At Beanstalk Search Engine Optimization we know that knowledge is power. That's the reason we started this SEO blog. We know that the better informed our visitors are, the better the decisions they will make for their websites and their online businesses. We hope you enjoy your stay and find the SEO news contained within this blog useful.
Google has long been scrutinized for its practice of using its Street View cars to collect the locations of millions of laptops, cell phones and various Wi-Fi devices from around the world during its collection of street view data for it popular Google maps service that has long since raised substantial privacy concerns.
In a debate that borders on the contentiousness of the Net Neutrality debate, is the concern of whether Google (and other companies) should be allowed to collect and distribute this data. The Google View Cars mandate was to collect the locations of various Wi-Fi hotspots and access points; but they also recorded the not only the street addresses, but the IP addresses and unique identifiers (MAC addresses) of devices that were connected to the wireless networks. Google then made the data publicly available through Google.com up until just a few weeks ago.
Recently French authorities from the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) contacted CNET and stated that their investigation confirmed that the Street View Cars collected MAC addresses and issued a fine to Google for 100,000 euros (approximately $140, 000).
Concerns over Goggles Street View and location privacy infringements from other companies are certainly not new. Apple recently came under attack for its practice of collecting log files of location data obtained from iPhones. Under substantial pressure, Apple released a patch to correct the "problem."
In the wake of the growing controversy, a number of disclosure statements from other company’s location privacy practices, concerns expressed from congressmen, two US Senate hearings and an increasing number of class action lawsuits have brought the location privacy debate to fervor.
Security consultant, Ashkan Soltani, was the first to report that Google made MAC addresses publicly available through a Web interface. Google then discontinued the practice a week later.
In a previous inquiry earlier this year from CNET, concerns were raised over Google’s location privacy practices, but it was unclear at the time whether Google’s location database included the hardware IDs of only access points and wireless routers, or client devices such as computers and mobile phones as well. When asked last month, Google stated only that "we collect the publicly broadcast MAC addresses of Wi-Fi access points…" which addressed only current and not past practices.
The U.S., the Federal Trade Commission concluded its investigation of Google Street View’s accidentally-broad data collection last October without levying a fine.
What had been uncertain is now law in the Netherlands as they dive head-long into the great debate known as Net Neutrality.
Yesterday, June 22nd, Dutch parliament passed a bill stopping mobile operators from billing more for voice calls made on-line. The law also prevents the companies from simply blocking the calls to skirt around the ruling. There’s still a crucial step of passing the senate, but at this point it’s just a formality and we can expect this to be law.
In this instance we’re looking at fair access to using the network for voice calls, but net neutrality means many things and is a huge issue across the globe in any developed country with paid network access.
Ideally a packet of data should cost the same no matter what’s inside that packet, but ISPs claim that not all traffic is equal. In fact ISPs believe that packets used to deliver game data, file-sharing, or adult content, should be deemed ‘unwanted’ and either delivered with less priority or charged at a higher rate. ISPs even go to the effort of claiming that by censoring these particular packets they are capable of delivering a better internet experience for the majority of their users.
Customers challenge that ISPs are trying to skirt around upgrades and improving the connectivity by simply censoring certain traffic. This means that with a few tweaks they can avoid huge upgrade costs and instead just pocket the profits.
Not buying it?
Well lets take a look at a much more competitive medium?
If you take the cost of physical disk storage..
Make some leaps between storing data and transmission..
You can draw some very pretty images..
Visualizing the gap between competition and tech.
In this case the artist to the right would like you to see the following:
If ISPs were competitive we’d be paying $45/month for 985Mbs!
.. if only it were a legal argument!
In this case the issue is mobile internet users making calls but we know what a slippery slope these decisions can be.
Indeed in the mobile industry alone there is already rumours of backlash in the form of increased subscription rates. Vodafone was quoted as saying that the bill, if passed, would “lead to a large increase in prices for mobile internet for a large group of consumers” as Vodafone would no longer be allowed to single out heavy users for higher charges.
Users on the other hand are outraged that providers won’t upgrade to solve the bandwidth needs because it cuts into profit, and instead just increase prices to discourage extra use. Customers also demand to know how the companies are learning the contents of the data and trying to charge more based on type of data. This has been compared to a postal worker that looks inside your letter mail, and charges you more to deliver a cheque vs. a bill. To some it is entirely unthinkable and the outrage is far flung across the web.
In the end, if the Dutch leadership have the sense to make bills very selectively, they may solve some of the crucial problems we’re facing with ISPs. I personally have some doubt that they can take two steps forward without any steps back and will be impressed if someone can finally pave a clear path forward on such a contentious issue.
The latest article by Beanstalk is now out. The article, written buy Beanstalk’s Kyle Krenbrink gives an unbiased look at Net Neutrality seeking to not take sides but to inform the reader as to what the argument is about, what is at stake and includes links to a wide array of resources where visitors can become more information on this extremely important topic.
As you have probably heard, the ongoing debate over Net Neutrality has been heating up the Great White North in the last few weeks.
There has been a large amount of anger and public outrage over the CRTC’s recent (Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission) decision to allow for usage based billing. Major ISPs such as SHAW, Telus and Primus have of course, been strong supporters and are only too happy to accept the new ruling.
It seems to be such a contentious issue for so many people, yet so many of us have no real idea of what net neutrality is, or how it impacts us as individuals (watch for an upcoming post by Beanstalk to help de-mystify Net Neutrality). Despite all the apparent anger, no one really seems to understand what this means to them personally or to the internet as a whole. With so much misinformation people are not even sure what they are getting worked up about. All they know is that it will now cost money to download all those wonderful torrents that they previously enjoyed for free.
Is capping bandwidth simply a money grab for ISPs with the CRTC ruling in favour of business over individuals? What about those businesses that rely on the transfer of encrypted data transfers continuously to run and operate?
Now this is where the issue really starts to heat up. If you forego your cable TV service with Shaw but still have internet service through them, what happens when you have a subscription to Netflix and watch only streaming movies? You are now paying for your Netflix subscription as well as being changed for the extra bandwidth. Savvy?
IMO, I don’t mind being charged for downloads over 1GB if they are torrents (something my son may disagree with). With ISPs talking about about charging $2/GB, that could add up fast for harcore torrent fiends. Considering an average torrent movie size is about 1GB (for non-HD or Blu-Ray), that’s still a lot cheaper than going to rent the same movie at the local video store. Personally, I would like to see XX number of GB alotted in your monthly service agreement with your ISP and be charged a higher premium once you exceed that amount.
Video rental stores have been dropping like flies, so maybe the new CRTC ruling will have people start going back to their local video stores and start renting movies again, or maybe people will start going to movie theatres more and help to provide an influx of revenue into local economies.
As Canadians, we need to calmly look at both sides of the issues and really weigh the pros and cons. People get very emotional, especially when it affects their wallets. We have to take a step back and look at what is important in the grand scheme of things. The fact of the matter is that we live in a capitalist society. If I was an owner of an ISP, I would certainly look for ways to increase revenue for myself, my business and my employees. The important thing to remember is that there are two sides to every issue.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with paying for premium services. By the same token I would like to see public Wi-Fi services available for free. Make no mistake, this is a hot issue and we certainly have not heard the last of it.
More than 200,000 people have signed a petition organized by the Vancouver-based open communications advocacy group OpenMedia.ca against the CRTC decision. For those of you that would like to sign the petition against the CRTC ruling, have a look at http://stopthemeter.ca/
The federal government will decide by March 1 whether to reject a CRTC decision on the usage-based internet billing, after Prime Minister Stephen Harper requested a review.
For the past week the Internet world has been abuzz with the Google/Verizon deal and how it will affect Net Neutrality. For those of you who have heard me speak at conferences or listened to my radio show you’ll know that I’m not the biggest supporter of Net Neutrality legislation. I tend to take a pretty hard line in a debate (almost always against Jim Hedger) but so does he and it makes for an entertaining debate with him referring to me as a closed minded hater of equality and me accusing him of communist tendencies and wanting to implement policies and laws that counter the entire spirit of capitalism. It’s a fun debate.
But today we saw eye-to-eye Jim and I. While we may argue the reasons we agree – we both object to the way that Google is handling the current issue with their Verizon deal that would give their 1′s and 0′s a bit of preferential treatment. More on that in just a bit. First – let’s get some basic history on Google’s stand on net neutrality, the arguments of those who oppose net neutrality and go from there. But first -
What Is Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality is, at it’s core, the idea that the Internet is a mandatory service and that complete equality is required in the way packets are treated as they flow across it. The idea that the Telco’s should have the ability to charge more for preferential treatment of certain packages (say … YouTube videos if Google slipped them a few extra bucks) violates this idea. Well who can argue that? Don’t I have the same rights to the Internet as everyone else?
The problem arises in that the Telco’s need to pay for the infrastructure and access to that network. They argue (and let’s remember – we’re all capitalists here) that they have the right to monetize their services in a way that maximized profits. The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has opposed Net Neutrality legislation noting that there are consumer protection laws in place that provide the protection in productive ways and that bloating the law books with more jargon isn’t going to make the issue simpler, or solve any problems that aren’t being solved with current legislation as has been witnessed many times – including a decision again Comcast when they tried to restrict access to torrents on their network and were order to stop doing so. Basically – Net Neutrality is protected even for a file type that is used primarily for exchanging illegal material (yes torrents are used for legitimate purposes but …)
Initially there were two camps, those who opposed net neutrality and those who supported it. The line was drawn basically based on profit like so:
Against Legislation – the “greedy” Telcos who just want to make a buck. For Legislation – a bunch of people who stand to profit from it such as Google, Microsoft and others who claim that this will hinder innovation and growth in the technology industry. To ask them – it has nothing to do with the fact that it would cost them more.
In 2007 Google as on record as saying:
“The nation’s spectrum airwaves are not the birthright of any one company. They are a unique and valuable public resource that belong to all Americans. The FCC’s auction rules are designed to allow U.S. consumers — for the first time — to use their handsets with any network they desire, and download and use the lawful software applications of their choice.”
At the time they were bashing Verizon from taking the stand that the decision by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), “that would require the eventual winner of the spectrum to offer open devices and applications.” claiming such a decision was, “arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law.” You can read more about this on Google’s Policy Blog here.
So Here We Are 3 Years Later …
So here we stand 3 years later and Google and Verizon are in bed together working out a deal to prioritize some traffic over others, basically pulling a reference from George Orwell’s Animal Farm that, “some animals are more equal than others.” They use the example of medical applications but left the door open to gaming, 3D, entertainment, and more. I’m sure none of us would have a problem with a heart monitor connected to a doctor’s office over the Internet getting a priority over an MSN chat but we all know that’s not where this is going or it wouldn’t even be a debate.
Now on the table is that mobile devices should be included in the list of exempt platforms and services. Alrighty – now we’re getting warmed up. So they’re OK with the standard old Internet getting Net Neutrality imposed (except for special applications and services as yet to be defined of course)…but mobile, the up-and-comer and largely increasing area of bandwidth consumption and connectivity – that area should be excluded from the legislation? Here’s where you lost me but not because I think it’s wrong to give preferential treatment but because I don’t like when people are trying to be sly.
Here’s the thing … “not all animals are equal”. I can’t tell Google that all the can change for a PPC click is $0.40 just to make sure that everyone can afford it. It’s just not that kind of a world (and I would argue further that it shouldn’t be).
What They Should Have Done …
Verizon has done exactly what they should have. The way the message was delivered puts any backlash squarely on Google. I have no advice for them, masterfully executed.
Google should have come forward and said:
“The world has changed in 3 years and we have a lot of great ideas about the direction of mobile that’s going to require that Net Neutrality legislation doesn’t apply. We need to be able to pay more for preferential bandwidth to insure that we can provide you with the services we know you’ll love at a price you’ll enjoy even more. We want to pay extra so you don’t have to.
We would have called them on going against the policies of earlier but really – there would have been a lot less rumors and conjecture about what was going on. They should have stood up for their actions, admitted they were contrary to their former statements and basically outlined what we all know, the Internet world moves fast and the rules have changed.
Sometimes it’s refreshing to just hear a spade called a spade. I don’t believe that Google has any huge secret plans to bring down the Internet – I think they just want to be more equal. At the end of the day I don’t even disagree with their right to be more equal – they just should have come out and said so. They should have stood up for themselves.
And Now For Some Fun…
And now that you’ve made it to the end of a post on Net Neutrality here’s a video done by “Ask A Ninja” on net Neutrality:
Today Jim Hedger and I hosted Webcology on WebmasterRadio.fm. Every week we have a great time covering the latest happenings in the search engine and search marketing world but today, rather than amicably discussing the issues – we battled it out over Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is a subject that both Jim and I have enjoyed debating over the years. We first did so in front of an audience back at SES San Jose 2008. Jim takes the pro-Net Neutrality side and I take the anti-net neutrality side of the debate. In truth – both of us fall somewhere in the middle but a debate is sure a lot more entertaining to watch than two fence sitters discussing their ambiguous feelings.
When I first entered the debate I was pro-Net Neutrality. Now I tend to lean towards an anti-Net Neutrality perspective but with an understanding of the need for consumer protection. The same consumer protection that exists currently and seems to be doing a fine job.
We also discussed the hacking of Jim’s Twitter account and how to safeguard your information. Seriously – if it can happen to Jim, a 13 year veteran on the Internet, then it can happen to anyone.
For those of you who head over to the show – enjoy and be sure to listen next Thursday at 2PM EST (11AM Pacific) for another great show. We might even have a great guest or two.
Today Jim Hedger and I hosted Webcology on WebmasterRadio.fm. Every week we have a great time covering the latest happenings in the search engine and search marketing world but today, rather than amicably discussing the issues – we battled it out over Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is a subject that both Jim and I have enjoyed debating over the years. We first did so in front of an audience back at SES San Jose 2008. Jim takes the pro-Net Neutrality side and I take the anti-net neutrality side of the debate. In truth – both of us fall somewhere in the middle but a debate is sure a lot more entertaining to watch than two fence sitters discussing their ambiguous feelings.
When I first entered the debate I was pro-Net Neutrality. Now I tend to lean towards an anti-Net Neutrality perspective but with an understanding of the need for consumer protection. The same consumer protection that exists currently and seems to be doing a fine job.
We also discussed the hacking of Jim’s Twitter account and how to safeguard your information. Seriously – if it can happen to Jim, a 13 year veteran on the Internet, then it can happen to anyone.
For those of you who head over to the show – enjoy and be sure to listen next Thursday at 2PM EST (11AM Pacific) for another great show. We might even have a great guest or two.
Today on Webcology (a show hosted by Jim Hedger and myself on WebmasterRadio.fm every Thursday at 2PM EST) Jim and I discussed the issue of net neutrality legislation with SaveTheInternet’s Timothy Carr.
Jim and I had the pleasure of having Timothy on our show previously and it was great to have him on again. When we first had hom on the show both Jim and I were solidly in the net neutrality camp. When I was invited to speak at SES San Jose last week Jim and I took opposing sides in what turned into a debate on the issue. After doing a ton of research into it I found my leaning towards the anti-net neutrality side and so it was a great show with some tough questions and some enlightening info from Tim.
Of course, a lot of you reading this are wondering what a ton of people at the conference were wondering … What In The World Is Net Neutrality ?!!?
To answer this questions I spent a few days and wrote an article answering just that.
The article, titled “What In The World Is Net Neutrality?” is (in my opinion at least) a good read to understand the core of the issue but I would highly recommend to educate yourself further. There are links in the article to some great resources and of course, you can listen to the Webmaster Radio podcast here.
Once again I’ve been given the great opportunity to speak at SES San Jose. This SES is by far my favorite. New York is great, don’t get me wrong but there’s something about being a geek in Silicon Valley that’s just awesome.
This year I’ll be speaking on an extremely important topic and that’s Net Neutrality. And best of all, I’ll be on stage with my WebmasterRadio.fm co-host Jim Hedger from Metamend and being moderated by the lovely Cindy Krum from Blue Moon Works. You can read more about the session here (Note: link removed as the page no longer exists).
On top of that I’ll be meeting up with two very interesting clients and having a meeting with Richard Stokes from AdGooroo. Hopefully I can sneak an interview with him in there.
I hope to see many of you there. If you are – feel free to say hi. if I’m at the Google Dance – you might have to say “hi” again the next day.
The fine folks over at SaveTheInternet.com are at it again. Thanks to Rep. Ed Markey the Net Neutrality issue is back on the table. For those of you who don’t know the net neutrality issue, you can ignore this unless you have a website or an Internet connection.
I’m not going to get into a lesson on net neutrality – it’s a huge topic that’s been better covered by others. Here are some links to important information on it:
If you agree that net neutrality is an important issue and show be the law (read: if your website and/or Internet access are important to you) then please sign the petition on the SaveTheInternet.com site.
