Communicating in a networked world
I don’t ever post humor[1], and I delete humor videos when they’re sent to me by friends, but this Onion article about China recognizing the appearance of the 12th website cracked me up! Too many right-on-target references. Can you count how many references there are to recent (and legitimate) news stories about Internet censorship in China?
I wrote about the open wi-fi network in central London – back when I was just “hoping” that it would give us coverage while in London. Indeed it looks the network is around and that there are many wireless hotspots. I don’t know yet how pervasive the outdoor coverage is, but coverage at shops (coffee shops for example) seems pretty much available.
But the service that’s saving my life here is BT Mobile Broadband, which is available for £15/month (special promotion) on a “commercial” plan. (See photo of their [new] USB plug-in device above)
Advertised as providing “up to 7.2Mb (actually I would say 7.2mbps – or megabits per second) I was getting 2.5mbps on Sunday afternoon, and through the week have been getting upwards of 640kbps almost all of the time, which isn’t as good, but is roughly equivalent to a DSL line in the US. It’s also not quite as good as wi-fi, but if you’re at a public-access wi-fi spot, you’re unlikely to get anything better than the 640kpbs speed anyway.
On Monday at Reboot Britain [see Howard Rheingold’s article on the conference, where he spoke] we were inside a steel and brick building, in an inner room, and the local wi-fi was so overloaded it couldn’t maintain a connection for longer than a few minutes [this is common for large conferences of geeks], and I stayed on the BT Mobile service the entire day and it was rock solid, though at the lower data rate. That’s why I say it “saved by life.”
If you’re in Britain, need data on the road, and can’t tether your computer through a phone, this service seems like it would be indispensable. [I don’t know whether non-British national can purchase it short term…but if so, it would be great.]
I’ve just spent 48 hours “beating myself up” over the Comcast (cable) high-speed Internet system here in San Francisco. I say beating myself up because I was so convinced the problem was Comcast that I spent hours on the phone with them, but ultimately most of the problems were in my own network. [Not all, but most.]
In US cities, the license to install and operate cable television networks is a city-granted monopoly. When cable TV was first being installed, each city opened a bidding process, and cable operators bid to be granted the franchise to install and operate the cable system in that particular city. If they won it, they then had exclusive rights. So in San Francisco, we have telephones provided by AT&T (which originally was Pacific Bell Telephone Company) and we have cable TV provided by ComCast (only – no other provider). Satellite TV lies outside this structure and is available everywhere on a competitive basis, but that’s a different issue.
Comcast also delivers Internet connectivity (and telephone service) via their cables. And that’s the rub. [Read more…]
The Washington Post (byline Ariana Eunjung Cha, Washington Post Foreign Service) reports that several authoritarian governments, including those of China, Cuba and Myanmar (Burma) are censoring in whole or in part, news of the strife that has followed the Iranian elections. Probably for fear that people living under the control of their regimes will get the message and understand that modern viral (social) media have the potential to spread dissent much farther than it ever might have gotten before, in eras when media publication could be held tightly in check.
Of course this is a fundamental human tendency – to do things we’ve seen done elsewhere. In criminology it’s called “copycat crimes.” And certainly these regimes consider those who do this kind of thing to be criminals.
I noted this BoingBoing report that China[1] blocked all Google services yesterday[2] for a time and that it seemed to be punishment for Google not blocking access to certain sites or types of sites that the Chinese state disapproves of. And rumors that this was all intended to divert attention from the Green Dam incident that took place last week.
[2] Here’s the source report in The Guardian. And a quote:
Earlier in the day, the main state and communist party media – Xinhua and People’s Daily – condemned Google for providing links to pornographic websites through its search engine. Last week, the government ordered the US company to halt foreign website searches as a punishment.
See also my notes on China’s Golden Shield.