A Bell Canada central office experienced flooding on Friday, caused by a broken water main. The problem has knocked out service to about 7,000 customers, including the call centre for a major pizza chain.

This marks 2 weeks in a row for major service-affecting outages. Alternatives are available. Customers in both the private and public sector need to examine strategies keep working when disasters strike.

A Danish court has ordered Tele2 to block its customers in Denmark from access to Russian music seller ALLOFMP3.

Despite the ruling applying only to the one ISP, the ruling is significant. Tele2 is an operator in most Western European countries, with the exceptions of Finland and the UK.

Ib Tholstrup, a spokesperson for the Danish telecommunications industry association, was quoted saying:

This is unknown territory for us, and it is the same as if the Post Offices should read all the letters they are handling. I deeply condemn this verdict.

I disagree with Tholstrup’s analogy. It does not appear that the court asked Tele2 to look at the music being downloaded. That would be analogous to the post office reading the mail. What the court said was more analogous to telling postal workers to look at the return address and not deliver letters marked as coming from a specific business.

Another report suggests that ISPs will now be asked to make judgement calls on whether content is illegal:

If upheld, it could open ISPs in Denmark to a flood of complaints from companies, industry groups, and individuals, asking the ISP to block access to material deemed offensive or illegal, even if no court has yet ruled on legality.

They are missing the point. A court did rule that the ISP should block the site. Period. The ISP was not asked to look at content and make a determination that it is illegal. The court made that decision for them. The ISP, Tele2, just needs to do it.

Your views are welcomed.

I think the cover story of this week’s Maclean’s magazine, with an attention grabbing headline like “The Internet Sucks“, is good reading. Before you start thinking that Maclean’s must be one of those typical old-economy, main stream media dinosaurs, remember that Maclean’s is part of Rogers Publishing, owned by the same folks who bring you, ummm…, the internet on cable.

The magazine and author have been vilified in many blogs for taking a contrarian view. Of course, the majority of people who blog have a somewhat religious fervour toward all that is e-nabled or i-nterconnected.

I wanted to wait until I actually read the story by Steve Maich before commenting on it. Many bloggers couldn’t be bothered to go to the source material, because that would have meant paying for the print edition. [It is now available on-line.]

One of my first observations is that the inflamatory nature of the promotional headline (“The Internet Sucks”) and the Maclean’s press release succeeded in: a) attracting lots of attention; and, b) proving some of the positions advanced by the author.

A point from the article:

In a 2001 paper, Cass Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, described the “echo chamber” effect of blogs and message boards. Rather than fostering debate, moderation and common understanding, he argued, these sites have contributed to the polarization of our political culture. People gravitate toward sites that reflect their established point of view, and once comfortably ensconced in their political echo chamber, the participants take turns preaching to the assembled choir, reinforcing each other’s ideas and biases, and denouncing anyone who might disagree.

Rather than promoting open discussion and greater understanding, the Net has fed the cynical perception that every form of traditional authority is based on lies and corruption. The much-hyped free market of ideas is a world in which the loudest and most outrageous assertion dominates the discussion. Everybody believes they are being oppressed by those opposed to them. The truth is what you already think it is, and nobody can be trusted.

Blogs citing blogs. Rankings based on counting links to a blog. Can we value user rankings such as Digg? Is it sufficient for news to be popular? Are we sacrificing accuracy and quality of the written word?

Articles attract a good ranking because of an alignment of a story with what people want to hear or hear about. In a Digg-ranked world, ice cream shops might only carry 3 or 4 flavours. Those 3-4 flavours may not include vanilla or chocolate, because in a Digg-ranked world, traditional is often evil – and we seem to ignore the unwashed masses. Allow me to put in a good word for Muskoka Maple Moosetracks.

Hyperbolic headline aside, the Maclean’s cover story is worthwhile reading, and fodder for discussion over the weekend. What are the greatest achievements delivered by the internet? Not just the web and new media. I’d like to hear your views.

But read the whole article first. Maybe even pay for the magazine, even if that means supporting MSM’s tired old business model.

Author Steve Maich defends his honour at Mark Evans‘s blog. Read the pieces by Steve & Mark and be sure to look at the comments as well. It seems to me that if blogs on the Internet provide a Speaker’s Corner, the audience seems quick to throw eggs at speakers that don’t conform with a non-conformist agenda.