The Xanga Tango

XangaI was just minding my own business, surfing around various blogs in a lonely search for voices of reason when I tripped across a blog hosted by Xanga.com: the self-proclaimed “Weblog Community”. The site came up with the following message:

Xanga will be down today from 7 am – 4 pm 7 pm EST, as we move our servers to a new network facility (we ran out of room in our old one). We’re loading a few hundred servers onto a truck, driving them across the Hudson River, and reassembling them in New Jersey. We’ll get the site up and running again as soon as we can!

P.S. Sorry this move is taking longer than we had hoped… we’re in the final phases of testing, and hope to have it up within the next hour or so.

Thanks for your patience,
The Xanga Team

Seriously! This was really posted.

Now, when I first saw this message, it didn’t have the correction to the original 4 pm target for restoration, nor the ‘P.S.’. And I don’t know if the 7 pm time is going to be met.

But, hello Xanga: This is no way to run a hosting service!

Your operations team has actually wasted a lot of effort in moving out of your old location. Hopefully, you no longer have a space problem. Any of your customers with half a brain have left and found a service provider that actually takes their clients’ needs into consideration.


Update: As of 5:15pm, Xanga appears to be back in service. The Xanga.com home page has a note that appears to have been posted yesterday, warning folks that the service would be down until 2 pm.

I’m guessing that most of their customers are on the free service. And they are getting exactly what they are paying for in service quality. But I’m willing to bet that they support Net Neutrality!

Net Neutrality Again!

I had hoped to take a longer break from the theme of Net Neutrality, but a piece on Om Malik’s blog by Daniel Berninger seems to be screaming for a reply. Berninger hails from Tier 1 Research; his credentials show a close association with Jeff Pulver’s Free World Dialup, and hence a piece that is sympathetic to the ‘Save the Internet‘ movement.

His legalistically styled piece attempts to suggest that, in the absence of conformance to network neutrality principles, telephone companies will lose their common carrier status and therefore should lose their access to low cost rights-of-way. Good try, Dan.

He defines network neutrality as

Internet access without discrimination by use or user except as required for network management purposes.

If that is the legal definition being proposed, then I think we have no problem. Telecom carriers on both sides of the border (and generally around the world) are used to non-discriminatory provisions in their Telecom Acts.

The problem, I think, is that most Net Neutrality advocates aren’t really interested in just non-discrimination. They are really looking for non-differentiation.

Non-discrimination means that every similarly situated user has an equal opportunity to purchase a given product with a given grade of service or quality.

Non-differentiation would mean that every bit of traffic has an equal opportunity to go through the network without any ability to differentiate or apply priorities. All bits would be treated the same.

Non-differentiation clauses can’t be found in any Acts. They make no sense.

I think that we want more than just vanilla flavoured internet. Some of us want extra-rich and creamy internet. Others want cheap, store-brand no-frills internet. I like soft-serve chocolate internet (in a cup, not a cone – it’s the low-carb thing). Non-discrimination means that everyone has a right to buy the same kind of ice cream that I can buy. But nowhere does it say that you get to buy extra-rich ice cream for the same price as no-frills. Nor does it say that my grocery store can’t get an incentive in order to offer premium ice cream for the same price.

I think that we want our electronic financial trading transactions to have higher priority than our movie and music downloads. If you (or banks or brokers) don’t want to pay a little more for that kind of service – no problem. But you are then choosing to take the risk associated with those bits getting slowed down by traffic jams. Why can’t we pay for access to the express lanes?1

If my bank or broker wants to provide me a better quality guarantee for their website as part of their service, why is this evil? They should be able to buy the telecom services to support their objectives. Same for any other content provider.


1 Tim Wu’s metaphor of having express lanes reserved solely for GM cars is extreme. The better metaphor is a toll road versus a freeway – many cities have them. You can bet that not all the users are paying the tolls themselves – their employers want them to get to work or between jobs faster. That isn’t discrimination – anyone willing to pay the price can ride in those lanes, regardless of who pays. And if GM or an oil company wants to offer a subscription to the toll lanes as an incentive to buy their products … ?

VOIP Regulation 2.01 Beta

The CRTC issued its Public Notice on the reconsideration of VoIP regulation this afternoon.

Interesting accelerated timetable in the PN, driven by the requirement to report back to Cabinet within 120 days (ie. around Labour Day). Comments are due on June 5 and reply comments are due June 15.

The Public Notice is especially interesting in revealing the text of the actual Order of the Governor in Council. The recitals in the Order reveal that Sending VoIP back to the CRTC was ordered in part out of a recognition of the recommendations of the TPR (no surprise), but also considering the recent Local Forbearance decision. Despite the fact that there has not yet been a Cabinet appeal, it looks like Cabinet is expecting it any day now:

Whereas the Governor in Council is currently examining Canada’’s Telecommunications policy and regulatory framework taking into consideration the recommendations of the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel and is following closely the public discussion concerning Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15.

Cabinet is going to be busy with telecom issues. The deadline for appealing the Deferral Account decision is coming up on Monday. We expect at least one party to file by then. Local forbearance has about 6 weeks more to go on its timer, but Bell has already announced its intent to appeal.

The Order indicates that the Governor in Council is contemplating what changes to implement in the wake of the TPR panel report.

June 15 is a great day to close off the CRTC’s public process. It just happens to be the day after The Canadian Telecom Summit closes. June 13 will see the regulatory department heads from all the phone companies square off. It will be a tag team event, cablecos versus telco incumbents with MTS Allstream as the spoiler!

That session immediately precedes the keynote address by Industry Minister Maxime Bernier, who is expected to talk about the implementation plans for the TPR. He’ll be followed by keynote addresses from TELUS CEO Darren Entwistle speaking at lunch on on Tuesday and Bell CEO Michael Sabia on Wednesday.

Videotron Chief Robert Depatie speaks on Wednesday afternoon and the final word belongs to CRTC Chair Charles Dalfen, who closes the conference.

Doing well by doing good

Twenty years ago, I worked for a guy at AT&T Bell Labs who told us not burn ourselves out by working crazy R&D hours. He told us to take time out to go to the theatre, get involved with little league, various community groups, family things. In his view, it was good business. After all, he wanted employees who would still have energy in 5 years; he knew that all of our neighbours were potential AT&T customers. Doing good for employees and the community was doing good for AT&T. There was a time that the ‘telephone company’ was held in such esteem across the country. In the monopoly and early competitive days, there was always a lot of community involvement, from the employee and pensioners’ association, the Telephone Pioneers and corporate giving.

Tuesday evening, Darren Entwistle was in town as TELUS launched its Toronto Community Board. TELUS has set a goal for itself to become Canada’s premier corporate citizen. I think it is a symbol of TELUS’ commitment to be a permanent force across the country, not just in their home base: the western ILEC region. In addition to funding various community initiatives, TELUS plans to have a national community activity day – a day of volunteerism for its employees. Congratulations to those involved.

We hope that Rogers, Shaw and Bell will feel competitive pressures to match and ‘up the ante’. Such involvement by the industry will hopefully return a little lustre to our industry that has seen reputations tarnished by accounting problems, stock market losses and controversy over internet access issues.

Our communities will benefit and the goodwill will be returned many times over.

Joe Natale cited Margaret Mead in his introductory remarks: “A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

At the cocktail reception at The Canadian Telecom Summit on Monday June 12, we will be featuring a silent auction to benefit the alliance of Big Brothers / Big Sisters and Boys & Girls Clubs of Canada. It’s got a high tech twist to it – bidding will done by SMS text messaging using a software application being developed just for this event.

TELUS’ launch on Tuesday evening was a good reminder for all of us. You do the right thing, because it’s the right thing to do.

VoIP Regulation 2.0

Jeff Pulver has been a major driver of VoIP promotion with a vertically integrated marketing machine and a global-scale vision. For this, it is understandable why he is sought after to participate on so many advisory boards.

However, given the reaction by some writers in the blogosphere, I think folks need a little bit better perspective on the Cabinet decision to send the CRTC’s VoIP Decision back for reconsideration.

Jon Arnold suggests that in 2004, Jeff told the CRTC to let market forces rule in order to drive ‘a highly competitive, innovative market, that in turn [would lead to] driving rapid adoption of VoIP.‘ If that is what Jeff was suggesting, it did not come across clearly, and it ironically seems to be in contrast to his current drive to have market forces set aside in order to have government regulation ‘Save the Internet’.

My reading of the pulver.com written submission to the original VoIP proceeding found that it cited two core principles:

  1. do not regulate unless necessary; and,
  2. ensure that no entity can leverage its market power to stifle choice and innovation.

Good principles. Bell would agree with these. Certainly the authors of the TPR report would agree. I think that even the CRTC agrees with those general views. The submission pulled out the big guns, stating that NAFTA obligates Parties (read that as ‘Canada’) to ensure that incumbents don’t wield their

monopoly position to engage in anti-competitive conduct… such conduct may include cross subsidization, predatory conduct and the discriminatory provision of access to public telecommunications transport networks or services.

In other words, the CRTC’s original VoIP Decision agreed with Jeff’s original filing. The incumbents were subjected to regulation in order to ensure that they didn’t use their market power to do all the things pulver.com’s submission was worried about. Which is it? Did cabinet side with Jeff or did Jeff side with the Commission? The submission was not really clear.

As Jon mentioned, Pulver’s oral testimony was not well received by the Commission:

Your written brief and your oral presentation had a rather high level of generality and to say possibly at a generic level and they don’t touch the ground of our public notice at very many points on this specific issue.

Jeff was asked if he was ‘familiar with our current sort of regulatory framework in terms of how we regulate… our broad approach to regulation of local competition?‘ Jeff’s reply?

It was suggested to me that you regulate based on other peoples’ reactions, you ask them to come into a situation and react, so you are reactive rather than proactive.

Yep. That’s Canadian regulation. Barely a step above good ol’ boy, ‘Smokey and the Bandit’ style justice. Up here in Canada, we just regulate based on which ways the howling winds are blowing, eh? Throw the combatants into an arena and see who yells the loudest. Hmmmm. And you were wondering why he might have felt a bit of a chill?

Jeff was not ‘the lone American invited to come up‘ to the CRTC’s 2004 VoIP hearings. Actually, like everyone else at those (and most) hearings, he asked the CRTC if he could speak, not the other way around. AT&T; and Vonage were also American speakers at the hearings, bringing global perspectives and similar ‘hands-off’ messages.

A suggestion for Voice 2.0 advocates wanting to have their viewpoints heard: as painful as it may be, you will need to remember that regulation needs to be backward compatible – covering all the legacy services as well as those pesky social issues.

My proposal was in one of my weekend postings. The CRTC needs an answer by Labour Day. If you had a magic wand – how would you help the CRTC craft a response to the Minister?

Scroll to Top