Signal Quality

Microsoft pushed an automatic update yesterday (they say only to randomly-targetted machines, but in a network of 60 machines, all 60 got the update) that pops up warning messages and places a permanent banner across your machine if you’re running a copy of Windows that hasn’t been validated as genuine by Microsoft. This is their latest attempt at getting pirate users of Windows to upgrade, but tactics like these — installing software that in no way secures the system as a hidden ’security’ update are going to make many people think twice about leaving automatic updates running on their Windows machines. This will result in more Windows machines that go unpatched, leaving far more spam bots and virus passers around on the Internet.

Microsoft’s original claim was that their Genuine Validation program would be to help reduce the number of computers out there that were a security risk (no one believe that claim back then, either). Now, they’re clearly showing a propensity toward increasing the number of vulnerable machines that fall under the control of hackers and spammers.

With Vista around the corner, even those without valid copies of Windows may be hesitant to spend an obscene amount on an operating system that will be phased out in less than a year’s time, so the incentive for people to move to non-pirate copies will descrease. This latest attempt by Microsoft is simply to keep the money rolling in at the expense of what they claim are millions of people who are unwittingly running illegitimate copies of Windows.

The government has, for a long time now, been trying to force Internet Service Providers to keep track of the online habits of their customers and provide access to this information for the FBI and other government agencies. It has never flown so well, as it’s an obvious breach of fourth amendment improper search procedures.

Yet again, however, they’re trying to do the same thing, but this time, it has the spin of ‘Protecting the Children’ on it. Alberto Gonzales has attached an amendment to the Children’s Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act that’s sitting in the US Senate right now that would require Internet Service Providers to allow the government access to their users’ online usage data, as well as having hefty fines for any ISPs who failed to report a user suspected of trafficking in child pornography.

The problem with this, is that not only does it violate privacy, but it’s a clear ploy to just use the safety of children as an excuse to pass legislation that’s failed to pass before. If it gets attached as an amendment to the bill, what senator in his right mind would vote against this bill with election time right around the corner?

Jeff Pulver, founder of Pulver Communications and Free World Dialup, has posted a rather novel Petition to the FCC. It asks for a temporary easing of restrictions covering VoIP in times of emergencies. The background of this goes to the Hurricane Katrina disaster and what happened to communications during and after.  Wireline phones ceased to be a viable method of communication, as many of the homes were underwater, lines were cut, and even cell towers were knocked out of commission by the hundreds.

The saviour for the relief organisations, the government workers, and the refugees was VoIP. Companies came in and created a wireless VoIP network for people to use in order to maintain communications, allowing refugees to maintain contact with their loved ones and even gave them free voicemail to get urgent messages.  The wireline providers, however, did no such thing, and were proven to be a disasterous single point of failure.

The FCC, however, has severley hamstringed VoIP providers with regulations disallowing numerous things such as porting a phone number to an area outside its original geographical location, easily interconnecting with the PSTN (traditional phone network), and has even cited safety concerns as their reason for limiting to whom VoIP can even market. Many of these regulations have been politically mandated, with the big telecom lobbyists pushing hard to get them in place.
The petition asks for these regulations to be relaxed during times of emergency to ensure that we’re no longer left in a situation where politics dictates that we must all be without  communications for the sake of not hurting the business of the telecoms who aren’t actually physically able to provide service.

It’s a good first step, really. It’s hard to deny the role that VoIP played in helping with Katrina, and it’s shameful to think that the FCC would deny an emergency provision to allow an easing of restrictrions when it’s absolutely necessary. And, of course, if they recognise that VoIP is truly essential in times of emergency, it helps negate their argument that VoIP is inherently dangerous for people to use and requires strict regulations to keep people safe.

The Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee, a subcommmittee formed from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, rejected a net neutrality admendment in a bill that was designed to create a national Internet video franchise. Large telecommunications companies have been strongly lobbying against Congress creating any provisions for net neutrality, as the telecommunications companies feel they should have the right to have a multi-tiered network of services, offering their own services at maximum speed, and charging others service providers to travel over their networks.

With the way the Internet works, a company pays to be connected to the Internet, much the way a consumer does. The telecom proposals, however, would then charge additional money every time a consumer wanted to access the company’s servers — the servers they’re already paying to have connected to the Internet. This is a rather veiled attempt at punishing competitors who have no alternative for Internet connectivity to the consumer. It allows the already deregulated telecom and cable companies to create a wall from which the consumer has no real recourse but to use only the telecom or cable companies’ services, as any competitors would suffer from substandard service or be priced out of business.

What will happen is that more and more service providers such as Google, Microsoft, AOL, Vonage, and anyone with a new and innovative service, will move to another country where the ability to access consumers is not hampered by such stringently anticompetitive regulations. The US consumer will suffer, but as most US consumers don’t fully understand how the Internet works, and how the telecom and cable companies’ service offerings differ from their competitors’, there’s not liable to be a public outcry.

On the bright side, there are other net neutrality bills and amendments up in Congress this session, and there’s still the chance that one will survive, but with the massive lobbying power of the telecom companies and the cable companies, the chances are very slim.