It seems that problems with busy period engineering affects the government as well as the private sector.
Canada Revenue Agency has had to extend the deadline for e-filing tax returns because its servers have had trouble keeping up with traffic loads this week. It is a scene reminiscent of Boxing Day blues for some Canadian retailers.
An announcement showed up on the CRA website yesterday, announcing an extension to May 6 – for e-Filers only (I am linking to a CBC News page because CRA’s home page is so bogged down, we don’t need to contribute to their trouble).
I was doing some business research on CRA’s website yesterday and noticed painfully slow response times. I’m waiting for someone to comment that CRA should blame their ISP for traffic shaping.
It certainly raises questions about CRA’s web architecture when even information pages can’t be reached.
The subject of net neutrality came up in a meeting I had yesterday and the conversation turned to current affairs in Canada and various hearings in the US.
Our discussion included an examination of the vocabulary being used in the discourse and one of the meeting participants spoke of network fairness associated with the intelligent management of traffic.
Some would have the network treat all bits as they come – first come, first serve without any triage even in times of peak network loading. Such people say that the carriers just need to pry additional capital from their wretched fingers: invest in more network assets and then there will be no congestion.
I read lots of comments from people who believe we just need the government to nationalize the access networks – that will fix things. That camp believes that a benevolent government will pour whatever capital resources are required to provide limitless capacity.
Hospitals, a public resource in this country at least, experience times that emergency rooms are crowded and other times that there is no waiting time. We don’t expect hospitals to take patients on a first come, first served basis. We expect the emergency room to prioritize patients based on their condition – their tolerance of latency.
There are off peak periods – increasingly rare – where even sore throats get seen without delay. But during the rest of the day, we still consider it to be fair to apply intelligent emergency room management.
Is network fairness a more important goal than an unachievable network neutrality?
In a statement released this morning about the iPhone, Rogers has announced that it has reached an agreement with Apple to launch later this year.
Ted Rogers is quoted in the very brief statement, saying:
We’re thrilled to announce that we have a deal with Apple to bring the iPhone to Canada later this year. We can’t tell you any more about it right now, but stay tuned.
As I wrote recently, there appears to be imminent plans to release an upgrade to the current iPhone.
Wouldn’t it be great for Canada to be part of the launch of iPhone 2.0?
On a superficial level, if you asked someone on the street if they want their internet service provider to interfere with the content being delivered, I suspect most would immediately answer “No.”
Would the results be the same if the questioner started off by saying: “some ISPs will block spam and viruses from reaching your computer at no extra charge. Is that a valuable service?”
It is pretty clear that there is some content that we want ISPs to block.
Is there other content that should be required to be blocked?
Does the law even permit ISPs to transport or cache child exploitation images? Canada’s major ISPs are blocking identified illegal content; should the smaller ISPs be required to?
Does the CRTC have to pre-authorize such blocking under S.36 of the Telecom Act?
There will be a public consultation on New Media later this year. These content issues and others should be part of the discussion.
I am going to guess that every one of us has thought of saying something to a customs or immigration official and then held back, because we figured we could wait until our next doctor’s appointment for the response that might ensue.
Last Wednesday was an interesting day at the BDU hearings, with Shaw in the morning and a panel in the afternoon that included Channel Zero, The Fight Network, High Fidelity HDTV and Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment.
When preparing their comments, the folks at High Fidelity HDTV acknowledged that their written comments were written in a stream of consciousness.
Sometimes the mood in which you write depositions like this is not the mood in which you deliver it.
While they cleaned up some of the language from their prepared written version, they didn’t stop to think about how a series of lines like the following would be received, especially when the Commissioners were reading along with the original version in front of them:
We think there are many areas in which the Commission is remarkably in the dark…
The CRTC chair listened patiently and finally responded:
Each time you make a submission to us, it is more abrasive and more offensive. To be called shamefully in the dark, woefully ‑‑ I’m failing to understand, et cetera.
You can obviously say that, but in my hearing and that of the Commission, our willingness to accede to your arguments does not increase with the level of attacks that we receive from you. I have no problem with you saying that we are wrong, et cetera, but I think that kind of language is uncalled for.
I think our mothers tried to teach us to remember our manners. It is reasonable advice for all of us who participate in public proceedings. Read it over again in the morning and stop to think about how the message will be received.
