Last Wednesday was the deadline for followup comments on Ben’s Part 1 application, more accurately described as a complaint. In the text below you’ll find the main body of my intervention, minus the top and tail. I wrote about Ben’s original filing back in November: Ben Klass asks CRTC to stop Bell’s deliquency on Mobile TV. As of today, Ben’s current filing hasn’t yet shown up on the Commission’s site: I’ve uploaded it here. Of the other interventions filed this past week, two were especially critical of what Bell is being allowed to get away with. Teresa Murphy starts her comments by suggesting that Bell’s whole argument is founded on a phony distinction (para 2: her pdf is uploaded here):
It makes no sense whatsoever to treat competing services differently when the underlying technology and distribution method is the same. This is allowing vertically integrated companies to behave by one set of rules, and allowing them to treat their competitors differently, and frankly unfairly.
Or at least the triumph of depth of experience over outreach and a sense of commonality.
This is the 5th and last of my responses from the 2013-14 edition of the Pew/Elon experts survey on the future of the Internet. I only answered 5 of this year’s 8 questions; my four prior responses are these:
The final Pew question was the only one described as open-ended, i.e. it did not begin with the usual Yes/No binary choice. By the time I was done writing my relatively short response, I was seriously depressed. As Free Press president Craig Aaron said to The Verge’s Nilay Patel: “What we need right now is decisive action. We can still unfuck the Internet.” Sure, but where’s decisive action going to come from? The FCC? The CRTC? Questions for another time. Continue reading →
Partial map of the Internet cloud. Each line joins 2 nodes representing IP addresses.
Pew setup question
The evolution of embedded and wearable devices and the Internet/Cloud of Things – As billions of devices, artifacts, and accessories are networked, will the Internet of Things have widespread and beneficial effects on the everyday lives of the public by 2025?
The visualization of the Internet you see above, while pretty dense and complicated, captures only a fraction of a certain class of networks as they existed nine years ago (i.e., less than 30% of the Class C networks reached by the Opte Project in early 2005). In the intervening time, the number of Internet-connected hosts has increased from less than 400 million to over one billion. But you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
This past year marked the mainstreaming – in the public consciousness if not in our actual lives – of devices that are not only a) smart so they can compute, and b) small so they can be worn or embedded, but also c) networked so they can all communicate over the Internet. Judging by press coverage, I’d say the splashiest recent entries have been Google Glass and smart watches. Continue reading →
Voltage talent were so excited about Thursday’s decision they took their clothes off
TekSavvy ordered to ID alleged movie downloaders: Voltage Pictures targets 2,000 customers of internet service provider — Canadian Press via cbc.ca, Feb 21, 2014
Court orders Canadian ISP to reveal customers who downloaded movies – Globe and Mail, Feb 21, 2014
Downloading Decision: Federal Court Establishes New Safeguards on Disclosures in File Sharing Suits — Michael Geist blog post, Feb 20, 2014
[Feb 27: a few minor edits and additions]
You may have noticed something uneven about the press coverage of this week’s Federal Court decision on Voltage’s motion to get the contact info of 2,000 TekSavvy subs. The headlines made it all about the order to disclose and the prospect of a lot of personal information being revealed.
That wasn’t and isn’t the story, for two notable reasons. One, the order was pretty much inevitable; two, the order was hedged with unprecedented safeguards directed at both copyright trolling and end-user privacy. Continue reading →
Infographic released by TekSavvy in February, from omnibussurvey by IDC Canada
(Please see previous post for the setup to this one)
In early February, TekSavvy released the results of five survey questions fielded by IDC Canada on its behalf, which probed for attitudes to Internet service among Canadians. In keeping with its White Knight role, the maverick ISP is not only going Ottawa one better on the research. TekSavvy also took the opportunity to launch a new tool to help customers navigate the decisions involved in choosing a particular access plan. They call it Find Your Plan and apparently people like it.
I spoke recently about this initiative to Tina Furlan, TekSavvy’s Director of Marketing and Communications, and the brains behind last year’s dramatic rebranding. The two main questions on my mind concerned a) why her team decided to plunge into the research game, and b) were they surprised by the results. Tina points out that TSI’s subscriber base across Canada (for all services) is now close to 270,000. Naturally, with that kind of growth, its traditional customer base of younger, techie males has broadened into a more mainstream and technically unsophisticated group, the very end-users who are especially puzzled and frustrated by all the bafflegab ISPs usually throw at them. Continue reading →
Infographic released by TekSavvy in February, from omnibus survey by IDC Canada
How much do you pay each month for Internet access? What speed tier are you on? What’s the size of your data cap? Is it measured in bits or bytes? Can you complain to the CRTC about your ISP? Do you have any idea what I’m talking about?
We get the ISP we deserve
To the wonks with a vested professional interest in these questions, it’s hard to believe most people don’t know the answers – in fact, don’t know what the questions mean in the first place. Part of the puzzle comes down to a simple matter of caveat emptor: why would anyone pay year in and year out for a pig in a poke? Especially when that particular pig keeps growing in importance. We all pursue a wide range of critical activities online, like education, government services and job searching. We’re also spending more and more money on communications services (as the CRTC noted last fall, Canadian families spent an average of $185 each month on communications services in 2012 , up from $181 the previous year). Continue reading →
The Pew question. New killer apps in the gigabit age – Will there be new, distinctive, and uniquely compelling technology applications that capitalize upon significant increases in bandwidth in the U.S. between now and 2025?
You are your own killer app
I answered YES to the survey question. As I wrote in my elaboration, however, the “killer app” concept is misleading when we’re talking about what people get drawn to online. Certainly some emerging technologies have a big future: advanced motion capture and speech recognition come to mind.
No, as a matter of fact, content isn’t king
But using the Internet isn’t like watching TV, which is highly structured and impersonal, despite years of attempts to make TV “interactive.” Using the Internet, by contrast, is very personal. And to the chagrin of those who produce and distribute content for a living, third-party content is not king in the online world. Personal stuff is, as reflected in the most popular online activities, i.e. using email and search engines. In fact, these two activities have consistently ranked as the most popular ever since the Pew Internet Project began measuring online activities over the last decade. I didn’t quite put it this way in the response below, but my view is that it’s the bandwidth itself that’s the killer app.
Screen grab from Pew/Elon survey questionnaire, January 2014
The Pew survey included a question about tech firms that was set up a little differently than the others. As the screen grab above shows, participants were asked to rank the long-term success, or lack of success, among the Big 5 as listed, as well as among other firms of our choosing.
Although it’s about 10 years too early to say “I told you so,” the news over the last few days provides some support for conclusions drawn in my response. As you can see, I’m calling for Amazon and Apple to become “More important”… Facebook and Microsoft to become “Less important”… and Google to “remain the same.”
Apple: too big to be successful any more?
A recent financial piece in the New York Times (Trying to See Apple From a Different Angle) says the stock market “doesn’t know quite what to make of Apple.” Two general reasons are adduced. One is cyclical: the company has had problems with sales of its cash cow, the iPhone. The other is structural: Apple has the largest market cap of any multinational, as well as the highest brand rating on the global Interbrand survey (all that engineering brainpower finally knocked a syrupy, dark-brown soft drink off its throne). Oh, and the $159 billion in cash it has lying around. Apple’s now so big and so successful that it’s scaring off growth investors who want to see a hit product every six months. Continue reading →