Actually there is a regulation over the internet!

Are not the property and intellectual rights a sort of regulation (not by the goverment but from private owned companies and organisations) over the content in internet?

Why cannot I listen to a canadian state-owned radio podcast?

"Malheureusement, nous ne disposons pas, pour le moment, des droits nous permettant d'offrir notre programmation en baladodiffusion."

Why BBC iplayer content can only be accessed within the Islands?

Why can't Pandora webcast their radio service?

Some news on the Net Neutrality debate

Just a quick post gathering some interesting links on the net neutrality debate:

• Next Net Neutrality Steps at the CRTC (Michael Gesit)
  

• New majority loses nerve on net neutrality (Zdnet)
  

• Broadcasting regulations to govern online video? (EJC Media)

Bye bye Net Neutrality (and not because of regulators)

Time Warner to test Internet billing based on usage

By Yinka AdegokeWed Jan 16, 10:50 PM ET

Time Warner Cable Inc said on Wednesday it is planning a trial to bill high-speed Internet subscribers based on their amount of usage rather than a flat fee, the standard industry practice.

The second largest U.S. cable operator said it will test consumption-based billing with subscribers in Beaumont, Texas later this year as a part of a strategy to help reduce congestion of its network by a minority of consumers who pay the same monthly fee as light users.

The company believes the billing system will impact only heavy users, who account for around 5 percent of all customers but typically use more than half of the total network bandwidth, according to a company spokesman.

Slowing network congestion due to downloading of large media files such as video is a growing problem for Time Warner Cable. The company said the problem will worsen as video downloading becomes more popular.

But the move could prove controversial. Unlike with utility bills such as the phone or electricity, which have traditionally been based on usage, U.S. high-speed Internet subscribers have come to expect a fixed monthly charge. An Internet bill typically only varies based on the speed of the consumer's Internet access.

Time Warner Cable, which has 7.4 million residential Internet subscribers, is hoping the move will not confuse consumers if introduced nationwide and is planning a trial period.

"Largely, people won't notice the difference," said the Time Warner Cable spokesman. "We don't want customers to feel they're getting less for more." News of Time Warner Cable's plans was originally leaked on an online industry forum BroadbandReports.com.

Other cable operators may follow Time Warner Cable's lead and phone companies such as Verizon Communications Inc and AT&T Inc are likely to be watching the New York-based cable operator's plans.

As U.S. consumers have become more used to streaming and downloading digital media over the Web, their Internet service providers have started to come under pressure to be able to keep up with growing demand in a cost-effective manner.

Comcast Corp, the largest cable operator with around 13 million Internet subscribers, has been accused by consumer groups of blocking Web traffic moving across its networks, prompting a notice of inquiry by the Federal Communications Commission earlier this week.

Comcast denies it blocks any Internet traffic saying it uses bandwidth management technology to help improve the customer experience but which may slow down some file transfers.

(Editing by Lincoln Feast)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080117/media_nm/timewarner_internet_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AitprTX2GJdEBUQLAbdFWH8VkmwF

Conference on Network Neutrality: Implications for Europe

The Wissenschaftliches Institut für Infrastruktur und Kommunikationsdienste (WIK) is organizing an international conference in Bonn on the Network Neutrality issue. The conference will be held on the 3rd and 4th December.
The program looks very interesting as it gathers a wide range of subjects. Though it seems the issue of cultural industries and the impact of transnational consumption of contents will not be treated in the session addressing the economics of NN. It focus on carriers bandwith consumption.

Link to conference info: http://www.wik.org/content/netneutrality_main.htm

New site feeding the Internet Neutrality debate

A couple of weeks ago Michael Geist announced he was taking over www.neutrality.ca, a cornerstone of the Internet Neutrality debate. Now, another site is coming to town: "What is Net Neutrality?", a site enhanced the Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking (CRACIN). I am sure these innitiative will empower de debate and generate interesting contributions.

Is there anyone outside Canada concerned or interested in the subject? It would be reassured...

Net Neutrality questions (I)

Let's say it from the very beggining: Net Neutrality is good. Well, at least is "the least bad". But is it sacred?

The Net Neutrality debate has been developed around the pressure telcos to manage the bandwidth to maximize profit and many other reasons. Supporters of the Net Neutrality appeal to freedom and too other many arguments you may find out there (see recommended readings).

I have some questions rised up by the cultural diversity debate.

My first question would be: is there a right by States to tax audiovisual Internet sites profits to promote "national" content?

The point is: if I set up an enterprise in Canada to webcast or to sell audiovisual content through internet, I will (proudly) be obliged to pay my taxes to Canada Revenue. Whereas if I am a Canadian buying a film at amazon.com, Canada Revenue will not get a single centime from them.

And the same goes to large free-to-consume audiovisual sites. Joost or Youtube make large profits from around the world but all profits goes to the same place.

I am aware most people would argue that thanks to NN it is possible to make the same thing from anywhere else in the world so it is a free-trade and open market that might promote cultural diversity. But it is clear that the cultural domination comes from the USA audiovisual industry. So, the question is: could we implement to the Internet the same policy the CRTC applies to the Cable and Satellite industry? We could oblige Youtube to localize in Canada, so they pay the taxes they get from Canadian consumers, so we can reinvest in Canadian content, or…

Two elements to consider:

• The Net Neutrality is being undermined by the audiovisual industry through the rights management. We have recently seen the lock out of Pandora's site. But there are lots of others like Disney.com, blogtv.ca and BBC.co.uk (in the case of soccer matches, that affects me) which cannot be accessed from abroad.
• The Net Neutrality is already challenged in the gambling sector. Countries like Australia, Austria and France block internet gambling site to prevent their citizens to participate in what is a State monopole.

Recommended readings:

• Principles of NN (M Goldberg)
• No Tolls on The Internet, the Washington Post
• The Neutrality.ca is back (Thanks to Michael Geist)

3alacarta VoD, a mirror for IMPlayer and BBC

3alacarta is the IPTV service of TV3 or TVCat, the Catalan public broadcaster. It was launched a couple of years ago through the CCRTV Interactiva, the Internet division of the Catalan Radio and Television Corporation (CCRTV).

Up to now the business model was based on an mixture offer of free and and pay per view content. Always on a Video on Demand scheme. It is to believe that this model was not very successful, though the website was very popular. From now on 3alacarta will show for free all content broadcasted during the last seven days.

But what is "astonishing" is that 3alacarta can be watched worlwide! (People from the BBC, are you writing it down?)

We recommend you the radio internet service from the CCRTV: ICatfm. Enjoy it before copyright nights will stop them webcasting abroad (as it has happened with Pandora).

Wifi is in the air... But what do telcos think?

You just have to set up your computer wifi connection anywhere and you will reach many wifi network connection. Of course many of them are locked up so you cannot connect.

Moreover, the latter cellular generation include wifi connection.

In fact, where do we use the cellular:

• At home
• At work
• Waiting in a cafe for somebody who's late
• At a friends house
• At a shopping center
• At the airport or stations
• ...

So what if sharing wifi connections experiences (under secure schemes) do popularize? There are some experiences (Guifi.net, Fon,...).

What if people use voip software (no calling cost) to communicate in those place?

How would telcos react?

In fact, they are reacting. We will come back on that.

Recommended reading: Wi-Fi is Evil by Mark Evans