Sonnet MMIX-II

When in my youth I conversations held
I spoke to those I saw and met, save none.
But in this age when with the world we meld
My thoughts and visions far and wide might run.
How long I felt aloof, my dreams my own
For never could I share them with my kind.
But when the ether made for us a home
My comrades gathered joyful I could find.
A thousand thoughts I wished that I could mold
I whispered to myself instead. Like me,
How many others left their thoughts untold
Thus lost like treasures cast into the sea?
A thousand thoughts and not one could we save;
Now from their ripples we might spawn a wave.

(Written at the behest of the Google Wave team.)

Virtual Shelves Overflowing

I have, through means I won't disclose, access to an electronic library of sorts comprising 80,000 computer files which occupy some 120GB of disk space.

This is a literary treasure. This is, allowing for multiple-file volumes and duplicates, equivalent to the holdings of a decent-sized branch of a public library. This is contained, not in a large building, but in a corner of one of my hard drives. This is accessible to me from any computer in my home, and I can easily copy volumes to take with me when I'm away. This is something the scribes of Alexandria would drool over.

This is a royal bitch to manage.

There is no consistent naming system. There are at least six major file formats, some proprietary. There are few catalog numbers, either Dewey or LOC. The only really good news is that these files tend to arrive in some arbitrary organization that I can, with time and effort, translate into my own standard (non-fiction in Dewey; fiction alphabetically by author, title).

Electronic books don't take up space, but neither do they have covers or spines, which makes browsing painful. Fortunately, I can use my file server's search engine to find what I'm after, but the serendipity of scanning the stacks is lost.

I have a vision of the whole works in SQL Server BLOBs attached to metadata (extracted from the filenames and file contents by a series of clever scripts). With a nice front-end, it could be a worthy contender to a good, old-fashioned, bricks-and-mortar library...

...not that I have time to write any such thing.

One more project for the pile.

And they wonder why they're in trouble...

No, no, no, GIVE them the razor, SELL them the blades.

And another letter...

Ms. Wiersma:

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

I recognize that Cogeco is a private enterprise, and I have certainly made my concerns known to them. However, I would point out that many private enterprises are subject to regulation, and it is my contention that Cogeco deserves the same treatment. They enjoy an effective monopoly (the competitors you mention do not provide comparable Internet service in my area, and the same is true in many areas throughout Canada) and the service they provide -- broadband Internet access -- is increasingly critical to our economy.

As an information technology professional who has owned a small business in Hamilton for almost twenty years, I can assure you that billing policies such as Cogeco's are detrimental to innovation. I cannot hope to attract the interest of investors in a product that requires its potential consumers to use up a portion of their limited pool of Internet traffic. It would be analagous to trying to sell central air conditioners to people who only get a very limited amount of electricity each month, after which they pay a huge amount per kilowatt hour for a bit more electricity, after which their electricity gets cut off for the rest of the month (and who, for the most part, don't really understand how much electricity their appliances use in the first place!).

Ms. Wiersma, please understand that I am not writing as a disgruntled customer looking for my MP to intervene and save me a few dollars. Rather, I am a concerned professional and businessman who firmly believes that what Cogeco is doing is hurting Canada's economy. I urge Mr. Sweet to consider this matter carefully.

Thank you again for your time and attention.

Regards,

Keith Mann

And a reply...

Mr. Mann,

Thank you for writing to Mr. Sweet regarding your concerns with new services implemented by Cogeco.

While we do understand your concerns, and those of other Cogeco customers like yourself, Cogeco is a private enterprise. Therefore, I would kindly suggest you contact them directly with your concerns.

On their website you can enter your concerns my accessing: http://www.cogeco.ca/en/faq_rightnow_o.html

I would also encourage you to research the other competitors in your area that may be more suitable to your needs. You may find the services provided by Mountain Cable Vision, Sympatico, Bell, Primus, or Sprint - to name a few to be more favourable.

I hope that this information is helpful to you and that you are able to resolve your situation.

Sincerely,

Alicia Wiersma
Executive Assistant to David Sweet, M.P.
Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale

A letter to my MP

Dear Mr. Sweet:

As you may know, Cogeco Cable has begun the implementation of "additional usage billing" for their residential Internet service. Under this system, customers will be charged on a per-gigabyte basis for Internet usage exceeding certain monthly limits.

A similar system piloted by Time Warner Cable in the United States met with significant opposition from consumers and politicians, most notably Senator Charles Schumer. Senator Schumer understands that our Internet infrastructure is as critical to the health and growth of our information-based economy as transportation, power, and water infrastructures are to industrial economies. Because companies such as Cogeco, which enjoy monopolies over cable services within their designated service areas, are critical to this infrastructure, those companies must be carefully monitored and regulated.

Mr. Sweet, Cogeco's actions will dissuade consumers from utilizing Internet-based services that consume significant bandwidth, out of fear that they may incur additional charges. Cogeco may tell you that such "services" today are for the most part illegal file sharing. They may tell you that most of their customers will be unaffected by, or even benefit from, this policy. This may or may not be true, but it misses the point: legitimate and economically-valuable technical innovation in high-bandwidth services will be stifled if consumers can't afford the bandwidth those services require. It is ironic, I think, that the very types of business that might be drawn to Hamilton by such features as the McMaster Innovation Park might instead be drawn to New York State because of Cogeco's policies.

I hope you will follow the example of Senator Schumer and lead the charge against this threat.

Regards,

Keith Mann

Competition in the Last Mile

My local cable company, Cogeco, has announced that they're joining the ranks of ISPs engaging in "usage billing". This basically means that users who exceed a certain amount of traffic (called a "bitcap") will be billed on a per-gigabyte basis to a certain maximum, after which their service is subject to disconnection if the excess usage is degrading the service of other customers.

I won't bother debating whether this is "fair", or an effective way of dealing with whatever problems might be caused by high-volume users. Those points are moot. The real problem is more complicated.

First, it's important to remember that Cogeco, like all Canadian cable companies, enjoys a de facto monopoly within its designated service areas. They are under no direct competitive pressure. Yes, I have other ways of getting telephone, television, and Internet service, but I have no other way of getting cable. This is significant because cable is, in almost all cases, the best broadband technology available. I, and most other Canadians, must either deal with their designated cable provider or settle for an inferior technology. With the advent of usage billing, this leads to a very real impediment to broadband usage by Canadians, which in turn impedes the progress of IP-based consumer services technologies.

Let me give you an example. Right now, I can watch as much digital TV as I want. Let's say I've got three receivers, one of which is high-definition. That means I can, without penalty and for a mere $60 per month, suck down at least 20 megabits per second all day, every day (that's 6.5 terabytes per month). In fact, since I never turn off my set-top boxes, I'm probably doing that already. Why, then, would I be willing to pay twice as much to watch IP-based TV? I wouldn't. So, if you, like me, recognize that traditional television networks, channels and stations are obsolete and are waiting for limitless on-demand programming delivered directly to the consumer by the producer, you're probably going to have to keep waiting. Ditto the myriad high-bandwidth IP-based services that are perhaps only dreams in the minds of our innovators. Without an affordable IP delivery system, those dreams will never become reality.

Poor regulation of our Internet infrastructure today, in the information age, is as dangerous to our economy as poor regulation of transportation, power, and water infrastructures would have been in the industrial age. It must not be allowed to happen. If you're reading this, I urge you to contact the CRTC at http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ and your local MP via this link, and make yourself heard on this issue. Hopefully, they will follow the lead of forward-thinking US politicians like Charles Schumer and stop this thing in its tracks.