No one wants their last words to be "Oh my God! The old gypsy woman was right..."
from Digistan
The Hague Declaration
Adopted and proclaimed
by the founders of the Digital Standards Organization
in The Hague on 21 May 2008.Whereas almost 60 years ago the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, established in international law these rights and freedoms:
1. Freedom from discrimination by government or law (Article 2, Article 7).
2. Freedom of movement within the borders of each state (Article 13.1).
3. The right to participate in government (Article 21.1).
4. The right of equal access to public services (Article 21.2).Whereas these rights and freedoms are today accepted by every democratic government and backed by the constitutions of most states;
Considering that all countries are moving, at different rates and from different starting points, towards a society in which full and effective participation in government and society, and access to public services, education and opportunity, are increasingly dependent upon access to electronic communications;
Considering more specifically that:
* Government information, services and resources are increasingly provided virtually rather than physically;
* Freedom of speech and association are increasingly exercised on line rather than in person;
* The Internet and the Web provide an unprecedented avenue to equality of education and opportunity for all peoples throughout the world;Considering that the benefits of the Internet may only be guaranteed, and our hard-won human rights may only be preserved as we make the transition to a digital society, by ensuring affordable, equal access to the Internet, and if the openness of the Internet is also preserved;
Considering the unique role that free and open digital standards can play in ensuring this result by fostering competition and innovation, lowering costs and increasing choice;
Considering that governments, through example and procurement, are uniquely able to ensure that all people achieve the benefits that free and open digital standards can provide;
Considering that these benefits are of particular importance to the economically, socially, and geographically disadvantaged peoples of the world;
Considering that there is increasing consensus on the attributes of a free and open digital standard;
We call on all governments to:
1. Procure only information technology that implements free and open standards;
2. Deliver e-government services based exclusively on free and open standards;
3. Use only free and open digital standards in their own activities.
The US is also not alone in the attempts of network infrastructure providers trying to dictate to everyone what they can and can not do on bulk network connections. Bell Canada today declared war on the CRTC for its ruling last month that opened Bell’s network to smaller companies wishing to offer services. That’s real chutzpah when you consider that just last week it was shown that Bell was packet filtering to restrict p2p applications running on their network, even when the end user is not a customer of theirs but one of their wholesalers or even an independent that simply buys connectivity from Bell. They did this without informing anyone.
Technorati Tags: network infrastructure providers, Bell Canada, chutzpah, p2p
A must view
Technorati Tags: net neutrality, telecom greed, internet freedom
In the past week there have been 4 major undersea fiber optic cables in the Mediterranean cut or otherwise disabled. It was originally reported that the first two (which run side by side) FLAG Telecom and SEA-ME-WE4 had been severed by a ship’s anchor last Wednesday, however Egypt’s communications ministry said, today, that this was not the case (thanks to Greg Laden for this link)
The transport ministry added that footage recorded by onshore video cameras of the location of the cables showed no maritime traffic in the area when the cables were damaged.
‘The ministry’s maritime transport committee reviewed footage covering the period of 12 hours before and 12 hours after the cables were cut and no ships sailed the area,’ a statement said.
‘The area is also marked on maps as a no-go zone and it is therefore ruled out that the damage to the cables was caused by ships,’ the statement added.
A third cable, FLAG’s FALCON, was damaged two days later off the coast of the Emirate of Dubai. Now we discover a fourth cable in the Middle East, that connects Qatar with the UAE has been damaged in some manner (thanks to Greg Laden for this link)
Internet services in Qatar have been seriously disrupted because of damage to an undersea telecoms cable linking the Gulf state to the UAE, the fourth such incident in less than a week.
Qatar Telecom (Qtel) said on Sunday the cable was damaged between the Qatari island of Haloul and the UAE island of Das on Friday.
The cause of damage is not yet known, but ArabianBusiness.com has been told unofficially the problem is related to the power system and not the result of a ship’s anchor cutting the cable, as is thought to be the case in the other three incidents.
Now y’all know I love a good conspiracy theory. Great entertainment they are. Nevertheless, you have to admit that four fiber optic cable breaks in a global hot spot, when fiber breaks on undersea cables are a relatively rare event, in less than a week, stretches the concept of probability of co-incidence rather thin. I’m left to wonder just what the hell is going on here and a scenario that keeps popping into my head is that of IT warfare and this is a probe, by the US intelligence agencies, perhaps military “intelligence” of what it will take to completely isolate the Middle East electronically in preparation for a strike against Iran. If that’s the case folks, and I’m not saying it is, just wondering that’s all, then don’t expect their to be an election in November because there won’t be. A state of Emergency will be declared and the election canceled - all the appropriate legislation to allow this has already been passed. Just something more to consider.
Technorati Tags: undersea fiber optic cables, Mediterranea, Egypt, no maritime traffic, what the hell is going on here, Middle East, Iran
I don’t usually have good things to say about the Harper government but when they do something right, particularly when it is at odds with what the Liberals were going to do, then I feel it only fair to compliment them on their decision. Besides, in this case, anything that pisses Telus off is a good thing in my books 
Canada’s cellular networks are far to oligopolistic. Consumers were and are getting screwed and the cost to use the networks for digital media is far too expensive. Adding competition can only be a good thing for the end user.
The salient points?
What we didn’t get but need for starters:
AT&T, the mother of all network and telecommunications companies is calling its teleworkers back to the cube farms.
“It’s crazy; I don’t understand it,” the employee says. “We’re a networking and communications company.”
Monolithic bureaucracy. When Ma Bell (AT&T) was broken up, in 1984, into seven Baby Bells a.k.a. Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) the bureaucracy went with it (in some ways but not in all) and it was necessary for the RBOCs to become innovative. One of the ways that happened was the remaining AT&T invested heavily in tele-working for its employees. Not only did it sabe AT&T a lot of money on facilities they did not need to have but their teleworkers were more productive.
However no sooner was Ma Bell broken up than the separate parts started scheming on how to overthrow that breakup and bring Ma Bell back to life as a telecommunications monopoly (those of an age will remember when you could not buy any equipment to connect to a telephone network, including the telephones, from anyone other than AT&T.) Starting in 2005 a good portion of the original AT&T was brought back together with the purchase of the legacy AT&T by SBC Communications, followed by their purchase of Bell South and Cingular Wireless. Apparently the old telco headspace is rearing its ugly head again and everything must be tightly controlled.
This does not bode well in US networks for innovation. Couple this with AT&Ts attacks on people’s privacy through its co-operation with Bush’s illegal warrantless wiretaps and the revelation that AT&T was funneling the entire North American Internet data stream to the NSA, as well as their attacks on Net Neutrality and there is a lot if ill boding going on here.
Technorati Tags: telecommunications, AT&T, cube farm, telecommuting, teleworkers
The battle for Net Neutrality (NN) is not over yet. Thanks to a recent Verizon (not to mention AT&T’s censorship blunder)strategical error NN proponents have been handed a very big club.
Saying it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages, Verizon Wireless last week rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program.0927 01 1 2
But the company reversed course this morning, saying it had made a mistake.
“The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to this isolated incident,” Jeffrey Nelson, a company spokesman, said in a statement. (more…)
Uh oh, they just proved that they will censor what goes over their network despite all their assurances to congress critters that they would never consider doing so. NN proponents 2, Telcom 0. Thanks Verizon! 
Technorati Tags: Net Neutrality, blunder, strategical error, Naral, censor, Telcom, Verizon
Late last week the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released its long awaited Broadband Network Competition Policy report and you can be assured that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Department of Justice, the three regulatory bodies that have dominion over competition and the Internet in the US, will be paying close attention to, and taking their leads from, this report.
This is a long (170 page) report and I’ve only read some 30 pages or so but in summary they do not find any problem in last mile providers engaging in discriminatory packet prioritization and have issued a cop-out for responsibility
…t is not always a simple matter to apply the FTC Act’s prohibitions against deceptive and unfair practices to broadband Internet access services. Moreover, both the telephone companies and the cable companies, which together provide the majority of broadband residential connections, have traditionally offered more highly regulated services. The move to a less regulated regime may require a significant conceptual shift for some in the industry to think about broad consumer protection standards that are applicable to broadband offerings. Commentators have proposed other measures – in addition to enforcement of the consumer protection laws – to ensure that the interests of consumers are adequately protected in this important industry. As discussed below, these measures include industry self-regulation and FTC guidance. (p.140)
My biggest concern with the loss of network neutrality has always been the very real possibility of political shenanigans. It’s no secret that the GOP is far friendlier to large companies than the Democrats are. In today’s communication industry they have pretty much got a lock on loyalty from the boards, CEOs and other decision makers. With the loss of any form of network neutrality it will be one more tool for the GOP to continue to steal elections. Imagine if you would a large backbone provider like AT&T or QWest giving highly prioritized packets for GOP and GOP friendly sites and absolute worst best case packet priority to Democratic or Democratic friendly sites. What if all the major backbone providers did the same? When challenged they could demand usurious rate charges from the Democrats and it would all be perfectly legal. They do not have to charge the same to each customer - it’s just a business negotiation and the GOP negotiated a better deal. As a political force if you can’t get your message out you’re a former political force.
I did a search through the entire document to see if they discuss this problem, I can tell you they really did not. It got very cursory treatment on four, count ‘em folks, four pages (9, 56, 63 and in a footnote on 64)and much of that was duplicated material. The gist was they acknowledged that some people were worried about it but they were confident the free market would solve the problem.
The Contours of the Debate
Proponents of network neutrality regulation include, among others, some content and applications providers, non-facilities-based ISPs, and various commentators. They generally argue that “non-neutral” practices will cause significant and wide-ranging harms and that the existing jurisdiction of the FCC, FTC, and DOJ, coupled with Congressional oversight, are insufficient to prevent or remedy those harms. Proponents suggest that, with deregulation of broadband services, providers of certain broadband Internet services have the legal ability, as well as economic incentives, to act as gatekeepers of content and applications on their networks. Principally, these advocates express concern about the following issues: (1) blockage, degradation, and prioritization of content and applications; (2) vertical integration by ISPs and other network operators into content and applications; (3) effects on innovation at the “edges” of the network (that is, by content and applications providers); (4) lack of competition in “last-mile” broadband Internet access markets; (5) remaining legal and regulatory uncertainty in the area of Internet access; and (6) the diminution of political and other expression on the Internet.
Not all proponents of net neutrality regulation oppose all forms of prioritization, however. For example, some believe that prioritization should be permitted if access to the priority service is open to all content and applications providers on equal terms; that is, without regard to the identity of the content or application provider.
Opponents of network neutrality regulation include, among others, some facilities-based wireline and wireless network operators and other commentators. They maintain that net neutrality regulation will impede investment in the facilities necessary to upgrade Internet access and may hamper technical innovation. They also argue that the sorts of blocking conduct described by net neutrality proponents are mainly hypothetical thus far and are unlikely to be widespread and thus are insufficient to justify a new, ex ante regulatory regime (my emphasis).p.9
The emphasized portion above is, in the end, the position the FTC takes on the matter.
In simple speak my American friends (and the same is happening here) you’re fucked.
Yesterday it was announced that Telus, Canada’s second largest telecommunications giant is in merger talks with BCE the parent corporation of Bell Canada, which is the largest telecom in Canada. If they merge the resulting company will control about 60% + of the Canadian telecommunications industry with the rest being made up of much smaller companies like Sasktel. This will be an utter disaster for Canadians. Both parties have been heavily petitioning the CRTC to eliminate net neutrality in Canada. This merger must not be allowed to happen but I fear it will as the Harper Conservatives will roll over for any big corporation, it’s the conservative way. This is bad bad news.
As one of my favorite web gurus, Jeffrey Harrow, used to say in his now defunct (sadly) Newsletter The Harrow Report, Don’t Blink
Rogers Communications on Monday said it has become the first wireless carrier in North America to offer video calling to cell phone subscribers.
The company, which is Canada’s biggest wireless provider, with more than 6.8 million customers, will essentially let subscribers use their cell phones much like Web cameras to complete video calls.
It will also offer access to various video and music services on its cell phones, including the top 50 video clips on YouTube every week.
The services are being delivered on Rogers’ new HSDPA (High Speed Downlink Packet Access) network. (more…)
Technorati Tags: Jeffrey Harrow, Rogers Communications, wireless carrier, video calling, cell phone
The CBC has a story today about the problems you can run into if you make a 911 call using a VOIP phone.
Some users of voice-over-internet protocol (VOiP) telephone services — which use a high-speed internet connection to place calls instead of a traditional telephone network — could encounter dangerous delays when making 911 calls.
With a regular phone network, 911 calls go directly to the right 911 dispatch centre. Furthermore, each call provides automatic address and telephone number information to make certain help will find callers, even if they are not able to speak.
These 911 features aren’t available with internet telephone services.
With internet phones, 911 calls go first to a third-party call centre operator, before being transferred to dispatchers in their location based on information users provide when they sign up for the services. That means callers may be sent to the wrong dispatcher if their personal information has not been updated with the internet service provider.
As well, if a caller is unable to speak, or if the call is disconnected, the operator may not have automatic location information to give to 911 dispatchers.
This is a very real problem, and one that is only going to get worse as people increasingly switch to VOIP networks, many of which, like Skype, do not provide any 911 functionality. The simplest answer of course is to always have at least a basic cell phone plan and use that for 911. Even that however is going to start posing problems in the not too distant future as wi-fi network grow out and multi-mode cell phones start coming to use. Phones that automatically switch from cellular to wi-fi, and thus VOIP, when a wi-fi network is available.
Technorati Tags: VOIP, Skype, 911, wi-fi
Net neutrality is under attack in Canada and its loss is almost a forgone conclusion with this Conservative government. I ran across this site and found one of the better metaphors for the effects of the loss of net neutrality for non-techies .
Consider a polling place, where the affluent were allowed to vote in priority, while the rest of the public was made to wait. The government ensures that employers provide at least three hours to vote. After this time period expires, voters must return to work, whether they have voted or not. If they do not return to work they risk losing their employment. Provided enough affluent voters turn out, the lines for the rest would move so slowly that the 3 hour period would expire and many would be forced to leave having not voted.
Just as in the voting example, if a VoIP packet is not delivered within a number of milliseconds it is useless. With QoS prioritization, companies are granted the ability to racketeer their subscribers into paying a premium fee to utilize third party VoIP providers. Since nearly all broadband providers also provide telephone service, there is a clear conflict of interest here.
This, like the voting example, simply isn’t democratic, and it’s certainly not a free market with consumer choice. However, if like with voting, all packets were given the same priority, then the lines can be properly managed and wait times for all packets would remain equal and acceptable.
Technorati Tags: Net neutrality, Canada, Conservative government
From an article on wireless ID for the FAA
The threat from wireless devices happens whetheryou have wireless deployed or not, said Amit Sinha, chief technology officer at AirDefense. You can have a simple Linksys access point that bypasses firewalls and provides a backdoor entry into your private network.
Well it seems to me that if you don’t have wireless deployed then you don’t have any wireless access points. If you are not deploying wireless then all of your routers should be wireline only. Further even if you do have wireless capability in a primarily wireline router that capability can be turned off. It looks like he’s indulging in a bit of FUD to drive up sales for his company.
Not to mention WTF is the FAA doing having any wireless networks? Wire is cheap and far more secure. FAA networks are too important to national security to have any wireless access points.
Every country has networking challenges that need to be overcome through ingenuity and the efficient use of local resources, Scotland included. This one is for Stu.
For the rest of us there’s always RFC 1149
And for more tech silliness there’s always the list of April Fool’s Day RFCs
Bill Moyers is hosing a Net Neutrality documentary special airing Wednesday, October 18 at 9 p.m. on PBS, called The Net At Risk