If you attended The Canadian Telecom Summit as a delegate in the past two years, you should have received a post card in the mail this week to let you know about the dates for 2007 (June 11-13).
Yes, we are already working on the event; 4 of our keynote speakers are confirmed. Registration is open, if you are really keen – or if you want to use up last year’s budget allocation and take advantage of our early bird rates at the same time!
What is the real magic behind YouTube? Is it the collection and distribution of user created content? Or, is it the vast library of searchable video content that can be viewed on demand?
CNet and others have reported on Mark Cuban’s live rant on YouTube, and you can read the same things in his blog two weeks ago. Cuban believes that the downfall of YouTube is coming inevitably when rights holders see deep-pockets worth suing. For more discussion on the Cuban perspective, see Rob Hyndman (or Hyndman on YouTube part deux), Mark Evans and Mathew Ingram.
Another scenario is possible. That YouTube becomes the generic brand, the Kleenex or iPod of video-on-demand. At school or over coffee you hear about a snippet or clever commercial? Find the replay on YouTube. Wardrobe malfunction at the awards show? Check YouTube. Great catch at the Ohio State / Michigan game? YouTube.
Indexing and searching video is an interesting problem. User created video content is a start. Users create their own keywords.
But how do I quickly get to access some of the best football replays, Seinfeld lines, episodes of the West Wing, State of the Union speeches. Google’s mission is to be the leading organizer of information and make it accessible. They’ll have their work cut out for them.
Indexing and making accessible massive video libraries owned by major rights holders becomes a really interesting scenario worth studying. What happens if Time Warner looks at all their content and actually leverages AOL? Does YouTube become a launch pad for such a service, or does it evaporate when Google turns its focus to video.
Om Malik has an interview with Janus Friis, the co-founder of Skype. There is a good discussion of The Venice Project which enables users to download and watch TV programs – but working with content owners and not through file sharing.
Will telcos use such disruptive approaches to video, or choose to do battle on the cable companies’ home turf with broadcast TV?
The Globe and Mail reported on last week’s announcement by Competition Bureau chief Sheridan Scott that the bureau is more receptive to claims of efficiency benefits (synergies) in its assessments of mergers.
In the case of Superior Propane and ICG, the resultant merger placed 70% of the market into the merged entity, but the companies demonstrated that the synergy savings outweighed the impact on competitive pricing.
70% of the market in the hands of one player? Hmmm.
The Competition Bureau also issued a draft information bulletin seeking consultation on the issue of abuse of dominance in the telecom sector. Parties have until December 29 to submit comments.
Could we expect that consolidation of ILECs would be aproved?
What a headline! ‘VoIP must be eliminated!‘ was the title of the keynote address delivered by Mark Evans at the Gentek Vendor Fair earlier today.
Mark was speaking about the industry’s pre-occupation with buzz-words which serve as hurdles for widespread adoption of technology. Mark asks: Why not call it ‘telephone service with lots of really cool features‘.
He added ‘Enterprise’ and ‘Solutions’ to list of confusing terms. Any others?
CIPPIC – The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Centre – is one of the groups behind an initiative called Online Rights Canada. Online Rights Canada is sponsoring a drive to create an ISP Privacy Pledge.
A letter was sent to Canadian ISPs in mid-September asking them to sign on, presumably at risk of being publicly humiliated:
This Pledge, along with a list of ISPs indicating which have adopted the Pledge and which have not, will be posted on the website OnlineRights.ca
There are aspects of the pledge that seem to go too far in hindering law enforcement. The preamble to the pledge in the letter to ISPs says
ISP subscribers also expect that their ISP will protect them from warrantless searches and wiretaps by the police, and will not act as an agent of the state in the law enforcement process.
Here is the pledge that ISPs are being asked to sign up to:
As an Internet Service Provider, we pledge to:
Not respond to government/law enforcement requests for personal information about users unless the request is supported by a warrant or court order, or unless the request is being made explicitly under ss.184.4 or 487.11 of the Criminal Code.
Not collect personally identifying information about users or monitor user content for law enforcement, national security, or other state purposes except where required by law to do so. If we see evidence of illegal activity, we may notify law enforcement authorities for further action.
Notify the subscriber as soon as possible after we receive a legal request or court order for that subscriber’s personal information, unless the order does not permit such notification.
If we see evidence of illegal activity, we “may” notify law enforcement. Why is this sentence there? Let me understand pledge 2. An ISP sees evidence of illegal activity; will they or won’t they notify law enforcement? Under what circumstances will ISPs choose not to provide notification to law enforcement? When will they choose to do the right thing? How does this kind of uncertainty help subscribers believe that their ISPs aren’t acting as ‘agents of the state’?
It is also interesting to read the part in pledge 2 about not collecting information about users or monitoring user content for law enforcement, national security, or other state purposes except where required by law to do so. I guess it is OK to collect information about users for commercial purposes, such as contextual advertising, but don’t let “the state” in on it.
By adopting this pledge, you will be sending a signal to your subscribers and other internet users that you respect and value their privacy. You will also be sending a signal to the government that you are in the business of internet service, not law enforcement.
In other words, keep your head down. Stick to making money and mind your own business. When the police come looking for statements from witnesses, just look the other way. Hardly the attitude that leading corporate citizens would want to adopt.
Why would Online Rights believe ISPs shouldn’t be partners in making this a better country? In a democracy, I thought ‘the state’ includes all of us that live here, that participate in the economy here. Reading the manifesto from Online Rights, law enforcement and ‘the state’ is the enemy of the people.
I understand where CIPPIC is coming from in seeking to protect Canadian users from potential abuses of their privacy rights. Their proposed pledge, concerned with making law enforcement more difficult, misses the mark. Frankly, I am more concerned about corporate abuses. I’m concerned about people thinking that the internet provides a ‘digital exemption’ to laws and justice. I am especially concerned that the industry could even think of acting to undermine law enforcement, rather than find ways to support it.
There is no grey area identified in Online Rights’ planned publication of adopters of the Online Rights pledge. ISPs are expected to either adopt the pledge as written or not. As such, let’s hope Canada’s ISPs decide to mark it Online Wrong.
