The non conformer's Canadian Weblog

September 21, 2009

Bit Torrent – P2P sites -network traffic -Network Neutrality

today2
 
 
 Bell ITSELF NOW WANTS TO MAKE MORE MONEY SELLING MOVIES DIRECTLY TO YOU ON THE NET SO IT READILY WANTS TO ACT LIKE BIG BROTHER POLICE TOO AND FORBID YOU TO DOWNLOAD ANY SUPPOSEDLY PIRATED MATERIAL.. AND WHAT ELSE WILL IT TRY TO CENSOR NOW TOO? BELL THE BIG DIABOLICAL POLICE STATE NOW TOO?
 
 
NOW FOR A START TOO LET MY GOVERNMENT OF CANADA RIGHTFULLY LOOK FIRST FULLY AFTER THE CITIZENS BEST INTEREST , CONSUMER PROTECTION AND NOT THE INTEREST OF BIG BUSINESS MAINLY TOO.
 
“Canadian officials are taking part in negotiations for a top-secret copyright treaty that could see families barred from the Internet for a year if someone in the household is suspected of illegal downloads.Under the worldwide rules of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Internet service providers such as Bell and Rogers in Canada would be required to become copyright police and filter out pirated material from their networks, hand over the identities of customers believed to be infringing copyrights and restrict the use of identity-blocking software.ACTA would employ a three-strikes policy. People believed to be regularly downloading copy-protected material, such as movie and music files, could have their Internet connection severed for up to 12 months and forced to pay a fine. “It’s incredibly disproportionate. Three unproven allegations of infringement will cut off Internet service for a year for an entire family,” said Michael Geist, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa.”It’s not based on the individual user, it’s based on the connection,” added Geist, who said he has received details of the proposals from people closely associated with drafting the agreement. The treaty, which is being pushed forward by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, closely mimics the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that governs copyright issues in the U.S. It puts in place measures that would make it illegal for consumers to make backup copies of DVDs or other media with built-in copy-protection technology. Other provisions could make information on iPods, laptops and other personal electronic devices illegal and force travellers to prove to border officials that the content on such devices was acquired through legal channels.  http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Canada+talks+over+copyright+laws+with+bite/2189494/story.html
 
 
 
 
“All of the computer internet P2P growth we’ve seen over the past several months is in the torrent community,” Free Bit Torrent usage still  soars as Bell, Videotron and others have  put caps  against P2P USERS, sites.  Both the music, movie industries  and many of the big Internet Service Providers now all do see P2P file-sharing of movies, films, TV shows,  pictures, wallpapers, music, books, magazines,  games, software, other, etc., as a very real threat to their maximum profitability. Greed and profitability clearly has overtaken them.. Bit Torrent TV Documentaries, History, TV shows themselves are increasingly becoming popular world wide , and are being bundled into multi-episode packs. “Many People are migrating towards three packs, six packs, and even whole seasons,” Bell and Videotron themselves now are in a false conflict of customer interest cause they rent movies, games too.
 
All of the  governments should now step in given the justified rising anti-competitive, anti monopoly sentiment nation wide, curbing their monopoly sectors from grabbing, gouging  exorbitant profits from the customers,  and preventing these monopoly sectors from taking advantage of their market position to overcharge consumers.  Encouraging real, valid competition, for example, is the ultimate way of breaking up monopolies. But the government some times instead  sticks to price controls or no controls to tackle the monopoly problem. The governments can deal  with monopolized interests only if it gathers adequate political will.  
   
Broadband campaign spurs 20,000 letters to MPs. A public relations and lobbying campaign launched by small internet providers for government intervention in the broadband market has spurred more than 20,000 letters to MPs, the companies say. The Coalition for Competitive Broadband, a group led by Winnipeg-based MTS Allstream and made up of more than 50 small internet providers and the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, launched a website two weeks ago to muster support against several recent regulatory decisions. I think its time it [the Internet] became a public utility like power and water.” A campaign for government intervention in the telecom market as well… I think most of us is sick of “paying among the highest cellphone bills in the developed world”.  CRTC is not protecting regular Canadian’s interest. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/09/24/broadband-competition-coalition-numbers.html Competitive Broadband website
 
The United States is moving toward enshrining a free and open internet with six proposed rules designed to prevent telecommunications companies from interfering with how people use their connections. The rules are needed because American internet providers have interfered with internet traffic on a number of occasions and they must be prevented from doing so in the future, said Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski.   Long overdue in Canada. The Hydro company does not check what brand of appliance I plug in to determine my power consumption.  Telecoms should not be “packet sniffing” to determine my connection speed. Canada needs some net-neutrality guarantees as well to prevent the telecom oligopoly from their dirty tricks. The CRTC needs to start working for us instead of the big companies. They should also put in some guidelines on acceptable marketing strategies for ISP’s. The “up to 10 Mbps” is really misleading when all you ever see is 500 Kbps. It should be based on the average expected speed and we should be getting a credit if we do not get those speeds. It takes American law to show our government what Canadian people have been asking for years.   http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/09/21/fcc-formal-net-neutrality-rules-crtc.html
 
The peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic is a dominant type of Internet traffic today, consuming up to 30% of all Internet backbone traffic. P2P applications consume a lion share of ISP network capacity, consuming the ISP  bandwidth . The Pirate Bay bragged that after a Danish ISP was forced to block its subscribers from accessing the Swedish site, traffic spiked. TPB attributes the increase from the publicity surrounding the ISP’s action. Those new to P2P seem to be jumping on the BitTorrent bandwagon.  “All of the growth is in the torrent community, which maybe suggests that the audience for traditional P2P is mature.”
 
Consumers are readily able to access freely any of the many  torrent sites day and night, and totally freely  download at will now too, no  initial or ongoing costs too, even sites like the all free   TV Team, EZTV,  BTARENA TorrentBoxTorrent Reactor,  Torrent Hound,  Summo ,  Your Bittorrent Pirate Bay, http://mightynova.com/ etc..  But you’ll need a free  BitTorrent client like uTorrent before .torrent links on any site would work. Great free torrent download software now has made it all possible.. the software like the free µTorrent which is the world’s most popular BitTorrent client. Most of the features present in other BitTorrent clients are present in µTorrent, including bandwidth prioritization, scheduling, RSS auto-downloading and Mainline DHT (compatible with BitComet).
 
Recently  a press release was issued   suggested something quite startling — HTTP (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol, aka Web traffic) had for the first time in four years overtaken P2P. The   WWW web surfing is outpacing file sharing. Ironically, this growing is due the popularization of tools that allow users to share the files via www, tools like YouTube and Flicker. However a new article from Slyck disputes this, and contends that P2P remains the bandwidth heavyweight.   P2P (which is a class of applications, not a specific protocol) was created to deal with huge files)    Another  report based on data from   US and European ISPs claims P2P traffic has mostly dropped to around 20% of all Internet traffic,   down from the 40% two years ago  likely due to continued, widespread ISP P2P capping and MOST CONSUMER HAVE NOT BEEN HAPPY ABOUT THIS NOW AT ALL TOO. .
 
Do always  check your actual ISP speed http://www.acanac.ca/speedtest/  check for the blatant theft-corruption on a daily basis and ask them to fix it immediately as well..

Today, there are four main ways  to address P2P network traffic growth –

 • ISP Pricing and Policies – modifying subscription plans from unlimited to usage based pricing which is very unpopular too, it seems doubtful that subscribers used to unlimited plans will tolerate new pricing. Competitive disadvantage compared to ISPs offering flat-rate pricing

Purchasing Additional Bandwidth – buying transit bandwidth to accommodate network growth from increased P2P usage unfortunately ISP suppliers are trying to gouge the customers here too

Traffic Shaping – utilizing deep packet inspection devices to throttle or completely discriminately block P2P traffic and rightfully the customers, users see his as harassment, a contract violation and shaping P2P traffic limits future ISP revenue opportunities from more P2P services.

P2P Caching – utilizing P2P caches to cache and serve P2P content- Content caching is a well-known and established technology used by ISPs primarily for acceleration of Web content delivery. It Generates bandwidth without additional backbone investments but an Upfront investment is  required.  P2P caching, similar to Web caching, temporarily stores popular content flowing into the ISP network. If the content requested by a subscriber is available from a cache, cache satisfies the request from its temporary storage, eliminating data transfer through expensive transit line. With estimates of over 75% of P2P content is requested multiple times, P2P content responds well to caching, manifesting high reuse patterns. Once a P2P Cache is established, the network transparently redirects all P2P traffic to a cache which either serves the file directly or passes the request onto a remote P2P user and simultaneously caches that file for the next user. Estimates are that P2P caches have seen an amazing 80% byte hit ratio, meaning that 4 of 5 files requested via P2P can be served by the cache. This is significantly much higher than http/web caching. P2P Caching is the only solution that enables ISPs to fully and affordably embrace P2P on their networks. Instead of growing bandwidth to meet increasing demand, or limiting P2P usage through policies or traffic shaping, P2P Caching lets ISPs simultaneously serve the needs of P2P and non-P2P users without negatively impacting either audience. In fact, P2P Caching provides an improved experience for all subscribers – P2P users whose file sharing is improved through using the cache, and non-P2P users who experience better performance from networks un-congested from P2P traffic. http://www.peerapp.com/docs/ComparingP2P.pdf

 
The Canadian cellphone and internet speeds, rates are unacceptably among world’s worst, Canadians are being hosed for more and more money for their access still too.   Rogers, Bell, Videotron, Shaw, Telus all only care about one thing.. maximum profits.. motivated by maximum greed.. finding an excuse to charge the customer for more.. and that they have done with their regulating, capping… and no one cares about what the consumer thinks, even the  politicians, governments, the CRTC included.  No companies provide a FULL  service or an adequate  product it seems these days…. all they provide mainly now is more profits for themselves hopefully. And as long as we allow them to do so, by letting companies and industries run roughshod over the governance of the country, then also the corprote bad service, lies, price gouging  will continue. Good Products and good services falsely are a distant second in offerings in relation to corporate profits. 
 

do see also

https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/the-new-still-sad-unacceptable-reality/

https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/crtc-farcical-hearings-on-internet-speed-control/

 

Free public domain photos, wallpapers http://www.photos8.com/
  
 “Canada lags in wireless service …   … and what should be done about it   By Michael Geist, Citizen  August 25, 2009 Where does Canada stand with respect to the cost of wireless services?  the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development released new figures that ranked it as the third most expensive developed country.  Given that consumers have a hard time making sense of the different plans, options, and hidden fees offered by Canada’s big three wireless providers (Rogers, Bell and Telus), it should come as little surprise that comparisons of wireless services across dozens of countries is exceptionally difficult. Some countries charge consumers for both incoming and outgoing calls, while many others do not. Moreover, hidden charges such as Canada’s system access fee — which can add as much as 25 per cent to a monthly bill — are often excluded from cost calculations. While the debate will continue to rage, few currently hold Canada up as a model of wireless leadership.
 
If not pricing, what should policy makers and politicians be focusing on? Four main issues come to mind.
-The first is competition, particularly among GSM providers. While this will change later this year, for the moment Rogers is the only GSM provider in the country. Since GSM has emerged as the dominant global wireless technology, this has had big consequences for consumer choice and marketplace competition. Most new devices, such as the popular Apple iPhone, are available only for GSM providers, meaning that Rogers has enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the hottest devices.  There is another spectrum auction on the horizon that holds the possibility of opening the door to further competitors, particularly if Industry Minister Tony Clement is willing to revisit foreign ownership restrictions.
-The auction also provides an opportunity to address the second issue — wireless net neutrality. The current “walled garden” approach adopted by Canadian carriers, in which they frequently control the applications that run on their networks, has already attracted the attention of the CRTC. It has ruled that new regulatory requirements are needed to counter the resulting competition concerns.
-Transparency in pricing should also be addressed. Canadian carriers continue to levy system access fees as a separate charge, despite the fact that they are nothing more than an additional cost to consumers. Moreover, carriers often bury significant usage restrictions in the fine print, leaving consumers without a true sense of the cost of their mobile phones. Clear guidelines on disclosures would enable consumers to better choose among providers.
-Fourth, the length of consumer contracts further stymies competition. Canadian wireless carriers attempt to lock consumers into contracts for far longer than virtually any other developed country, with three-year contracts considered the norm. Several years ago, Canada instituted wireless number portability that allows consumers to keep their numbers when switching providers. While designed to fuel greater competition, the policy has largely failed, owing to the combined effect of a single GSM provider (meaning consumers often lose their device when switching providers) and long-term contracts.
 Canadians should be focused on competition, walled gardens, pricing transparency, and a cap on contractual terms. “
Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.cahttp://www.canada.com/technology/Canada+lags+wireless+service/1926050/story.html

On Monday, the US FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski  outlinined  plans to turn the agency’s principles for open Internet access into official regulation.  In addition to making sure that network operators cannot prevent users from accessing lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, or attaching unharmful devices to the network, Genachowski wants to add two more rules.   The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management. The second principle would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement. But the regulation that Genachowski is proposing will not apply to just wireline broadband networks, such as DSL and cable modem service. It will also apply to wireless services. Wireless carriers shouldn’t be allowed to block certain types of Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

 FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said wireless carriers should be subject to the same “open Internet” principles that the agency has begun to apply to home broadband providers. The FCC is already investigating the state of competition in the wireless market. Even though there are four major nationwide carriers–AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA–the majority of the market is controlled by two carriers. And their dominance is increasing.  And the US President Obama’s anti-trust cop Christine Varney is now also  reviewing, a Bottleneck Monopoly,   the Telecom  wireless companies’ exclusive handset deals–most notably AT&T’s monopoly control over Apple’s iPhone. The US  Congress is starting to wonder whether it’s fair business.  It’s the first step in what could be a regulatory road; one that could result in major shake-ups inside the cell industry. Congress is bringing this up now because rural cell phone companies have complained that exclusivity agreements are unfair to small carriers. When the national bullies have exclusive rights to a phone, the rural cousins do also  have to peddle inferior devices. The Justice Department may also review whether telecom carriers are unduly restricting the types of services other companies can offer on their networks.  The Australian government raised pressure on Australia’s largest telecommunications company Telstra Corp.  to surrender its market domination by splitting its wholesale and retail businesses and what is Canada, the CRTC doing as well? Nothing good!

   
WHAT SPIN DOCTOR BELL ALSO DOES NOT TELL ALL OF IT’S CUSTOMERS .Canadian cell phone carrier, DAVE Wireless, announced  that it had signed a licensing agreement with Bell Mobility, allowing it to attach wireless transmitters to Bell’s existing cell sites. What most citizens do not realize is that wireless phones are digital based too, operating on Bell’s internet services too  AND IT FURTHER EXPLAINS WHY BELL HAS TO CAP IT INTERNET CUSTOMERS’ USAGES, DOWNLOADS OFTEN TOO, TO MAKE THE ROOM FOR THE WIRELESS PHONES AS WELL . BELL REALLY DOES NOT HAVE EXISTING ADEQUATE CAPACITY FOR BOTH, NOT EVEN FOR THE HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICES IN ALL AREAS OF CANADA. IT IS CLEARLY TOO CHEAP TO SPEND CAPITAL TO DO THIS?
 
 
It has always confounded me as to why the liars, crooks, deceivers, abusers in governments, churches,   institutions, corporations   too often do still do think they can get away with now, next and forever.
 
FOR WE TEND TO KNOW THAT THEY THE CROOKS, ABUSERS TOO,  NOW ARE NOT ABOUT TO STOP THEIR WRONG DOINGS. RATHER THEY WILL NEXT EVEN ESCALATE, CONTINUE IN THEM. AND THAT IS ANOTHER VALID REASON  THEY DO NEED TO BE EXPOSED, PROSECUTED AND STOPPED. EVEN FOR THE GOOD OF US ALL.
 
  
While the pretentious Canadian Liberal and Conservatives governments, are presently engulfed in the  Quebec mafia scandals too, while they  clearly do not care about the average citizens, about their consumer protection, yes the ordinary citizens  concerns too, but they all  wrongfully it seems to care only about big businesses making  more money at any costs, the reality of this is all  evident by the fact this  page has become the ALL TIME most read post of mine.. 
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/crtc-farcical-hearings-on-internet-speed-control/
The federal, provincial governments, the CRTC, Conservatives, Liberals  unfairly maintaining  archaic, monopolistic telecommunication firms, that are often   bloated, cost ineffective, incompetent, over staffed, un-competitively managed as well is the main reasons consumer costs falsely keep on going up now.
  
FIRST DO TELL MY GOVERNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA THAT ALL THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, THE RCMP TOO NOW,  COPYRIGHTS DO ALSO BELONG TO ME, A CITIZEN OF CANADA, ONE OF THE MAY OWNERS OF CANADA NOW TOO, AND THAT AS A RESULT I CAN PASTE, POST ANY OF MY COPYRIGHT MATERIAL  FREELY ON MY WEBS SITE FOR ALL TO SEE.
 
TORONTO – The office of Canada’s auditor general says it’s perfectly OK – and much appreciated – if websites link to reports on its government site, but warns they should not be hosted elsewhere. Advocates for copyright reform expressed concern Thursday when the auditor general’s office demanded the Globe and Mail newspaper remove a copy of a report that had been attached to one of its online articles. The Globe was displaying the report with a web application called Scribd, which allows large documents to be embedded on a web page without the need for an external program like Adobe Reader. It also keeps readers on the same web page, rather than sending them off to another site to read the document. Beth Stewart, a lawyer for the office of auditor general Sheila Fraser, said the document was ordered off Scribd’s servers because of concerns with the website’s terms of use. It was her understanding that users of Scribd documents are permitted to alter the files and use them in other ways, Stewart said.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/life/sci_tech/Auditor-general_s-office-says-it_s-OK-to-link-to_-but-not-host_-its-reports-69326817.html

POOR SERVICES- ISP, Phone still an unacceptable reality

 Bell_Logo_2

Daily we are now being flooded Canada wide too with a host of new promised  services, and many new products available on the radio, on the internet, in the news media.. P2P USAGES https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/bittorrent-p2p-sites/
 
The marketing departments even of big three telecommunication firms providing internet and telephone services in Canada too : Bell , Rogers, Telus as well are still now clearly telling the  lies, spinning the truth, making typically past unkept promises  of the customer’s full satisifactions too, and  even now advertising at great costs, high costs that will be passed on the customers even,  all now done to try to win back many past lost unhappy customers, and to hopefully gain new customers, Being done basically because they are basically all UNWILLING TO FACE still OR to deal with THE ACTUAL REASONS MANY CUSTOMERS HAVE BECOME DISSATISFIED.
 
Every  company is guilty it seems to some extent of these sad, bad practices. No companies provide a FULL  service or an adequate  product it seems these days…. all they provide is profits for themselves hopefully. And as long as we allow them to do so, by letting companies and industries run roughshod over the governance of the country, then this will continue. Good Products and good services falsely are a distant second in offerings in relation to corporate profits.
The Canadian cellphone and internet speeds, rates among world’s worst, Canadians are being hosed for their access still too.
 
Do always  check your actual ISP speed http://www.acanac.ca/speedtest/  check for the blatant theft-corruption on a daily basis and ask them to fix it immediately as well..
 
 Rogers, Bell, Videotron, Shaw, Telus all only care about one thing.. maximum profits.. motivated by maximum greed.. finding an excuse to charge the customer for more.. and that they have done with their regulating, capping… and no one cares about what the consumer thinks, the CRTC included. 
 
and there are many many more valid complaints now too
 
Many customers do  feel they have been mislead, lied to, denied falsely the services they had been originally promised and instead now face extras for promised, even basic services, are very unhappy with the high prices, with what they see as unfair, restrictive trade practices, price fixings, price collusions, price gougings, suprise fees, failure to live up to agreed upon contracts, false contract terminations, even now  amongst the big three as well all being done while the governments lie  too and do  not stand up for,  do not Protect the citizens, consumers again and again. Unacceptable always too!
 
The governments and these firms now are really all fools, for the much too many dissatisfied angry customers, consumers, citizens do not merely now next disappear, or go away, rather they tend to they hold on to their resentments, and they tend to and will seek alternative means of revenge, back back now as well upon all of the immoral, pretentious persons too in reality. Do send a copy to the PM@gc.ca
 
 
 
 
see also
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/crtc-farcical-hearings-on-internet-speed-control/
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/buyer-beware-beware
 
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/why-many-businesses-fail
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/deceptive-unacceptable-unfair-business-trade-practices-unreliable-internet-access 
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/class-action-suit-against-bell-sympatico
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/12/18/unfair
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/bell-internet
http://anyonecare.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/bell-bce-sympatico
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/is-your-isp-still-even-watching-you
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/the-war-against-bell
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/bell-throttles-internet-speeds
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/and
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/consumers-affairs
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/bell-lied
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/i-cannot-trust-you-for-you-lie-to-me-all-the-time
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/basic-contract-law
http://witnessed.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/this-next-was-so-predictable-even-by-me-too
 http://postedat.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/pay-back-revenge/
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/federal-consumer-protection-ha-ha-ha/
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/crtc-is-clearly-in-bells-bad-pocket/
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/commissioner-for-complaints-for-telecommunications-services/
 

 PS: Also the Companies from different markets — or that themselves span multiple markets — can make more money in some instances by tying their offerings together, so that in order to use one, you also have to use the other. Although the approach is not without the occasional advantage for the consumer (cable companies say their practice of bundling stations encourages niche programming, for instance), consumers mostly chafe when their choice of a certain product or service restricts their choice in another area. ’Triple play’ packages for internet, phone and television – If your company owns technology for delivering television or telephone service, the internet represents a horrible monster set on destroying your market with its capacity to deliver all kinds of media over a single pipe. That’s why, if you’re smart, you bundle these offerings into packages that seem to offer lower costs, but in fact bind consumers to expensive habits — hopefully, for years to come, from these companies’ perspective. If you’re paying for phone and television along with your internet, you’re almost certainly less likely to.

 

ISPs and content providers,   or Cellphone carriers and cellphone manufacturers Most people know that the only reason you don’t pay the true cost of your cellphone hardware is that you have to sign a lengthy contract with a cellphone provider — a situation that is exacerbated by exclusive hardware contracts such as the one Apple signed with AT&T for the iPhone. If you want to use this particular piece of hardware, you have to use its exclusive partner or unlock your phone, voiding its warranty and risking having it “bricked” from afar as punishment for allowing the device to operate outside of its original network. Cooperation between cellphone manufacturers and service providers is nice, in that it lowers the initial cost of phones, but it has led to an inefficient market that discourages consumer choice, unless you count the option to switch networks and throw out your hardware every year or two. And this isn’t just about cellphones — the same is happening with netbooks. The relationship between carrier and manufacturer even extends to which apps your phone is permitted to run (see Google Voice and SlingPlayer).

 
CABLE COMPANIES AND SHADY POLITICIANS!!  PLEASE SHOUT THIS FROM THE ROOFTOPS!! Those of us in rural areas can’t even get cable, high speed internet, so why does it cost me extra taxes to get satellite…CABLE CORRUPTION IS ALSO RUNNING RAMPANT!!   http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/five-industry-collusions-wed-like-to-throw-down-a-black-hole
 
 
25 Years after breakup of the US AT&T: The American Telephone industry still lacks significant competition.   Twenty-five years after the breakup of AT&T, consumers have seen significant changes in how they make telephone calls, what they pay and the services they receive. Are we better off today than we were 25 years ago? The answer depends on who’s talking. Competition for AT&T service has not come from similar providers as was hoped when the government broke up the monopoly. Instead, it has come from companies offering mobile phone or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services. But these services are different.  Many consumers are as dependent on mobile phones as they are on traditional land lines. Others still have phone service through a wire line, but that line might be connected to a cable TV system or directly to the Internet.Cell phones offer mobility, but require a wireless signal that is not available in many rural areas of Ohio. VoIP service requires a broadband Internet signal that also is not available to many Ohioans. Unlike traditional wire line service that operates even during extended electrical outages, wireless and VoIP services cannot operate after backup batteries, if any, are depleted. Moreover, the price and quality of cell phone and VoIP services are generally not regulated by state government compared to the way the Baby Bells’ services were. Cell phone service with unlimited calling is typically more expensive for consumers than wire line service. VoIP service requires consumers to pay a separate monthly fee for access to the Internet and a charge for VoIP service itself. Today, 25 years after it was broken up, AT&T and other telephone companies seek fewer regulations and less regulatory oversight from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). While price has been deregulated, in order to protect consumers, the terms and conditions of service should continue to be regulated. Similar regulations should be applied to wireless and VoIP services to protect consumers of those services as well. It is fairly typical that services that have been deregulated in terms of price still retain regulation of consumer protections. The OCC experts worry there is not nearly enough competition to drive down consumer costs and improve quality. Twenty-first century technology made construction and maintenance of telephone systems less expensive than 25 years ago, but prices are headed upward. We are fighting for consumers so they can benefit from cost savings. At the same time, we are advocating that all companies meet minimum telephone service standards. Long distance calling has become more affordable over the years as well. The OCC welcomes the development of new technologies and options for consumers, but believes consumer protections are needed to ensure fairness. http://www.pickocc.org/mediacenter/migden-ostrander/message/2009/june.shtml

Obama’s anti-trust cop Christine Varney is dusting off the Sherman Act and reviewing wireless companies’ exclusive handset deals–most notably AT&T’s monopoly control over Apple’s iPhone. The US  Congress is starting to wonder whether it’s fair business. Four senators—Kerry, Wicker, Dorgan, and Klobuchar—have sent a letter to the FCC requesting an examination of the wireless industry and whether this whole exclusivity thing is kosher. And  the commerce committee is corralling a bunch of wireless execs and researchers in Washington. They’ll chat about exclusivity and question whether it limits competition. It’s the first step in what could be a    regulatory road; one that could result in major shake-ups inside the cell industry. Congress is bringing this up now because rural cell phone companies have complained that exclusivity agreements are unfair to small carriers. When the national bullies have exclusive rights to a phone, the rural cousins do also  have to peddle inferior devices. The Justice Department may also review whether telecom carriers are unduly restricting the types of services other companies can offer on their networks and what is Canada, the CRTC doing as well? Nothing good!

 

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.