Last week, I wrote about a disruptive approach to TV to better enable telcos to compete against cable providers. We note Cisco’s acquisition of Arroyo Video Solutions on Monday, which will enable Cisco to play in the IPTV space.
On Monday, Mike Urlocker took a look at another approach to disruptive video distribution, JumpTV, in a column in the National Post and on his blog.
Currently, JumpTV is establishing exclusive relationships with the content providers. It might help them to develop distribution agreements with telcos. That might be what is needed to allow the service to jump to the big leagues, providing real IPTV. There would be benefits for both parties, giving the telco a much needed differentiator from being a cable me-too.
We’ll want to watch these guys. As Mike says in his Post article: “Typically, successful disruptors don’t get the strategy right the first time.”
Will JumpTV be able to take the leap into the major leagues?
In boxing, there is a big difference between a knock-down and a knock-out. A knock-out is an automatic victory.
The Canadian Association of Internet Providers has a self-governing policy that knocks down websites that contain potentially illegal content, or content that contravenes the ISP’s acceptable use policy. The Canadian ISP believes it has done good, because it no longer collects $20 per month in hosting fees and it claims that it is contributing to a better world. But in fact, the internet is no safer from these exercises.
Like boxing, knocking down is only a temporary inconvenience. The website re-appears soon, hosted on another ISP, often outside of Canada.
Look at the case of Dossier Noir, a white-supremacist Quebec website that was knocked down, only to reappear in the US, darker and more dangerous. The CBC writes about the site, noting
A racist website that shut down Sunday night after a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission returned to the internet less than a day later in a more vitriolic form.
What I think is needed is to block access to the site. If the content is offensive enough that an ISP will knock it off their servers, then knock it out completely. Finish the job.
One of the most talked about sessions at The 2006 Canadian Telecom Summit was the session looking at Illegal Content on the Internet.
Today’s Montreal Gazette has an article describing a vicious white supremacist website that is advocating the murder of a Canadian human rights lawyer, listing his name and address.
The site is hosted in the US. What will it take for Canadian internet service providers to block access to the website?
Last week was the deadline for public input into the Minister’s policy direction to the CRTC. I commented briefly on part of the MTS Allstream filing.
It isn’t that I wanted to single them out. Actually, kudos to MTS Allstream for being the only party to actively distribute their comments to the public. Further, Allstream is having a conference call to discuss their position.
PIAC has posted their submission to their own website. I have seen a couple others but I am under an embargo until the public can view the pieces.
It has been hard to get a hold of the various submissions, since Industry Canada has not yet updated their website.
It is an interesting process – parties make submissions, but unlike the CRTC, there is no right to reply. This is a process where the lobbyists, press and public opinion may become more important. Watch this space. I am sure that we’ll have more to say about this debate.
On July 11, a new icon, “E-Mail Settings”, magically appeared on my Blackberry. As it turns out, the icon is a launch pad for the Blackberry web browser with a shortcut to my web client settings page. When I spoke to a couple colleagues that evening, I found that their Blackberries had been also ‘infected’. We all had inherited this new home screen icon.
The concern that I have isn’t this particular application. I’m concerned about how the icon got onto my Blackberry without me knowing about it and authorizing it first.
The issue is a question of who has the right to control what software and applications get loaded onto a device, once it is in the hands of a consumer. When Microsoft issues a patch for our PC software, aren’t we first asked if we want to load it? Should our Blackberry devices be any different?
The initial response from the team at my service provider was that this was part of a service book upgrade that was necessary to keep my service running. I’m not convinced.
When there have been other service problems, I was told to download patches and load them myself. When I read the customer agreement, it seems to imply that the user is solely responsible for software upgrades:
The Customer’s System. Where Customer is purchasing Services which require additional equipment, software and/or services, Customer acknowledges and agrees that it shall be Customer’s sole responsibility to purchase, install, configure and maintain, at Customer’s cost, (i) all required equipment, software and services, including interconnections and network configurations (the “Customer’s System”) to enable Customer to purchase and receive the Services; and (ii) any additional equipment, software, services, enhancements or upgrades (“Upgrades”) that become available for use with the Services. [Service Provider] shall have no responsibility hereunder to correct or fix any problems or errors relating to or caused by the installation, configuration or modification of the Customer’s System or any components thereof.
So, according to the Terms of Service, I am solely responsible to effect any needed software, but on the other hand, it was OK for them to do it on their own?
What about loading spyware onto my device, to track my browsing habits. Or an audio recorder? Or any other software that might interfere with applications that I have purchased for my Blackberry? After all, the service provider is taking no responsibility hereunder to correct or fix any problems or errors.
What about the cost of the data stream? I notice from my monthly billing statement that I had very high usage on July 11 – was this due to the software that was unknowingly sent to my machine? For people who pay by the Kb, shouldn’t they get to manage their costs? If I happened to be travelling, who would have paid the roaming charges for the download?
My service provider referred the question to RIM, where it seems to have disappeared.
I will be pleased to post RIM’s reply, when it emerges. Who made the decision that it was OK to tamper with user devices without so much as an advisory? What process is used to determine that such an intrusion is justified? Where did users agree to have parties load software without a warning like ‘Click here to load an emergency patch’?
If service providers “shall have no responsibility hereunder to correct or fix any problems or errors relating to or caused by the installation, configuration or modification of the Customer’s System or any components thereof,” then don’t users have the right to refuse to have outsiders, including service providers, mess around with their devices in the first place?
