... here's that little video that was brought up at the meeting today ... i just love the analogy :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfHjP0jRf4s
Dan.
It's a good video and analogy.
Not to nit-pick but one of slides (3:30) shows the companies that are successful because of a neutral network and it includes a picture of RIM. This is false. Back when RIM was successful, it did it by partnering with the telcos and leveraging the proprietary cellular data network of the carriers.
It could be argued that once the (cellular) network became more open (pushed by Apple & the iPhone), RIM began to fail.
John
I heartily agree with the concept of net neutrality when it comes to discriminating against content providers.
Discrimination based on content type or a similar metric is a different matter. I think some discrimination is warranted - my personal opinion coloured by the fact that I don't like to sit for 5 minutes while my web page loads piece by piece because Netflix is making money off my neighbour. And yes, a small decrease in overall latency IS worth it for a significant decrease in average latency, especially for time critical applications.
Using the electricity analogy, this is like charging more for power at peak load times, a common practice that can benefit the majority of users.
-Dan M
On 2012-09-11, at 11:24 PM, Dan Keizer wrote:
... here's that little video that was brought up at the meeting today ... i just love the analogy :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfHjP0jRf4s
Dan.
Roundtable mailing list Roundtable@muug.mb.ca http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable
Dan Martin GP Hospital Practitioner Computer Scientist ummar143@shaw.ca (204) 831-1746 answering machine always on
Shaw trottles any Bit Torrent connections. If you establish anything with Bit Torrent, your entire connection is dramatically slowed. And they had completely blocked MTS webmail. Conversely MTS had blocked Shaw webmail. Both have removed that block, but this demonstrates someone has to be vigilant. The article also describes a labour dispute with Bell Canada, where they completely blocked any web information they could find supporting the labour side of that dispute. All the big carriers hate small carrier competition, they will do everything they can to sabotage performance of these small carriers. They want usage based billing, despite the fact they already charge more for faster connections. Internet connections are paid for to be used, so faster connections are supposed to download more content, customers are already paying for it. Charging extra for usage is double billing. But Bell wants to charge a premium for Netflix, or any competitor for their paid content service. Reducing performance or charging extra for competitors is anti-competitive business practice. All the major carriers are engaging in them. We need to be vigilant, and we need clear laws that make that sort of thing illegal.
Rob Dyck
On 12-09-12 11:12 AM, Robert Dyck wrote:
Shaw trottles any Bit Torrent connections. If you establish anything with Bit Torrent, your entire connection is dramatically slowed. And they had completely blocked MTS webmail. Conversely MTS had blocked Shaw webmail. Both have removed that block, but this demonstrates someone has to be vigilant. The article also describes a labour dispute with Bell Canada, where they completely blocked any web information they could find supporting the labour side of that dispute. All the big carriers hate small carrier competition, they will do everything they can to sabotage performance of these small carriers. They want usage based billing, despite the fact they already charge more for faster connections. Internet connections are paid for to be used, so faster connections are supposed to download more content, customers are already paying for it. Charging extra for usage is double billing. But Bell wants to charge a premium for Netflix, or any competitor for their paid content service. Reducing performance or charging extra for competitors is anti-competitive business practice. All the major carriers are engaging in them. We need to be vigilant, and we need clear laws that make that sort of thing illegal. Rob Dyck
Roundtable mailing list Roundtable@muug.mb.ca http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable
Hey Rob. Here are a few videos from last year about UBB.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3n466POrIE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3YadNWarV0&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve4bQO3S9X8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aadw_YSCS6Y&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmOAyFC_We4&feature=related
We talked a lot about this last night. Anyhow... See you on Friday.
Later Mike
On a related note; Bell is arguing in front of the CRTC this week on it's impending takeover of Astral media. One of the justifications it's using is that it "needs" to become bigger in order to compete with companies like Netflix.
I nearly fell off my chair when I read that. BCE, a company with a market cap of $35 Billion and a massive Canadian market advantage, feels it's too small to compete successfully with Netfilx, a company with a market cap of $3 Billion.
Bell is probably right, it won't be able to compete with Netflix. Not because of size, but because I seriously doubt that Bell is capable of innovating. Whatever they come up with be terrible, and, in the mean time they'll buy up all the content and refuse to license it to Netflix and everyone else to prevent any real competition, plus their streaming service won't count against your download cap.
In other words they'll win through market dominance, not the appeal of their product.
John
-
Dan Keizer -
Dan Martin -
John Lange -
Mike Pfaiffer -
Robert Dyck