The Bailiwick of Jersey, one of the British Channel Islands off the coast of Normandy, France, is being wired for fiber broadband speeds as high as 1Gbps and the island’s 100,000 residents are thrilled.

Jersey Telecom (JT), a government-owned service provider, expects to reach every one of the island’s 42,000 homes with Gigabit Jersey — a super-fast fiber network by the end of 2016.  The first 24 homes were switched on for service this week, with new homes coming online daily.

Graeme Millar, JT CEO, says Jersey’s new fiber network replaces the island’s antiquated copper wire based DSL service, and will result in much faster speeds for residents.  The initial trial is focused on La Rocque, Fauvic, and La Moye, and all commercial broadband providers are welcome to use the network to sell their services to residents and businesses on the island.

JT is offering a minimum of 40/40Mbps service to casual users and 1Gbps for Internet addicts.

Millar

The fiber project makes no distinctions between urban and rural residents and provides the same speeds to both businesses and residences.  Broadband has become such an important part of island life, it is essential every home have equal access.  With home-based businesses and home-based workers, it doesn’t make sense to only sell fast service to business customers.

The government spent £19m ($29.8 million) on the fiber network it calls an investment in the future.  None of the funding comes from the pockets of the island’s taxpayers.

Jersey officials claim the project will attract new high-tech businesses to the island, which is closer to France than England.

Government officials, and many residents, have rejected complaints from private providers like Airtel-Vodafone who claim the Internet’s future is mobile/wireless, not fiber.  Airtel-Vodafone fought Gigabit Jersey, claiming “fast enough” Internet access was possible over their mobile broadband network.  The company claimed the government investment interfered with private companies’ business plans for Jersey.

“Airtel had no intention of delivering anything close to the speeds we are going to get from JT, and they would hand us plans with small usage allowances and high prices to boot,” says Stop the Cap! reader Marie, who lives on Jersey.  “These companies believe it is more important to let private business dictate the Internet future of Jersey instead of letting people, through our local government, make that choice for ourselves.”

JT’s Gigabit Jersey project claims to be the most ubiquitous and comprehensive Gigabit fiber network in the western world, because it will reach every resident and business on the island.

“Why would anyone want an expensive, slower, and congested wireless network from Vodafone when you can have 1Gbps fiber broadband instead?” asks Marie. “If you want to walk around with a tablet, put a wireless router up and point it into the garden and be done with it.”

JT will gradually replace the island’s existing copper infrastructure as the project continues over the next four years.  The fiber network is expected to also bring down broadband prices, which run as high as $79 a month for 20Mbps service.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ITV Channel Islands Ozouf under fire over Gigabit Jersey 12-11.mp4[/flv]

ITV in the Channel Islands reports on Gigabit Jersey, the island’s new fiber to the home network, and the controversy over its funding and opposition from private providers.  (2 minutes)

Openmedia.ca's campaign against increased government surveillance

Two weeks ago, Ontario Provincial Police arrested at least 60 people in connection with one of the largest child pornography rings ever seen in the country.

Under current Canadian law, authorities obtained warrants to identify names associated with the IP addresses police say were engaged in the trade of lurid sexual imagery of minors, as well as recruiting potential new victims in online chat rooms and social networks.

Provincial police were able to identify at least five dozen suspects within the province and successfully staged a coordinated raid in Windsor, London, Toronto, Barrie, Niagara, Sudbury and Ottawa, charging them with more than 200 criminal offenses.

But some lawmakers believe existing privacy laws are inadequate and hamper police investigations, and plan to allow authorities new latitude in chasing down online crime.

An “Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act and to amend the Criminal Code and other acts” is scheduled to be introduced in Parliament later today, and some of its supporters are attacking online privacy advocates of being “pro-child porn” if they oppose the measure.

“He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers,” Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said to one government critic of the new privacy bill.

The proposed legislation is nothing new — similar bills have come and gone through Ottawa for a few years now. Most seek to demolish the pesky and inconvenient process of obtaining a warrant to compel service providers to hand over personal information about those police are investigating. If the new legislation passes, providers will be able to track every call you make and every website you visit:

• Require ISPs to provide, on request, your name, IP address(es), device identification numbers that allow authorities to track your cell phone and/or modem, and all contact information including unlisted phone numbers;
• Require manufacturers and Internet providers to install “back door” access, allowing on-demand surveillance without a warrant;
• Allow authorities limitless access to archived data including e-mail and other communications logs providers store;
• Compel other parties to preserve and produce electronic evidence, such as received e-mail, online order histories and other financial transactions.

Together, these new police powers would allow the government to engage in real-time surveillance of your phone calls and online activity without any court supervision or oversight. If it turns out you were unlucky enough to secure an IP address that was formerly used by a subject of an investigation, authorities could begin digging into your background and potentially charge you with an unrelated crime if they happen to find something not part of their original investigation.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Online surveillance critics accused of supporting child porn 2-13-12.flv[/flv]

CBC News outlines Canada’s latest effort to broaden online surveillance powers and the ensuing controversy. (2 minutes)

Online privacy advocates call the new legislation chilling, and are unpersuaded by supporters who think the process of obtaining a court-issued warrant is too burdensome and time consuming.

When pressed by the media, law enforcement officials have yet to identify a single criminal investigation hampered or delayed by current privacy laws, which require police to obtain sufficient evidence to convince a judge an invasion of privacy is warranted to pursue a criminal investigation. With this new legislation, authorities could launch endless “fishing expeditions” of those they suspect might be involved in a crime, but lack evidence to pursue. Even more concerning is that national security agencies could monitor political opponents, protest organizations, and other groups deemed threatening by the current government.

Proponents say such abuses are unthinkable and the bill is no more threatening than issuing an IP “phone book” for authorities, showing who is using what IP address. But Michael Geist details the legislation is much more than its backers would have you believe.

Without any proof current law is insufficient to handle criminal cases like the one noted above, it is prudent to reject this bill and avoid handing the government unchecked new powers of surveillance. That some in government are willing to play the ‘you are with us or with the child predator’-card as part of reasoned debate is as reprehensible as those in Washington who accused opponents of broad new surveillance powers after 9/11 as being “with the terrorists.”

For more information and to sign a petition opposing the measure, visit Openmedia.ca’s Stop Online Spying website.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Stop Online Spying.flv[/flv]

Openmedia.ca’s campaign against online spying includes three professionally-produced ads that put the bill in terms even technically-unaware Canadians will understand. (2 minutes)

Canadian taxpayers gift Rogers-owned Macleans magazine $1 million annually, just because.

The Tories running the Canadian federal government are on a mission to slash government spending.  In addition to budget cuts, Ottawa is about to start pink-slipping public service workers.  But executives at Rogers Communications, Canada’s gi-normous media conglomerate can rest easy knowing their corporate welfare payments are still safe from the government axe.

At a time when North Americans are abandoning print media in droves, it’s more than a little odd that Rogers is getting a government handout for a whole mess of magazines the company still prints and sells to an increasingly disinterested public.

It turns out the Canada Periodical Fund exists to throw nearly $71 million a year in subsidies to magazines ranging from the endangered to the ubiquitous.  Among the titles getting taxpayer handouts include those even Americans recognize.  Rogers is getting $1.5 million a year in free money just for printing Maclean’s.  They get the same for Chatelaine, Canada’s version of Reader’s Digest, and Canadian Living.

In fact, more than a dozen well-known magazine titles get a cool million plus from the federal government, just for… existing.

Ironically, Canadian Heritage defends the subsidy program as an effort to ensure “Canadians have diverse Canadian print magazines, non-daily newspapers, and digital periodicals.”  Canadian publishing, much like its telecommunications marketplace, is increasingly about as non-diverse as you can get, as a handful of giant corporations consolidate their ownership of most major print publications.  Transcontinental and Rogers together account for half of the top 50 magazines in Canada.  Smaller titles are fading through a combination of increasing postal rates and decreasing interest on the part of an online-0bsessed culture.

The Ottawa Citizen thinks it has all gotten out of hand:

The central problem with this government program is that big magazines don’t need government help and the little ones aren’t worth it. A really generous observer could see public value in Atlantic Horse & Pony, Modern Dog or Hardware Merchandising, but this is Canadian culture writ extremely small.

The magazine program clearly helps prevent a Darwinian reduction in the astounding number of Canadian magazines. Thus we have Big Buck Magazine ($40,521) a quarterly periodical devoted to deer hunting. Subscribers who enjoy pictures of dead animals might also like Western Canadian Game Warden ($18,626), Ontario Monster Whitetails ($8,488) or The Canadian Trapper ($5,303).

Farm publications are soundly supported, including Canadian Ayrshire Review ($12,319), Canadian Cattlemen ($158,952) and Cowsmopolitan Dairy Magazine ($16,504). It includes no sex tips, by the way. The biggest beneficiary is The Western Producer, a weekly farm newspaper that takes in nearly $1.6 million.

Religious publications also do well, including Canadian Mennonite ($152,957), Mennonite Brethren Herald ($85,590), The United Church Observer ($191,592) and Presbyterian Record ($156,373).

Even the satirical magazine Frank collected $57,517 from the taxpayers, surely one of its best pranks.

[…] The taxpayers might not get much value from the Canada Periodical Fund, but the Conservative government is making the most of it. In the Canadian way, the magazine and weekly newspaper grants have been turned into pork. Local MPs announce these silly little grants, using standard language about how the giveaway contributes to the economy and the diversity of Canadian content.

A few thousand dollars could do wonders for most digital versions of small print publications, all without killing trees and wasting energy delivering them to a dwindling number of readers.  But giant-sized conglomerates like Rogers don’t need the handouts.  Not when the company enjoys a revenue largesse from its current holdings.  You cannot promote diversity handing out checks to companies that would like nothing better than to use the money to merge and acquire their way to an increasingly concentrated media marketplace.  Nobody has proved that better than Rogers Communications.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHP Harrisburg Free cell phone program 1-5-12.mp4[/flv]

WHP-TV in Harrisburg, Penn. has been running several stories about the FCC’s Lifeline program, which hands out free cell phones to those living below the poverty line.  While the FCC defends the Lifeline cell phone program as delivering needed phone service for job-seekers and as a landline replacement, some citizens who consider cell phones a luxury are upset the federal government is subsidizing the project at a cost of $1.3 billion a year.  Even more disturbing to some is the reported amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that may be delivering free phones to those who don’t deserve them.  The anchor’s thinly-disguised editorializing leaves little doubt he considers the program a waste of money at a time of skyrocketing budget deficits. (Warning: Loud Volume)  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHP Harrisburg Possible free broadband 1-10-12.mp4[/flv]

WHP ran this follow-up story about the FCC’s forthcoming involvement in “free broadband” for the poor.  In fact, the subsidized Internet program would likely deliver 1-3Mbps basic Internet service for around $10 a month.  The WHP anchor doesn’t seem too impressed with this part of the Lifeline program either.  (Warning: Loud Volume)  (2 minutes)

Verizon Wireless has tucked some unpleasant news into their “change of terms” notices buried on the back pages of your monthly bill.

Effective Jan. 12, the wireless carrier will charge a $2 “convenience fee” when paying by phone or through Verizon’s website.  Only customers enrolled in autopay, authorize an electronic check payment, or who still mail a check to the phone company every month will escape the new bill padding fee.

Most likely impacted are customers who make their payment at the last minute or face disconnection over an overdue bill if they don’t authorize a partial payment immediately.  Verizon says the new fee will defray the costs of accepting online and phone payments, but considering an automated attendant usually handles pay-by-phone bill payments, the costs to Verizon are likely far less than the revenue the company stands to earn from the new fee.

Verizon Wireless’ “administrative fee” is also increasing, effective Jan. 1:

Notice Of Administrative Charge Increase
Effective 1/1/2012, the monthly Verizon Wireless Administrative Charge
for voice and email plans will increase from $0.83 to $0.99 per line for all
eligible customers. The charge for Mobile Broadband customers will
remain at $.06. For information regarding this charge, call
1-888-684-1888. Please consult your Customer Agreement for
information about rate changes.

More money in Verizon's pocket

While we used to indicate these changes were enough to allow customers to escape their two-year contracts under the “materially adverse” clause in the company’s subscriber agreement, Verizon considers that loophole effectively closed with the current terms and conditions made effective this past September:

What Charges Are Set by Verizon Wireless?
You agree to pay all access, usage and other charges that you or the user of your wireless device incurred. For Postpay Service, our charges also include Federal Universal Service, Regulatory and Administrative Charges, and we may also include other charges related to our governmental costs. We set these charges; they aren’t taxes, they aren’t required by law, they are not necessarily related to anything the government does, they are kept by us in whole or in part, and the amounts and what they pay for may change.

However, nobody says you have to agree to pay them.  If you call or write Verizon Wireless before 1/1/12 and tell them you do not agree to pay the increased fee and consider it materially adverse and grounds for terminating your service, customer service representatives have been authorized to refund the difference between the old and new administrative fee for the remainder of your two-year contract (or a straight $5 courtesy credit in some instances).

Stop the Cap! recommends using autopay for your monthly Verizon bill, and if you are in the habit of paying your credit card bill in full every month, associate your Verizon account with a credit card that offers a rewards program.  With cell bills routinely running $100 or more, earning something extra from a cashback or airline miles card is better than nothing.  Just make sure you don’t run a balance.  The interest rate charged on most rewards cards is well in excess of the value of the reward.

Tired of the gouging?  You can e-mail Verizon Wireless’ executive customer service team and let them know what you think:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Then tell the FCC, your two senators, and member of Congress.