Archive for January 2009
More anti-P2P behavior in Ireland
One of Ireland’s largest ISPs, Eircom, has capitulated to the major music labels and agreed to implement a full ‘graduated response’ program—complete with disconnections. Users get two warnings regarding file-sharing, and a third violation brings down the banhammer. The music industry has already said that it intends to pursue the same agreement with Ireland’s other ISPs.
The dispute began some time ago when the Irish branches of EMI, Warner, Universal, and Sony filed suit against Eircom. They charged that the ISP was essentially aiding and abetting piracy by doing things like advertising its services on The Pirate Bay, and the labels believed they could get a judge to force the ISP to install network monitoring equipment.
(Via Ars Technica.)
Starting next month, in Arkansas and Kansas, Cox Communications will throttle your software updates.
I’m not yet clear on how they plan to determine what constitutes a software update, but I don’t like any of the options I can imagine.
While this is a “limited trial”, I think this is another clear signal that multi-tier, or content-specific distribution models will be the mainstream future.
Here is the meat of the announcement from Cox;
Below is a break-down of the time-sensitivity of the various types of traffic that travel the Cox network. Any traffic that is not specifically classified will be treated as time-sensitive.
Web (Web surfing, including web-based email and chat embedded in web pages)
VoIP (Voice over IP, telephone calls made over the Internet)
IM (Instant messages, including related voice and webcam traffic)
Streaming (Web-based audio and video programs)
Games (Online interactive games)
Tunneling & Remote Connectivity (VPN-type services for telecommuting)
Other (Any service not categorized into another area)
File Access (Bulk transfers of data such as FTP)
Network Storage (Bulk transfers of data for storage)
P2P (Peer to peer protocols)
Software Updates (Managed updates such as operating system updates)
Usenet (Newsgroup related)
Here is the link to the Cox Communication announcement on network traffic management
Visit OMS SafeHarbor for more information on fulfilling your software distribution requirements.
I saw this article on HBR yesterday. While it talks about the airline industry, I think the conclusion is also applicable in our part of the software industry. Said another way “Being good at one thing is rarely enough to attract and keep a customer.”
Virgin Atlantic Airways provided me with the best customer service I’ve ever had. The airline went to extraordinary measures–at its expense–to help my husband get on a plane to America.
At the time, when we were still dating, he lived in London, I in New York, and I had mistakenly returned to America with his passport in a suitcase after a previous vacation. When we realized the mistake, my husband rushed to the airport to see if Virgin would still let him fly if I could meet him in New York with the passport. Several phone calls later from Virgin’s customer service desk, the airline suggested a wonderful alternative: they would send a courier to my office in Manhattan to pick up the passport. The courier would deliver it to Virgin staff at JFK, who would, in turn, hand it to a pilot who would personally carry it on the next flight to London, where my husband would be handed his passport. And that’s exactly what happened. Not many hours later, we were reunited in New York.
I’ve told that story to many people over the years since as an example of the best customer service I ever had. We didn’t have to whine or beg for anything and it didn’t cost us a dime. Virgin’s staff solved our problem for us.
My thanks to them? I’ve never once flown Virgin again.
I’m embarrassed to admit that; I’ve flown transatlantic dozens of times since then, but not once on Virgin. The reality is that great customer service wasn’t enough to overcome my desire to work up frequent flier points. At the time, Virgin didn’t have a great frequent flier program. It was that easy for me to turn my back on what was otherwise the best customer service experience of my life.
And so I must reluctantly conclude, if I’m a typical example, thrilling a customer is good, but it’s not enough. Your relationships with customers is simple at its core–you must meet their needs on the things they value most. Or you won’t keep them.
The US BIS has just published this request for comment on encryption technology used in software that may be subject to multi-jurisdictional laws.
A pdf of of the Federal Register notice can be found here.
Here is the text.
Request for Public Comment on Foreign Produced Encryption Items That Are Made From U.S.-Origin Encryption Technology or Software
Jan 06, 2009
SUMMARY: To determine the appropriate extent and scope of U.S. export controls on foreign products that are the direct products of U.S.-origin encryption technology or software, BIS is seeking information on the potential impact of controlling such foreign made items for Encryption Items (“EI”) reasons under the EAR (i.e., those that are classified under ECCN 5A002 or 5D002) if the direct product of U.S.-origin ECCN 5E002 technology or ECCN 5D002 software. Specifically, BIS is requesting comments regarding the impact this control would have on both U.S. exporters of encryption technology and software and foreign manufacturers of products that are derived in whole or in part from U.S.-origin encryption technology or software.
Convergence in Telecommunication Learn more, download free white paper.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Comments must be received no later than March 9, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted via http://www.regulations.gov; by e-mail directly to BIS at email@example.com; in hardcopy to U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy Division, 14th St. and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room H-2705, Washington, DC 20230; or by fax to 202- 482-3355. Please input “0694-XA15″ in the subject line of the written comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For General Information Contact: Sharron Cook, Office of Exporter Services, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security at 202-482-2440, or fax 202-482-3355, or e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.
For Specific Encryption Related Information Contact: C. Randall Pratt, Information Technology Division, Office of National Security and Technology Transfer Controls at 202-482-0707 or E-Mail: C. Randall Pratt at email@example.com.
The Foreign-Produced Direct Product Rule is found in General Prohibition No. 3 under section 736.2(b)(3) of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and in section 734.3(a)(4) of the EAR, “Items Subject to the EAR.”
Under section 736.2(b)(3)(ii)(A) of the EAR, a foreign-made item is considered a direct product of U.S. technology or software if it meets the following conditions, it is the direct product of technology or software that requires a written assurance as a supporting document for a license, as defined in paragraph (o)(3)(i) of Supplement No. 2 to part 748 of the EAR, or as a precondition for the use of License Exception TSR at section 740.6 of the EAR, and it is subject to national security controls as designated on the applicable ECCN of the Commerce Control List at part 774 of the EAR.
Section 736.2(b)(3)(i) provides that if a foreign-made item is a direct product of U.S.-origin technology or software pursuant to the criteria set forth above, then it is subject to the EAR if it is exported from the country of manufacture to a destination in Country Group D:1 or E:2 (Cuba) of Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 of the EAR. General Prohibition 3 prohibits the reexport or export from abroad of items meeting the criteria of foreign direct products of U.S.-origin technology or software to Country Group D:1 destinations or Cuba unless authorization has been granted via a license or license exception.
Technology and software controlled under ECCN 5E002 and 5D002 of the Commerce Control List (CCL) (Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of the EAR) are subject to national security (“NS”) controls. When the foreign-produced direct product of such technology or software would be classified under ECCN 5A002 or 5D002, it would meet the definition of “direct product” under section 736.2(b)(3)(ii)(A) of the EAR.
BIS is seeking information on the impact of making the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin ECCN 5E002 technology or ECCN 5D002 software, classified under ECCN 5A002 or 5D002 subject to the EAR if exported from the country of manufacture to any destination (except the United States or Canada). All such foreign-produced direct product ECCN 5A002 or 5D002 hardware or software would be subject to the license requirements of sections 742.15 (“EI” encryption items) and 742.4 (“NS” national security), or to the review requirements of section 740.17 (License Exception ENC). Reporting requirements under section 740.17(e) would not apply to exports from the country of manufacture of foreign-produced direct products, as reporting is required only for export from the United States or reexports from Canada.
The possible revision described above would apply to the foreign direct product of ECCN 5E002 technology and 5D002 software exported under license, not to the foreign direct product of technology and software exported under License Exception ENC of section 740.17 of the EAR.
Under the current provisions of section 736.2(b)(3), if ECCN 5E002 technology is exported under an export license for purposes of offshore manufacture of an encryption item that has previously been submitted to the U.S. Government for technical review and has been made eligible for export under License Exception ENC, the
[Page Number 414]
foreign-produced direct product of the technology is not subject to the EAR unless: (1) It is exported from the country of manufacture to a destination in Country Group D:1 or E:2 (Cuba); or (2) it is exported from the United States after having been shipped to the United States from the country of manufacture.
However, all foreign-produced direct product of technology or software exported under License Exception ENC under either paragraph (a)(1) (for internal development of new products by a `license-free zone’ (Supplement No. 3 to part 740) “private sector end-user”) or (a)(2) (to a “U.S. subsidiary” for internal use or development) are currently subject to the EAR by the terms of the notes to paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2).
Request for Comment
BIS is seeking public comment on the impact such a revision to section 736.2(b)(3)(i) would have on both U.S. manufacturers of encryption technology and software and foreign manufacturers of products (including under contract to U.S. companies who own and maintain the intellectual property, branding, marketing and distribution rights to the end-products manufactured offshore) that are derived in whole or in part from U.S.-origin encryption technology or software. BIS is also seeking information about the cost of compliance with such a revision, including U.S. Government review of foreign direct products prior to export from abroad. BIS is also seeking information on the burdens of complying with multiple sets of laws, foreign and U.S., which could result from the potential revision.
BIS would also like information about the various (commercial and military) applications of foreign products that are derived in whole or in part from U.S.-origin encryption technology or software. In addition, BIS is seeking information from foreign-manufacturers of encryption items about the factors that they or their competitors might consider in deciding to produce or use U.S.-origin encryption technology or software.
Additionally, BIS is interested in specific information (URL addresses, technical specifications, etc.) about the availability of foreign encryption technology and software that is equivalent to U.S.-origin encryption technology and software classified under ECCNs 5E002 and 5D002. Finally, BIS seeks information on the impact on the U.S. information technology manufacturing base and American jobs if encryption products continue to be not subject to the EAR when exported from abroad or reexported to countries other than those listed in Country Group D:1 and E:2, simply by being manufactured under an export license, when identical products manufactured onshore by U.S. companies (or overseas by U.S. subsidiaries pursuant to LE ENC or LE ENC- eligible “private sector end-users”) are subject to the EAR.
Dated: December 29, 2008.
Christopher R. Wall,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-31371 Filed 1-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
Vol. 74, No. 003
15 CFR Part 736; [Docket No. 0810231384-81391-01]; RIN 0694-XA15