable times of day for auto-dialers to call people. Certain provinces have different hours. How should the conflicts be resolved?

Comments are due on December 4, with reply due December 19. A decision is expected by the end of April.

A thought – how long will it take before every number is on the DNCL, if registrations become permanent? How do we avoid a Hotel California registry?

Technorati Tags:
CRTC, telemarketing