Vishesh Kumar of the Wall Street Journal writes:

When it comes to Internet access, is there such a thing as too fast? That’s a question U.S. Internet providers are grappling with as they place strategic bets on whether or not to upgrade their networks to offer high-priced, superhigh-speed Web connections.

There have been plenty of comparisons between Internet access speeds and money.  Can one ever have enough money?  I’m sure none of us is at a loss when it comes to thinking of ways to spend money.

But more important than the money analogy is the importance of faster Internet access to media and technological innovation.

Since the advent of broadband connections we’ve seen the rise to ubiquity of YouTube, the advent of Internet applications that rival their desktop counterparts in functionality, and even the feasibility of cloud computing.  More than this, we’ve seen unprecedented democratization of information and the absolute ease of its dissemination.

This progress has all be thanks to the rise in Internet speeds.

Now imagine what we can do with 100Mbps or 400Mbps connections.  Just think of the possibilities.

Superhigh-speed broadband connections has the potential to make ubiquitous high-resolution videos, real-time video broadcast, and much, much more.  Most exciting is the prospect of engaging, entertaining, useful and indispensible applications of these superhigh-speed connections that we haven’t even thought of yet.

We don’t normally think of money as enabling us to contribute to society on the grand scale, and so comparisons of bandwidth-wealth to monetary-wealth fall short.  Bandwidth-wealth will usher in the next generation of rich media and communications access.

The important questions to ask no longer pertain to the need for faster internet access, but rather to the issues around time to deployment and ease of access.

I’d like my superhigh-speed access now, please, and I’ll take it in the 400Mbps variety, thank you very much!

(From Digg)

It looks like the net neutrality debate is finally picking up in Canada.  As far as I’m concerned, we’ve been way overdue for such a debate.  Rogers Canada’s traffic shaping practice, and now Bell’s, has gone on long enough.  South of the border, Comcast has buckled to consumer outrage and Congressional pressure.  Canadians need to let Rogers and Bell know how disappointed we are as well.

In the fight against big media, I believe we need the government to support the Canadian people against the unfair advantage these telecoms have.  They own all the infrastructure and obviously have an interest in ensuring the Internet cannot threaten their significant investments into competing distribution channels (digital cable or satellite service).

To this end, I’ve written to Jim Prentice, the Minister of Industry.

Read on…

Dear Mr. Prentice:

As a very concerned Canadian citizen, I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with your ministry’s policy of remaining uninvolved in the case of The Canadian People vs. Bell & Rogers in the issue of net neutrality.

In response to Charlie Angus’ question about your ministry’s involvement in this fight, the Globe and Mail quotes you as saying:

“At this point in time we will continue to leave the matter between consumers on the one hand and Internet service providers on the other”

I was extremely disappointed to read that you are leaving the Canadian people to fight an unfair battle, one in which the opponent holds the upper hand and all the bargaining power.

What power do I as a consumer have?  If today Rogers and Bell are suppressing technologies like BitTorrent, which help to enable media distribution over the Internet, what alternatives do I have?  BitTorrent and other Internet distribution technologies are the future of content distribution.  These technologies are also a direct threat to Rogers’ digital cable and Bell’s satellite service offerings.  Is it any surprise that we now find Bell is also traffic shaping and reducing the quality of the service offered by the wholesale service providers (an act that is also plainly anti-competitive)?

I would love for you to tell me what options I have, and what I can do to encourage Rogers or Bell to change their policy and keep the Internet open and fair.  Tell me which provider I can switch to, or how I can vote with my dollar.  Either that or tell me why I should trust such a critical public resource as the Internet to the likes of Bell or Rogers.

While you’re at it, also tell me how you’re securing the future of net neutrality and net innovation in Canada, and ensuring that we don’t end up becoming the laughing stock of the developed world.

Bell & Rogers have no will to concede to the Canadian people, and we have nowhere else to take our dollars without going back to stone-age Internet access.

Do you call this a fair fight, sir?

I urge you and our other representatives to take some action to ensure fair, responsible access to the Internet, such that innovation and choice — the lifeblood of the Internet — will be preserved.

Thank you for your time.

Sohail Mirza

If you’d like to contribute to the discussion, then be sure to share your opinion with Jim Prentice at prentice.j AT parl.gc.ca (please be civil), or get in touch with your local MP.  Oh, and do get involved with the Campaign for Democratic Media.  It’s about time a consumer-rights organization got involved in the fight.

The Royal Mint has unveiled new designs for the 1 pence through £1 coins. The new designs incorporate the Royal Arms and are absolutely brilliant in my opinion. They were conceived by Matthew Dent, a 26-year old graphic designer.

Brilliant!

(Via kottke)

Yesterday, Arstechnica reported that Bell Canada had started throttling P2P traffic not only across its own network, but even on the services being resold or redistributed by other DSL ISPs.

Throttling and other anti-P2P practises appear to gaining prevelance amongst the Canadian ISPs for some reason. Meanwhile, south of the border, the American public is in an uproar over the anti-P2P practices of Rogers‘ counterpart, Comcast. All the while, Rogers has been engaging in anti-P2P practices — in fact, anti-net neutrality practices — far worse than what Comcast has been charged with; while Comcast may be resetting P2P connections at certain times of the day or in certain areas, Rogers throttles ALL encrypted traffic wholesale.

My question is, why aren’t Canadians as concerned about Net censorship and the impaired quality of broadband offerings here? American ISPs can hardly get away with anything without Congressional hearings being arranged, and up here Rogers is making a complete mockery of the concept of net neutrality.

Canadians, it’s time to wake up and hold the telecom giants’ feet to the fire.

Someone please tell me where I can sign up to express my anger, and hopefully in a manner that might drive legislative change barring what Rogers, and now Bell, are up to. I’m angry, dangnabbit!

(Via digg)

Oh my Lord.

Yep, the age of robotic companionship is upon us.  Given advances in artificial intelligence, robotics, and not to mention expanded definitions of marriage, it seems inevitable.

Robot spouses are hardly going to become the norm — indeed they remain an anomaly at the moment (unless you know something I don’t!) — but I can certainly see the allure for a certain category of people.  Perhaps those who may find it difficult to relate to other people, or find the prospect of real human relationships too risky.

Frankly, I’m somewhat disturbed by Zoltan’s story.  It speaks to me of someone who finds real emotional contact with a human being too difficult.  As well, this is damning indictment of society at large in that we’ve been unable to help those who are emotionally repressed or fragile.

I’m sure there are those that would readily disagree with my opinion here.  After all, why shouldn’t everyone be able to do what they want and what they’re comfortable with?

I have to think that human beings gain the most satisfaction from accomplishment, and especially emotional accomplishment.  There is nothing more emotionally satisfying than a fantastic relationship, and especially with one’s spouse.

I’m sure this is going to become a more contentious and fascinating issue as technology advances, so feel free to sound off in the comments with your own opinion.

(Via digg)