Stop The meter

I support the "Stop The Meter" program created by openmedia.ca. Internet rates in this country are outrageous, and this seems to be supported by our federal regulator, the CRTC. So I sent my message to the CRTC using their online form, although I changed the wording to reflect my own thoughts around UBB.

I'm not so opposed to the concept of UBB as many others seem to be. Go ahead and put a meter on my internet, let me pay for only what I use. Here's the caveat, however: drop the rates so they more closely reflect the actual cost of delivery. Bell or Rogers wants to charge a 100% or 200% premium on the 1GB (or 10GB or 150GB) that I might download in a given month? Go for it! Just stop charging me 10,000% + that seems to be the case right now.

You guys (big ISPs) shouldn't be allowed to "have your cake and eat it too." Yet that's the situation the CRTC seems to have arranged for them in their recent decision and that, I believe, is what has so many of my "polite" fellow Canadians (including me) up in arms.

Here is my version of the letter I sent:

Dear CRTC,

You now have an opportunity to stand up for the Internet, and to stop big telecom companies from forcing exorbitant charges on Canadians.

I do not disagree with the principle of usage-based billing (UBB); however, if that model is to be employed, then the rates must be adjusted. Online research indicates that the current premium charged by Canadian ISPs is multiple orders of magnitude beyond their actual cost for delivery of internet services. For UBB to be fair and reasonable to citizens, that premium must reflect a much smaller (in the order of one one-hundredth) premium on the actual cost of service delivery.

If core service providers are to be allowed to continue to charge current rates for the relatively I believe the CRTC should reverse its previous UBB rulings and allow independent ISPs to compete with their OWN billing solutions.

This is a moment where all Canadians depend on you to protect THEIR interests in the face of pressure from a few Big Telecom companies.

I'm also adding myself to the nearly half-a-million people who have signed the Stop The Meter petition.

Please stand up for consumer choice and competition in the Internet service market. As a signatory of the Stop The Meter petition, I want affordable access to the Internet.

My letter to the federal government re copyright legislation

In light of the recent news that the federal government appears poised to introduce a bill that could make the DMCA look like a twist-tie on a prison cell, I decided to follow Michael Geist's link to send a letter via the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights.

I used the existing form letter, but added a couple of bits of my own just ahead of the last paragraph. I encourage anyone and everyone to submit a letter to the list of government members listed at that page. If you want to send paper copies yourself, remember that postage is not required if you're sending to an MP's office address.

Here is my version:


Dear Ministers,

In the summer of 2009 the Government of Canada held public consultations on copyright and Canadians engaged in those consultations at unprecedented levels.

Unfortunately, it now appears that the Government may be poised to ignore the vast majority of Canadian consultation submissions and proceed with anti-consumer copyright reform legislation. Legislation that would employ strong protection for digital locks, a rejection of flexible fair dealing, and support for specific technologies and business models. Legislation that may indeed be more stifling than the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which, over the course of the last decade, has proven to be a backwards, ill-conceived approach to copyright.

To ignore the input of thousands of Canadian consumers and creators when modernizing Canada’s copyright regime would be irresponsible. Alternatively, I urge this Government to heed what Canadians have told them and only proceed with legislation to reform copyright that is technologically neutral by not integrating protection for specific technologies or business models (e.g., all-encompassing prohibition of circumvention devices and technologies). Legislation that expands and protects fair dealing to ensure Canada has the legal framework to adapt to future business models and new forms of creativity we have yet to discover.

To date, the evidence put forward by industry groups in support of such restrictive legislation, has been shown to grossly overstate (in favour of the industry groups) alleged rates of illegal copying. Even the Conference Board of Canada had to retract their report on the topic once it was exposed that they included rates of alleged illegal copying that could not be substantiated.

In the balance, such restrictive laws would render illegal (for example) the conversion of an electronic book to a form that could be used by a person with visual impairment. In this day and age, we should be looking for ways to be more accessible and inclusive of all our citizens rather than allowing self-serving industry groups to dictate policy in order that, rather than adapt to a new paradigm, they can perpetuate a business model that is archaic in a digital world.

Fortunately, there remains time and opportunity for this Government to reassess its approach on copyright reform and ensure that the input provided by Canadians via public consultations process is taken into full consideration.

Sincerely,

Intellectual Property Rights run amok

Two interesting and related articles came to my attention today. First, in his extensive blog about all things copyright, Michael Geist considers the recent CIPO initiative "Promoting Respect for IP Rights." Professor Geist, who has become a virtual Lone Ranger (do I have to pay a licensing fee to use that comparison?) crusading for rights, discusses how this initiative is focused, almost exclusively, on the restrictive aspects of intellectual property rights (IPR) rather than factors such as fair dealing (fair use in the U.S.) or alternative licensing.

It seems to have been kismet that, the same day, Howard Knopf of Ottawa notes, in his "Excess Copyright" blog that Access Copyright continues to list G. B. Shaw works (which are now public domain in Canada) among their repertoire for digital licensing.

Now, for those who aren't familiar with Access Copyright, it is an agency that provides a limited (i.e., for non-substantive portions of works) license to copy works that are within their "repertoire."

How interesting that Access Copyright which provides one type of alternative license mentioned by Michael Geist, is not even keeping proper track of what it's licensing; particularly when they recently received a not insubstantial tariff decision for educational institutions from the Canada Copyright Board.

We have serious issues in this country over copyright, licensing, fair dealing, etc. It seems that the "big players" (publishers, copyright collectives, etc.) are trying to bully the government into enacting legislation that will place a strangle-hold on the general public.

Add to this the whole issue of digital rights management (DRM) and how that restricts one's potential enjoyment of licensed digital content (careful, remember you didn't buy that song, you just bought the right to listen to it in a manner dictated by the industry). I remain convinced that, if record companies could figure out how to do it, they'd license us for each time we even thought of a song in our heads, never mind each time we actually listened to one.

Stop the madness! There needs to be some reasonable middle ground with all of this. A friend quipped, earlier today, that we don't install flip-up barriers at every stop sign or traffic light. We rely on citizens to do the right thing. And, you know what? They mostly do!

Sure you'll have some folks sliding through stop signs, exceeding the posted speed limit, and so on. It's funny, though, I bet the majority of folks don't do that.

If the industry (recording, printing, film, video game, take your pick) spent some of their money developing better products and marketing channels instead of trying to lock everything down, I bet their sales would improve and, with it, their bottom line.

Or here's a novel idea (excuse the pun): charge a more reasonable price for your product.

Make it a small hop to "do the right thing" instead of a huge chasm. Don't charge me extortionist prices for a book, or movie, or video game.

Your per-item profit will be down, but maybe you'll sell more than enough units to make up the difference. And think of all the money you'll save by not investing in all the DRM technology; 'cause, you know what? If someone is going to crack it, they're going to crack it and no amount of legislation or technology will prevent that. Just like the folks who are going to run stop signs.

What is Dell smok ... er thinking?

Dell computers (and, in the spirit of full disclosure, I should mention that I'm already not a fan of Windows computers generally, and Dell particularly) decided to create a new website apparently dubbed Della.

This site is supposedly targeted to women buying computers. The site features soft imagery, tips such as selecting a netbook-style computer for traveling because "Your lightweight, packable netbook can transform your traveling experience … " As if a woman couldn't figure that out on her own?!

I personally consider that this form of marketing, "tarring" an entire sex and, effectively, over half the human race with a single brush, would be ridiculous to the point of hilarity if it weren't so offensive.

Dell, if you want to create a site that speaks to people (men or women) who are less technical, that's one thing; but to presume that ... what? ... women as a whole are so inept with computers that none would ever care about actual technical specifications or understand true technical tips on using a system more effectively? C'mon, give me a break!

Frustrating drivers

What is it about drivers and their driving speed on two-way (i.e., not divided) highways?

I usually set my car on cruise-control. I find that it makes my driving more relaxed and keeps my eyes on the road better since I'm not glancing down at my speedometer so often. Anyway, I frequently have the experience of catching up to another driver who may be driving anywhere from 5 to 10 Km/hr slower than I am. All is well, I don't have a problem slowing down until I reach a suitable place to pass them.

The problem starts when we reach either a passing zone or, especially, a passing lane. All of a sudden, they have now sped up to my speed or even faster(!). Sometimes, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and remain behind them until the lane ends ... all too often to discover that they then slow back down to their original speed (!!).

So I'm left to wonder: what is it with these folks that they don't want to drive the speed I'm going but seem unwilling to allow another car to pass them?

I run into this type of driver — frequently several of them — almost every day during my commute from Chester to Halifax and back. I can't figure out the mindset. If I'm driving along and another driver catches up to me, I'm usually looking for an opportunity to allow them past. I really don't want behind me, someone who wants to drive faster than I do. It potentially causes them frustration and, ultimately, could lead to them trying to pass when it's really not safe.

So my point? Stop it you folks! If you want to drive a particular speed, then drive that speed and accept that some folks are going to pass you. If you're going to speed up for a passing lane or zone, then keep driving that speed ... at least for a while ... humour me for God's sake!

Your brain on auto-pilot

Getting involved with Twitter last week inspired me to start a blog. We'll see where this ends up, but I'll try to add posts at least once in a while.

I had an interesting experience getting ready for work this morning. I, as I suspect many people do, have my morning routine (ritual if you prefer) that I follow when getting ready for work. For me this involves eating breakfast, then showering and dressing.

It's the dressing part that got me caught up this morning. I didn't realize how much I rely on procedural cues to keep me on track. One of the last things I habitually do when dressing is to put on my wrist watch. That act forces me to my night stand which also provides the cues to put some cash and my pocket knife in my pocket, and clip my cell phone on my belt.

Well, this morning I changed up the order. No particular reason for that, I just happened to grab my watch while putting on my shirt and then continued with the rest of dressing. It had the effect, however, of not taking me back to my night stand for those other accoutrements on which I rely.

I was most of the way to work when I realized I didn't have my cell phone, my pocket knife, or any cash with me . Lesson learned: don't change the routine!