Net Neutrality: Slip Sliding Away
To some, this may seem like a political comment. It is not. This is a technological comment. A federal court has ruled against the Federal Communications Commission's "Net Neutrality" doctrine that would prohibit telephone companies and other Internet service providers from giving preferential treatment to their own content while restricting content from other sources even though the service providers' customers want the content. In part, this is because the FCC incorrectly classified cable companies, telephone companies, and other broadband providers. This is a problem that can be remedied.
The FCC response to this week's decision by the federal court should be to reclassify broadband under the Communications Act.
Previously, the FCC elected to consider broadband Internet service providers as if they were companies such as Google, Facebook, or Twitter. Doing so was absurd because the companies I've just mentioned provide data and the broadband providers transport data. These are two totally separate business activities. The decision, back then, placed broadband providers outside the legal framework that has been applied to companies that offer two-way communications services. Example: Telephone companies.
And that is exactly the loophole that Comcast's attorneys used when they took this case to court.
If you think that it should be your broadband provider's option to decide that content you've requested should be delivered more slowly than content that is sourced by the broadband provider, then you don't want net neutrality. If you feel that your broadband provider should be able to block any content even if you've requested it, then you don't want net neutrality.
But if you feel that when you pay for broadband service, you should be allowed equal access to Google, YouTube, Facebook, or any other service that you desire, then net neutrality is what you want.
To solve the problem, the FCC could change the classification of broadband back to "communications service", which is how it should have been classified initially. If the FCC simply corrects its error, the agency can continue to protect network neutrality.
A Train to Denver
It's an issue of classification. Here's an analogy that occurred to me: Let's say there's a corn field in Iowa. Iowa grows a lot of corn. So do Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, for that matter. But this corn field is in Iowa and the corn from the field is transported to a local grainery where it's stored for a while. Let's say that the corn has been sold to a processor in Denver. Now I don't know if any corn processing plants exist in Denver, but it really doesn't matter; this is just an analogy.
So the grain processor in Denver places an order for 20 train-car loads of corn. A train stops at the grainery and picks up the 20 cars full of grain. The plant in Denver is the equivalent of a person who, sitting in front of a computer, has just ordered a streaming video from NetFlix. NetFlix loads the movie onto the Internet and sends it off to the viewer.
To get back to our train full of grain, what should the railroad do? The reasonable person would expect the railroad to deliver the corn to the plant in Denver without delay. End of story. Under network neutrality, the broadband provider would perform a similar function with the movie: Deliver it in the most expeditious manner possible.
But Comcast and other broadband providers don't want to play the game this way. If the movie is coming from a provider Comcast doesn't own, it wants to be able to slow the delivery or to charge the consumer (who is already paying for broadband service) an extra fee. The analogy for our trainload of corn would be for the railroad to put the cars on a siding and leave them there for a couple of weeks even though it has already been paid for delivering the corn to Denver. Of course, the railroad would be happy to deliver the corn promptly if the Denver processor purchases it from a grainery that the railroad owns.
I hope that analogy helps you understand the problem.
Broadband providers should not be able to impose restrictions designed to pad the corporate bottom line on the people who are paying for broadband service. Comcast and other companies are not interested in protecting an open and accessible Internet. They are interested in extracting as much money as they can from you while providing the lowest level of service they can get away with.
It's a matter of definition: Comcast would like to define itself (the "railroad") as a data provider (the "grainery") when it is clearly the means of transport, not source of what is being transported. If the railroad wants to own a grainery, that's fine. But owning a grainery does not make the railroad a grainery.
Want more details? Here's a lucid explanation on YouTube. It'll cost you less than 3 minutes to view.
Here's another opinion if your ISP will let you view it; on my system, this video was extremely jerky and slow. Coincidence? Maybe. Or another example, which wouldn't play for me even though my downlink speed when I tried to watch it was 8.43Mbps! That's far in excess of the speed needed for basic YouTube video. Another coincidence?
Direct links to the above videos:
The "Net Neutrality" explanation is clear, concise, and factual.
Although a bit dated, "Save the Internet" has some useful information. It goes a bit overboard on the
scare tactics, though.
Will it be as bad as "Hot Girl and Crew" suggest? In a word, no. The broadband providers might wish to make
this happen, but I have to think that even some of them would be smart enough to recognize that such
an act would have long-term revenue-degrading consequences for them.
Good luck trying to view them!
Please Contact the FCC
Earlier I mentioned that some might see this as a political comment. In part that's because the FCC made this decision during the previous administration. But that doesn't matter. It could just as easily have made the same wrong decision during the administration before that. Back then broadband was still fairly new, at least in terms of being available widely to homes. So regardless of when the decision was made or in whose administration it was made, it was the wrong decision.
Let me address that a bit more fully and ask you to consider it this way: It doesn't seem at all political to me to expect that a person who pays for access to broadband service be granted access to the service paid for. This is different from restrictions on overall use. Can the provider cap the service at a certain amount of traffic per month? Absolutely. A user on a shared network who downloads 9GB of data every day is abusing the service. A user on a shared network who downloads 9GB of data, as I did recently on one day to obtain the Adobe CS5 beta release, but who otherwise doesn’t abuse the service, should be fine. The problem exists when the broadband provider refuses to allow access, or restricts the speed of access, to sites that are not affiliated in some way with the broadband provider. That is not a question of politics. That is a question of ethics and honesty.
Having made the wrong decision previously, the FCC can now set things right by modifying the previous decision in light of several years of additional experience.
NOW is the time to contact the FCC. Here's how: http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html.
A Fix for Easy Problems Plays Hard to Get
When I encountered FixWin, it seemed like a worthwhile utility to have on a Vista or Windows 7 computer, so I decided to try it. The first problem I encountered was in my attempt to download it. After that, I couldn't find any problems to fix. But it's still worth your consideration.
The Windows Club's FixWin is free. If you want to download it, make sure that you use the link from this page. At least one application with a similar name (WinFix) is reported to be a Trojan application. This isn't a new trick, of course; people have been distributing malware this way since the early days of personal computers.
FixWin offers to repair 50 common Windows annoyances. These are listed under 5 tabs on the program's interface: Windows Explorer, Internet & Connectivity, Windows Media, System Tools, and Misc Additional Fixes. These are all problems that have relatively simple solutions, but FixWin places all of the solutions at your fingertips.
Beware the Download
The FixWin download page offers downloads in a banner ad at the top of the page and in a column at the right. These are downloads for a similar sounding application, but the ads were placed by Google. I knew immediately that these links were not the ones I wanted, so I read the text on the page.
Further down the page, I thought I had the right link. When I clicked the icon, I was offered an installer program, but FixWin doesn't have an installer. Then I realized it was the same ad that I'd seen at the top of the page.
The actual download link was further down on the page and tiny. Tricks such as this once again call into question the ethics of Google. That's what placed the ads on this page. And I know that I will never download "Fix Windows" because of that company's questionable ethics in placing an ad for its product in this manner.
In short, I consider this all but unforgivable.
Having downloaded FixWin, I dropped it onto the desktop and ran it. Here it suggests that I have it run the system file checker (a good idea) and then to create a restore point (also a good idea).
I did both of these. The first process took about 10 minutes.
I was told that no problems were found so all of the system files were intact.
Next, I selected the option to create a restore point.
When that was complete, it was time to test the utility; there was nothing to test. FixWin doesn't examine the computer to find problems. You must know what the problem and then select the Fix button for that problem.
Maybe the Recycle Bin doesn't refresh correctly or has disappeared. Perhaps the Context Menu is missing in the Windows Explorer. About 50 such problems are shown here. If you find one that applies to you, click the Fix button and the problem might be fixed. Because I didn't have any of these problems, I couldn't test.
Even so, when I tried to close the application, it told me that I would need to restart the system so that the changes (there were no changes) could take effect.
I didn't reboot the computer.
Bottom Line: FixWin would be a useful tool for anyone who doesn't know how to fix basic problems.
Even overlooking the download challenges, FixWin doesn't have a lot to recommend it. Power users will just head to the Registry or the Control Panel to fix these kinds of problems. Those who are uncomfortable with either of those could find FixWin to be quite useful
For more information, visit the FixWin website. Use this link. Trying to find this site by using Google could be hazardous to your computer.
Adobe Updates CS4 & Prepares to Ship CS5
With the Adobe Creative Suite 5 train preparing to leave the station on Monday, April 12, the company is continuing to provide updates for the CS4 version. At this point, everything about CS5 except the release date is under wraps, but if you use any of the CS4 applications, you'll want to obtain the latest updates.
The public beta of Lightroom 3 is available to anyone who wants to download it, but version 2.7 has also been released. Adobe has also released Photoshop Camera Raw 5.7 and DNG Converter 5.7 Release Candidates. These are updates for those who use the camera raw mode and supports a long list of new cameras, including the Canon EOS 550D, Sony A450, and Olympus E-PL1.
I've mentioned release candidates before. These are between the final beta version and the final release-to-manufacturing code. Release candidate updates are well tested but, as Adobe puts it, they "would benefit from additional community testing." Adobe encourages photographers to try out the newly added raw file support in this update and provide the product team with feedback so they can create the highest quality experience for customers working on a variety of hardware and software configurations.
Photoshop Lightroom is an application for professional photographers and serious amateurs. I've been looking at the version 3 beta and now would be a good time to download it for an extended test period. The Lightroom 3 beta download is available from Adobe Labs.
Adobe CS5 (Announcement) Coming Soon!
Until Monday, the only substantive information I can provide is "April 12" and "release date will be announced". Without revealing more than I'm supposed to, I think I can say that I've said "WOW!" more than a few times.
In the past few months I've signed several non-disclosure agreements with Adobe. The NDAs specify that I can obtain advance information on the products but that I may not discuss anything publicly that isn't specifically approved by Adobe. Fair enough. Entering into such an agreement allows me to see the software before it's available for purchase and provides access to some of the Adobe product managers who have guided the effort.
Although I haven't yet had time to fully dissect the new applications, I'll be able to tell you about my first impressions on Monday. I'll do that on TechByter:TODAY, not here.
To pull back the wraps a bit, I thought it might be useful to describe the process Adobe and its public relations agency, A&R Edelman Public Relations, use to share information with technology reporters such as me.
A&R Edelman is often named the "agency of the year" by PR Week Magazine. There's a good reason for this and it's probably why Adobe selected the agency: Answers often arrive just minutes after I've asked a question. If the answer is, "We're looking into this and will have an answer tomorrow," they almost always have an answer tomorrow.
The process involves making the CS5 beta applications available for download (8.8GB in a single file) and providing sample files that can be used for experimentation by mail.
Of course this process ensures that Adobe and Edelman will communicate to tech journalists what they feel are the most salient parts of the upcoming release, but many of us -- over the next few weeks and months -- will work with the applications to find situations in which the new features fail to work as expected. If this release is anything like previous versions, it's somewhat unlikely that we'll find anything that's seriously amiss.
Already I have seen several features that work even better than I might have hoped. But I'll have to wait until next Monday to say anything about the feezlebeester feature, the zognaggit function , or leetblander option.
Especially leetblander option!*
*All names cited here have nothing to do with any existing or planned features, functions, or options so far as I am aware.
The author's image: It's that photo over at the right. This explains why TechByter Worldwide was never on television, doesn't it?
