Should ISPs Be Able to Slow Down Heavy 'Net Users?

Recently, it has been brought to the media's attention that several ISPs have been using back-end techniques in an effort to slow down heavy-bandwidth activites that people might perform on the Internet. This includes, most importantly, downloading and transmitting large files, like movies. Is it right of the ISPs to do this?

Let's play devil's advocate. If there are 100 people in one area and 10 are downloading massive files, that's going to slow things down for the other 90 people that are just doing regular Web surfing or messaging. Why should they have to pay the price for high-bandwidth activities that tech-savvy individuals want to take part in?

However, isn't the whole point of offering faster speeds and more robust services to accomodate the needs of these "heavy" users? Sure, everyone wants the average Web page to load as quickly as possible. But think about how far we've come: we have the kinds of speeds available these days that can accomodate much more than just a Web page loading in half a second! We can download entire feature-length films. Stream all kinds of music and video. Even upload massive files. Shouldn't we be utilizing these speeds to the best of their ability and not punishing those who are benefiting the most from them?

This issue garnered a lot of attention when Chatham, ON-based Internet provider Teksavvy Solutions Inc., which gets its network access from Bell, recently started receiving complaints from its users. The company realized that Bell was purposely limiting the amount of bandwidth that heavy users could take up during peak hours of service.

ISPs definitely have the right to limit bandwidth usage to ensure the best possible experience for all customers: it's their service. But on the same token, why bother offering things like unlimited bandwidth and blazing fast speeds if, in actuality, these conditions can't be completely honoured?

It's very possible that, in letting things be, the "regular" 'net users might not even notice slower load times. But maybe they would. You can't please everyone all the time so, as bad as it sounds, it might just come down to who the better customer is: either way, one group is going to be upset.

Google Makes Websites; Is There Anything Google Can't Do?

Google is best known for its search engine technology, which lets you find out anything about pretty much, well, anything with the click of a mouse. But the company has ventured into other areas over the years: cool Earth maps; e-mail via Gmail; documents; blogging software (like this one!); photo sharing via Picasa; videos via its purchase of YouTube; and now even mobile phone technology through a new mobile application platform called Android. Now, the company is taking a stab at creating Websites that users can easily edit, search, and maintain in small groups, or even through large corporations. Is there anything Google can't or won't do? And what's more, how on earth does the company continue to be able to offer such services for free?

Is Google just trying to get us all to use its applications, only to tack hefty fees onto them once they've convinced us that they're worthwhile? Or is this just an indication of the direction the technology industry is headed as a whole, with Google heading the apprehensive pack? Hmm...

Google is certainly attempting to take a huge chunk of business away from Microsoft, which offers many similar services (Hotmail, Word, Windows Media Player, and so forth). In turn, Microsoft is making moves to gobble up what it can as well (e.g. Yahoo!) to better compete against the search engine/Web behemoth. Either way, is it good for one company to have such power over the Web and your computer activities? Something to think about...

But back to Google's new Web technology, which is aptly named Google Sites. The application would make it easy to instantly update content to a Google-created Website, like adding study notes for a class project; calendar information for a group; and yes, even YouTube videos. And, of course, searching within the site is powered by none other than Google Search. Three versions are available: the basic Standard edition, which is free; and Education (free) and Premier ($50/yr. for each user account) editions, which add tons of functionality, including source code to integrate with your existing structure; third-party applications and services; and, in the Premier edition, a larger storage capacity for e-mail.

"We are literally adding an edit button to the web," said Google's Vice President and General Manager of Enterprise, Dave Girouard. "Creating a team Website has always been too complicated, requiring dedicated hardware and software as well as programming skills. Now with Google Sites, anyone can create an entirely customized site in minutes, and invite others to contribute."

Sure, this service might not necessarily be the way to go for big businesses, but for a school course, personal Website, or even temporary promotional Websites, Google Sites might just satisfy some cravings.

I have to give Google credit for building its massive empire, and creating products that are not only helpful and easy to use, but also in many cases, very affordable. Google is quite obviously a force to be reckoned with when it comes to anything and everything to do with the Web.

Does Anyone Even Use Hotmail Anymore?

I understand that the free Hotmail e-mail service has been giving some trouble today, leaving a reported 300 million North American users without access to their accounts. I am surprised that many people still use Hotmail.

Not that there's anything wrong with the e-mail service: I still have an ancient Hotmail account that I remember to check once a month, if that. It serves as a repository for newsletters and half-spam/half-interesting stuff that I might want to read one day. I used to use it simply as a portal to connect to the MSN Messenger instant messaging service, but with new social networking sites like Facebook, who needs it?

Not to mention that every ISP offers e-mail accounts with its service, along with Webmail access that lets you check your messages remotely (a colleague of mine didn't even know that such services were available until today!) So why bother with Hotmail?

The answer is because it's reliable, and, especially for techno-phobes, familiar. It's a great back-up account if something goes wrong with your ISP-related one; or you're unable to access your "regular" account from another country. I honestly can't remember a time when the Hotmail service was ever seriously "down" other than for regular maintenance, or maybe for a short period of time. But judging from the amount of press today's issue has been garnering, something has simply gone awry. Hopefully it's fixed sometime soon.

Sidenote: Right before publishing this news item at 4:30 p.m., I checked my own Hotmail account, and I was able to access it just fine.

Traveling on Business

Many jobs require frequent travel, and the publishing business is no exception. We’re often flying out of town for trade shows, press conferences, and other industry-related events. After going to CEDIA EXPO, and a few other conferences, over the last couple of months, I've observed a few irksome things about travel.

When traveling by plane, you’re sure to become annoyed at one thing or another: long lines at customs; being forced to take off your shoes; random baggage checks; not being able to take a bottle of water in your carry-on, and so on. But our experience went beyond these standard (but unfortunately necessary) annoyances.

Here’s the story: on the return flight from CEDIA, we noticed that the itinerary named two different airlines ("XX flight" in big letters "by YY"). As Murphy’s Law would have it, our driver insisted that he drop us off at airline XX, only to find out that we really should have been taken to airline YY’s check-in station. Needless to say, it wasn’t uncommon to hear a few expletives as we lugged our baggage across the airport. Why were two, active airlines named on the itinerary? And the incorrect one in larger, more prominent lettering, at that? Politics or not, there’s no need to confuse the traveler.

Once ready to check-in, my colleague was told he had to pay an additional fee because his suitcase was overweight. That was no big deal. But then the attendant added non-chalantly that if he split his things into two suitcases, he could avoid the extra cost. Huh? Apparently two bags that take up more room on a plane are better than one that’s slightly overweight. Needless to say, the expletives kept coming.

Of course the other part of business travel is the hotel stay which, for the most part in my experiences, has been wonderful. Many people these days stay in touch while traveling solely via handheld devices like a Blackberry, but someone like me who works predominantly online needs to stay connected on a full-blown notebook PC back in the room. I still can't believe that WiFi access isn't yet a standard free feature in hotels. I’ve stayed in some pretty fancy hotels, and could not believe that even they still make you pay $10 per day to log onto the ‘net. Haven’t we reached a point where Internet access is just as ubiquitous as a TV or clock radio?

I digress…

NBC Universal Says No to iTunes

NBC Universal is not renewing its contract with iTunes. According to Reuters, the studio is iTunes' number-one supplier of digital videos, including popular TV shows like Heroes, 30 Rock, and The Office.

NBC reportedly wants Apple to pay an inflated fee for the content, which would result in an increase in the price customers pay for downloads (supposedly US$4.99 per episode instead of US$1.99). Apple says sorry, that won't fly.

Of course none of this matters to us Canucks north of the border who can’t even get downloadable TV content through the Canadian iTunes service. Not that I'm bitter, but I'll digress, since this is a whole other topic unto itself!

Nevertheless, this decision could lead to some very interesting possible outcomes. The first, I propose, is that downloadable online video continues to appeal only to techno-geek, early adopters, and eventually dwindles away. Downloadable video is still in a growth phase. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the most popular media download site (i.e. iTunes) starts offering fewer quality videos instead of more, aren’t we moving in the wrong direction of where we want to be?

The second possible outcome is this: imagine NBC decides to launch its own site to rival iTunes (but just offers its own content); or partners with a competing online store that accomodates the price NBC wants. Would you pay $1.99 for stuff you don't want; or $4.99 for stuff you do? NBC announced in March that it would launch an ad-supported online video distribution site in partnership with Fox that would be available through partners like AOL and MySpace. You never know: I could be way off base, but an online video download store may not be too far off the horizon!

Sure, Apple’s domination in the portable player and online download arena is really being put to the test as of late, but we can't forget the third possible scenario: NBC feels the pain of missing the exposure of its 2007-08 season through iTunes (Apple reportedly said it would pull the plug before the new season rather than wait until the end of the year); and Apple laughs all the way to the bank.

Which way will things go? We'll just have to wait and see.

Chicago Doesn’t Want to be Covered in WiFi

Just as several cities, including Canada’s own Toronto, ramp up for blanket WiFi service, Chicago has decided not to proceed with it. Why? Officials say it would be too expensive, and not enough people would actually use it.

I can’t argue with that. I live in the heart of downtown Toronto, right smack-dab in the middle of our blanket WiFi One Zone high-speed Internet, which is offered through Toronto Hydro Telecom. When this service was on free trial, I tried constantly to log on, and although I could see the network, I could never successfully get to the page to set up an account and log in. Funny enough, now that you have to pay to use it, my notebook constantly picks up the network and tries to log me on. Sure, it’s cheaper than my current high-speed package. But time is precious, and there’s nothing more frustrating than trying to get online and not being able to.

Plus, I don’t trust services like blanket WiFi to offer speeds that could rival my high-speed Internet at home; and saving a few bucks isn’t worth the potential for pulling my hair out because of super-slow speeds, whether I'm at home, or sitting in a coffee shop.

However, as they say, don't knock it 'til you try it, right? Maybe one sunny day, if I'm sitting on patio and feel like propping open my laptop to get some work done, I might just pay the $10 and try it out .

Meanwhile, the future of blanket WiFi is looking bright, as many tout WiMax as the “next big thing” in wireless technology. “WiMAX makes broadband as ubiquitous as air, and we believe it is key,” said Motorola President Greg Brown at the Canadian Telecom Summit that was held in June in Toronto, ON.

As technologies like WiMax and 3G for mobile devices continue to develop, blanket wireless might become a much more attractive option.

[Photo: Toronto Mayor David Miller and Toronto Hydro Telecom President, David Dobbin log on to the One Zone WiFi network while on King St. in Toronto, ON.]