It's easy to take swipes at those who are anti-net neutrality. James Surowiecki of the New Yorker does so deliciously in that magazine's March 20 issue: "In the first decades of the twentieth century, as a national telephone network spread across the United States, AT&T adopted a policy of 'tiered access' for businesses. Companies that paid an extra fee got better service: their customers' calls went through immediately, were rarely disconnected and sounded crystal-clear. Those who didn't pony up had a harder time making calls out, and people calling them sometimes got an 'all circuits busy' response ...

"If you've never heard about this bit of business history, there's a good reason: it never happened. Instead, AT&T had to abide by a 'common carriage' rule: it provided the same quality of service to all, and could not favour one customer over another." (Read Mr Surowiecki's full spiel here.)

Expect more such vitriol as the latter-day incarnation of AT&T angles to introduce tiered charging for broadband customers who use fat pipe-intensive apps like use voice-over-IP and video. Such a scheme would be at odds with the long-standing internet philosophy of net neutrality, or treating every packet of data that flows through the net equally. But AT&T et al argue that the like of iTunes, Google and spammers are freeloading, feulling download-intensive activity that necessitates telcos to spend more and more on infrastructure.

The Economist takes an anti net-neutrality approach (read its editorial here; subscription required). It points out that, to a degree, net neutrality is already history. There are already music and video sites that you have to pay to subscribe to, and those sites in turn spend more on web hosting and other infrastructure to get their data to you faster. Strictly applied net neutrality would stifle new, richer ways to use the net for multimedia. Alternatively, a smart tiered system could charge bulk mailers, as law abiding spammers call themselves.

Fair enough. But the problem ocurs when a broadband infrastructure provider is also a VOIP, video and content provider (as Telecom NZ and all the telcos of this world are becoming as they try for a so-called 'triple' or 'quadruple' play that will offset fast declining revenue from traditional voice calls). Can the fox guard the henhouse? Wild conspiracy rumours are already flying that Telecom is 'shaking' Skype packets. That allegation is completely unfounded. But, like Woosh's up-front stance that it won't hinder Skype but will, ahem, only optimise calls make using its own VOIP service, it does illustrate that treating certain packets of data differently is not always about optimising the customer experience, or customer choice.

Posted by Chris Keall at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Comments ( 0 )

OK, sorry, I've used that line before. But with so many Vista delays, a repeat became statistically inevitable. It seems perverse to wallow in the bad news by listing previous Windows release dates to illustrate the Vista void. But let's:

OS RELEASE (year)
Windows Vista 2007 (fingers crossed)
Windows XP 2001
Windows ME 2000
Windows 2000 2000
Windows 98 1998
Windows 95 1995
Windows NT 1993
Windows 3.1 1993
Windows 3.0 1990
Windows 2.0 1987
Windows 1.0 1985

Latest word from the Microsofties is that the OEM (new PC) and consumer versions of Vista won't be available until January 07, while the business version will be available for licensed upgraders from November. (See the Wire section of the April issue of PC World for more on the now confirmed Vista Home, Vista Business and Vista Enterprise editions, and their various permutations. The Media Centre Edition of Windows will be killed off as a standalone line, with its features folded into Vista Home).

The latest Mista-Vista is a boon for the likes of Google and the newly Intel-friendly Apple, of course, and a blow to PC makers or anybody else who was relying on Vista to give the sleepy market some kick this year. Worse, we've yet to see a killer Vista feature that will make the wait worthwhile.

Posted by Chris Keall at 3:56 PM | Permalink | Comments ( 0 )

Now I'm not huge fan of Telecom. My DSL account is often sluggish, and it's not cheap (though it's on the 'bit expensive' side rather than outrageous by global standards, when you allow for the simple economics of our small, thinly-spread population). But - and please don't throw rocks at me for saying this - neither am I sure that the government leaning on Telecom to offer better wholesale broadband rates, or share access to its local exchanges (aka local loop unbundling) will have a lot of effect on how fast you surf the net. Here's why.

The key thing about the local loop is that it's mostly copper cable - conspiciously, the key bit that leads to your front door. Telecom offers broadband via DSL technology that juices the copper a bit to carry faster internet. But our bung old, overloaded copper loops have limits - which will be further, cruelly exposed if a bunch more people suddenly get DSL, or 'faster' plans - and are not the future of broadband. In countries with higher broadband penetration, it's not coming through DSL - so unbundling the local loop won't solve anything in particular. (It's also worth noting that although the local loop has been unbundled in many Western countries, the unbundling always took place at the time the time the state telco was privatised. Trying to do it after the fact would be a legal nightmare.)

The government's $25 million pilot fund to encourage residential fibre optic networks is a good start. So are the WiMax wireless trials being held by CallPlus and Nacom, and soon BCL (see Juha Saarinen's 'The Technical Guy' column in our March issue, on newsstand now, for details of some hands-on tests).

If CallPlus spent more time on its North Auckland WiMax trial, and less on campaigning for local loop unbundling, I'd be happier. WiMax (which pushes a WiFi signal for kilometres rather than meters) seems a lot more promising that Woosh's service, plus it has the clout of WiMax champion Intel behind it.

Similarly, under the Wood brothers, ihug put a lot of effort into a second wireless alternative to DSL, internet by satellite. Sure it had some drawbacks, such as only being one-way. But the technology is better now, as Juha found when he tested Iconz promising new X-Terrestrial two-way service for our Dec-Jan issue (see 'Broadband Man IV').

And in the next 12 months, we'll also see significant upgrades to Telecom's T3G network, and Vodafone's 3G. For many a 3G card (or, from later this year, chip) in their notebook could be the broadband equivalent of abandoning a landline for an all-mobile solution.

More and more broadband alternaties to DSL are on the way. That's a definite. Another definite is that, however, much the government leans on Telecom, the copper cable under my driveway will still be old, bent, and too far from my local exchange.

Posted by Chris Keall at 9:51 AM | Permalink | Comments ( 8 )

Symantec and other security software makers face a new threat from June: Microsoft's entry into their market with its OneCare service. Today, Symantec hit back, announcing a rival service called Genesis, due to launch around September. Like OneCare (subscriptions to which will cost US$50/year), Genesis will provide security (antivirus, firewall etc), PC maintenance and online back-up in one product. For the online back-up part, Symantec NZ says it will partner with a local ISP or portal ... though the company is still weighing whether New Zealand's creaky broadband infrastructure (not to mention expensive data plans) could hack the pace.

Nobody appreciates Microsoft entering their market, of course. But at least in New Zealand, Symantec has a bit of breathing room. Microsoft's OneCare will move from beta to live mid-year, but only in the United States. Worldwide release will follow during 2007.

For now, Microsoft is focusing on the consumer market with its security foray. Most pundits think it'll be harder to crack more sophisticated business buyers, who are more likely to regard OneCare as a case of the fox guarding the henhouse .... or to ask awkward questions about where free patches end, and paid security updates begin.

Symantec says they'll be a shrinkwrapped version of Genesis, but you'll also be able to buy it directly online. Futher, new features will be regularly available for download, not just new virus defs or blacklists. Your subscription will be annual, quarterly or maybe even monthly if local ISP partners are brought in. Just who will be involved, or when, Symantec can't say yet ... proving it's capable of being a little Microsoft-like itself.

Posted by Chris Keall at 2:20 PM | Permalink | Comments ( 0 )