ITBusiness.ca has an interesting interview with Tim Berners-Lee, described as the inventor of the world wide web, and now director of the World Wide Web Consortium, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Just getting used to Web 2.0? Tim talks about the next step, described as the Semantic web. Essentially, it is about the integration of data accross different platforms and from different sources. Think of it as convergence of data.
He talks about the privacy implications of that. Also about the concept of provenance, meaning knowing where the data comes from and what it can be used for. That concept is important for reasons of accuracy, accountability, and intended use.
He also talks about his support for net neutrality, including a good example of its meaning.
It is a worthwhile read for anyone wanting to understand where things might be headed.
Read the Interview
Michael Geist points to a new Canadian website dealing with net neutrality called What is Net Neutrality. Its worth a look for anyone interested in the issue. Since everyone uses the Internet, this issue impacts us all. The issue is also being raised for wireless services.
Network neutrality is essentially about whether ISP’s, or the owners of the pipes, can play with the traffic to prioritize some traffic at the expense of others. That’s not an issue if it improves the quality of the data, so long as it is not at the expense of another. Favouring one’s own VOIP service for example, while degrading 3rd party VOIP.
One of the simplest examples is on a comment to Michael’s post. That comment was credited to Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing. I tracked down the Boing Boing post – which attributes it to Craig Newmark of Craiglist.
The actual excerpt from Cory’s post is:
it would be like calling Joe’s Pizza and having the phone company tell you that since Joe hadn’t paid for “guaranteed connections” to you, that you’d have to wait three minutes before they’d put the call though (but you can talk to a Domino’s operator right now if you’d like!).
For earlier comments of mine on net neutrality, click on it in my tag cloud.
Read Michael’s post
Go to the What is Net Neutrality site
Read Cory’s post
ZDNet has a good article entitled A Rational Debate on Net Neutrality that is worth a read by anyone wanting to understand the underlying issues of the debate. The article talks about how the Internet works, its business model, how this issue started in the first place, and some of the attempts at legislation.
In essence, net neutrality (which I agree with) is the idea that an ISP should not selectively degrade service to give one service provider better service to the user than another, whether that service provider is the ISP itself or someone else.
For previous posts of mine on the subject, click on “Network Neutrality” in my tag cloud.
Read the ZDNet article
Michael Geist’s latest article in the Toronto Star talks about Roger’s traffic shaping, the unintended problems it creates (it may be causing slowdowns in corporate VPN traffic), and how it fits into the net neutrality debate.
Michael’s blog post also refers to some other views on the subject by Matt Roberts and Mark Evans. All three of those articles are a good read for anyone interested in the net neutrality debate, or how ISP’s control web traffic.
In essence, net neutrality (which I agree with by the way) is the idea that an ISP should not selectively degrade service to give one service provider better service to the user than another, whether that service provider is the ISP itself or someone else.
For example, an ISP should not degrade Vonage or Skype VOIP calls and ensure that the ISP’s own VOIP service gets priority or quality. Or the ISP should not degrade the VOIP traffic of all VOIP providers except the one that pays them for preferential service.
Read Michael’s post and the other articles
Today’s press talks about the Canadian Federal government’s decision to require the CRTC to deregulate local phone service in areas where there are 3 alternate providers.
The phone companies are pleased. Some think this will be good for consumers as it may lead to more competition and reduced prices.
Critics are concerned that the existing telcos wil undercut the competition, so in the end we will be left with no competition and higher prices.
Only time will tell – it will be interesting to follow this as it unfolds.
My personal observations are that while the cable companies have phone service, they are not competing on price. When you add up the prices of similar service from the phone company and the cable company, they are remarkably close. Strikes me that the cable cos see the telcos as their competition, not the independent Voip providers.
So at the moment we seem to have similar priced, similar quality services from the telcos and cable cos, with pure Voip plays coming in much cheaper and more flexible, but often with call quality issues.
Which leads to the network neutrality issue. Will this mean that it becomes even more tempting for any ISP that offers broadband service (ie the telcos and cable cos) to tinker with the quality of third party Voip?
Read an ITBusiness.ca article about the announcement
Videotron, a Quebec based ISP and cable TV operator, was quoted in newspaper articles yesterday as calling for a tariff on content providers such as Apple and Amazon. Videotron thinks the content providers are getting a free ride.
Michael Geist and Rob Hyndman were both quick to point out why that’s not a good idea. I encourage you to look at their comments.
My perspective is that it would be equally logical for content providers to try to charge Videotron for the priviledge of allowing Videotron customers to access their content. After all, without providers of content and services such as Apple, Amazon, Google, etc., Videotron would not have customers eager to buy their services.
Read Michael’s comments
Read Rob’s comments
Tech memeorandum points to a Federal Trade Commission news release that says the FTC has formed an Internet task force to: “examine issues being raised by converging technologies and regulatory developments, and to educate and inform the enforcement, advocacy and education initiatives of the Commission.” and âto address what is likely the most hotly debated issue in communications, so-called ânetwork neutrality”
The FTC favours market forces instead of regulation, which in general is a good idea. The question is whether market forces can actually achieve network neutrality – I’m skeptical.
I’m convinced network neutrality , ie ISP’s not discriminating against traffic from others, especially competitors, is crucial.
Read the Tech memeorandum post
Read the FTC news release
Digg has a link to last Friday’s Rocketboom vodcast that explains why net neutrality is such an important concept.
Its worth watching.
Watch the Rocketboom vodcast
Go to the Digg post
Real Lawyers have blogs points to a post by Lawrence Lessig that sums up the net neutrality debate nicely by pointing out that: One clue to this Net Neutrality debate is to watch what kind of souls are on each side of the debate. The pro-NN contingent is filled with the people who actually built the Net â from Vint Cerf to Google to eBay â and those who profit from the competition enabled by the Net â e.g., Microsoft. The anti-NN contingent is filled with the entities that either never got the Net, or fought like hell to control it â telecom, and cable companies.
Both site refer to a Tim Berners-Lee (credited as the inventor of the Internet) post advocating net neutrality
As I have said before, I believe that net neutrality is crucial.
Read the Lessig post
Read the Real Lawyers post
Read the Tim Berners-Lee post
Tim Berners-Lee, often called the inventor of the Internet, expressed his support for net neutrality at a conference. In essense, net neutrality means that the owner of the pipe should not discrimiante against those who use the pipe for either sending or receiving.
As I have said before, network neutrality is crucial. Given recent indications from pipe providers (ie telcos), I belive governments need to make this clear.
Read a CNet article
Read a ZDNet article via Digg
