Governo estuda implantação de internet 0800

[rubensk]

Eu acrescentaria que um "site não é mais uma ilha", os links de uma página não são necessariamente restritos ao dominio. Um site de comércio eletrônico razoável inclui links para os fabricantes dos produtos (videos, manuais, imagens), para sites de avaliação de produtos e do próprio vendedor, pesquisa de CEP e acompanhamento de remessas nos Correios, acompanhamento de remessas via transportadoras, terceirização de meios de pagamento, noticias publicadas sobre a empresa, pesquisas de satisfação, etc.

É exatamente por causa disso que citei a opção proxy.

[5ms]

É exatamente por causa disso que citei a opção proxy.

Seria possivel impedir o uso do site como portal? por exemplo, eu estou visitando o site de uma farmácia e a bula de um medicamento é um link para um laboratório. Como acessar somente a bula e não as demais páginas do laboratório?

[rubensk]

Seria possivel impedir o uso do site como portal? por exemplo, eu estou visitando o site de uma farmácia e a bula de um medicamento é um link para um laboratório. Como acessar somente a bula e não as demais páginas do laboratório?

Sim, parseando a navegação e permitindo os links derivados. Dá trabalho, mas é factível. AJAX é que talvez seja complicado fazer.

[5ms]

Nota da Record repercutindo nos sites especializados ...

Adnews e UOL inventam notícia sobre Record News e R7

Estranhamente uma semana depois da parceria entre Adnews e UOL ser alardeada em anúncios na Folha de S.Paulo, o Grupo Folha dá indícios de que o AdNews será o seu braço armado para atacar os concorrentes que o ameaçam.

Em "notícia" criminosa publicada pelos jornalistas Leonardo Pereira e Marcelo Gripa no site Adnews às 10h03 desta sexta-feira (17), o site "informa" que a Record News e o R7 terão suas atividades encerradas.

Incapaz de ser efetivo em ataques gratuitos em suas próprias páginas, o UOL demonstra claramente que, a partir do anúncio da parceria, usará o Adnews como caneta de aluguel para tentar conter a real ameaça que sofre tanto em audiência quanto em faturamento nos últimos anos.

"Uma vez mais o Grupo Record é vítima de seu sucesso. O êxito do R7 e da Record News é inconteste e provado pelos números que apresentam. A Record tomará imediatamente as medidas judiciais cabíveis contra os jornalistas e o site que publicaram mais este ataque inverídico contra a empresa", afirma Alexandre Raposo, presidente da Rede Record.

Comunicado oficial da Record:

O Grupo Record vem a público informar que foi vítima de mais um ataque criminoso contra as suas atividades empresarias. São absolutamente falsas as notícias sobre o encerramento do portal R7 e da Record News.

O ataque foi divulgado sem identificar qualquer fonte de informação pelo site Adnews, na mesma semana em que a empresa anunciou que se tornava parceira do portal UOL, um dos concorrentes do R7.

O R7 registrou excelentes resultados em menos de três anos de atividades. De janeiro a dezembro de 2011, o portal teve um crescimento de 111,61%, enquanto o mercado brasileiro de internet se expandiu 8,73% no mesmo período, segundo dados do Ibope/Nielsen.

A Record News, apesar de sofrer boicote de algumas operadoras de televisão paga, segue como o canal de notícias com o maior número de telespectadores do país.

A atuação da Record News e do portal R7 permitiu que o Grupo Record expandisse seu alcance, democratizando ainda mais o acesso à informação. Ambos atendem a um público cada vez maior, telespectadores e internautas que, cientes da qualidade dos produtos, optam cada vez mais pelos seus serviços.

O Grupo Record informa ainda que vai tomar medidas judiciais contra estes ataques, que podem trazer prejuízos para nossas atividades.

São Paulo, 17 de fevereiro de 2012.
CENTRAL RECORD DE COMUNICAÇÃO

Crime: Adnews e UOL inventam not

[5ms]

Pelo jeito a festejada "idéia tupiniquim" do ignorante ministro é apenas (mais um) bostejamento tupiniquim ...


“Não temos conhecimento de nenhum modelo internacional parecido. Acho que isso será meio tupiniquim”, afirmou o ministro Paulo Bernardo.

Caso tipico de ouviu o galo cantar, mas não sabe aonde.

MOBILE WORLD CONGRESS — AT&T and other U.S. wireless carriers have been making enormous investments to keep up with the demand on their networks thanks to the surging popularity of streaming movies and other bandwidth-hogging content on smartphones and tablet computers.
Now, Dallas-based AT&T reportedly is considering a way to encourage customers to consume more data while shifting some costs from mobile operators to other companies such as applications developers and Internet companies.

"A feature that we're hoping to have out sometime next year is the equivalent of 800 numbers that would say, if you take this app, this app will come without any network usage," AT&T executive John Donovan said at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, as quoted by The Wall Street Journal.

The U.S. mobile-phone industry has moved away from all-you-can-eat data plans and shifted to tiered offerings in which consumers must pay more for data usage if they exceed their monthly allotment. Wireless subscribers may be more willing to stream additional movies and television shows, for example, if they thought that content wasn't going to count against their monthly allotment. Such certainty, somewhat ironically, could encourage them to fork out more moolah by paying for additional wireless apps and services.

A few obvious questions include whether companies like app developers and Internet content companies would have an adequate incentive to cover network costs and how AT&T and the other companies would split revenues from various services.

"What they're saying is, why don't we go create new revenue streams that don't exist today and find a way to split them," Donovan told the Journal.

By ANTON TROIANOVSKI

BARCELONA—AT&T Inc. said it is considering a way to let the providers of mobile services pay for the cost of the data traffic associated with things like streaming movies and smartphone applications, opening up a new round of debate over the rules of the mobile Internet.

John Donovan, the executive responsible for AT&T's network and technology, explained the carrier's interest in the service in an interview, likening it to toll-free calling for the mobile-broadband world.

"A feature that we're hoping to have out sometime next year is the equivalent of 800 numbers that would say, if you take this app, this app will come without any network usage," Mr. Donovan said on the sidelines of the Mobile World Congress, a mobile-industry conference, here.

Carriers have been considering different pricing models for years as they look for ways to make more money from skyrocketing mobile-data use. But AT&T's approach would be novel, an attempt to push some of the cost of data traffic back onto the Internet companies and other service providers that profit from it.

It is far from clear how willing technology companies would be to pay wireless carriers for data use. Mr. Donovan said there was interest from companies that could use the feature to drum up new business from customers wary of using data-heavy services like mobile video.

"What they're saying is, why don't we go create new revenue streams that don't exist today and find a way to split them," Mr. Donovan said of the technology companies.

The incentive—or cudgel—for technology companies to participate comes from AT&T and Verizon Wireless 's shift from unlimited data plans to ones that charge users higher monthly fees as their data consumption goes up.

A customer nearing his data limit for the month could be more likely to download a movie if the content provider covered the price of the data transmission.

"It'd be like freight included," Mr. Donovan said.

Some consumer advocates reacted with dismay, arguing that AT&T could stifle competition and shift the playing field toward well-heeled app developers and content providers that have the financial capacity to subsidize mobile customers' data use.

"You have to raise all this additional capital to reach the customer or alternatively you have to compete with well-established players who can afford to pay," said Harold Feld, legal director for consumer group Public Knowledge.

By allowing some companies to pay for better services for wireless customers, AT&T could be wading back into the "net neutrality" debate that played out in recent years.

Proponents of net neutrality say that telecommunications companies shouldn't be allowed to give special treatment to some service providers, because doing so would threaten the ideal of the "open Web," where easy access to customers lets new competitors like Facebook Inc. spring up quickly.

Telecom companies say they need to have the flexibility to manage traffic on their networks. They also chafe at being sidelined as "dumb pipes," relegated to spending billions to maintain networks while Internet companies collect much of the profit from the traffic.

Prepaid carrier MetroPCS Communications Inc. drew criticism from net-neutrality advocates last year after offering unlimited YouTube usage alongside its smartphone plans. The company no longer offers that plan, and a spokesman said YouTube never paid MetroPCS to subsidize data traffic.

The Federal Communications Commission has adopted "net neutrality" rules that are stricter for landline networks than mobile ones, and Public Knowledge said it would be tough to challenge AT&T's plan under the FCC's rules. Mr. Donovan, in the interview on Monday, said AT&T needed to find creative ways to deal with and profit from surging mobile-data use.

"There's a view of an entitlement that says that any impediment to riding over the top of our network is inherently wrong, is un-American," Mr. Donovan said.

The FCC declined to comment.

Write to Anton Troianovski at anton.troianovski@wsj.com
A version of this article appeared Feb. 28, 2012, on page B4 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: AT&T May Try Billing App Makers.

AT&T Plan Would Let App Makers Pay for Subscribers' Data Use - WSJ.com

[5ms]

TV pública quer conquistar o mundo

A TV Brasil quer fechar o ano de 2012 sendo transmitida para 77 países – hoje, a emissora está em 69 nações pelo mundo.

O canal, que no Brasil é conhecido também pelo justo apelido de TV Traço, quer chegar ao Paraguai, Reino Unido, Espanha, Alemanha, Itália, França, Bélgica e Suíça.


Por Lauro Jardim

[5ms]

On Net Neutrality, Could a 1-800 Model Really Work?

April 16th, 2012 by Robert Powell

As most have noticed, net neutrality storm clouds are gathering again and battle lines are being drawn. The flashpoint right now is Comcast’s decision to have its Xfinity streaming content not count against its bandwidth caps, but it’s not just Comcast. AT&T and Verizon are working on related ideas in which content providers would pay to have their traffic counted against data caps. While all this looks like it will develop into a purely partisan disagreement, I’m starting to wonder if there isn’t something useful buried in the idea.

Let me start by assert something that in today’s media is perhaps not obvious. The positions of network neutrality supporters and network operators are not diametrically opposed. Nor are they parallel of course, but this is not a zero sum game. At the core, network neutrality supporters want a fair, unthrottled playing field that encourages innovation and freedom of usage, while carriers want traffic growth economically linked to revenue growth so that their network investments are justifiable.

Rumors have been circling about the major wireless carriers implementing a model similar to that for 1-800 numbers in the voice business, where content providers can pay to be cap-free. I’m as suspicious as anyone and we don’t know the details of the actual 1-800-number-style plans under development, but suppose someone put out a grand compromise with the following features:

• Non-discriminatory cap exclusion would be allowed — Any app developer can choose to pay to have traffic generated by the app be excluded from bandwidth caps, but on a per-GB/TB basis across all subscribers at a fixed price. No special deals for large providers.
• A minimum threshold to encourage innovation – The first XYZ amount of bandwidth generated monthly across all subscribers for apps that have signed up would be free. This would mean that new apps have the chance to gain momentum, and hence cash flow before having to start writing checks.
• Carriers must track traffic usage reliably for registered apps
  – If they wish to tie revenues to this, they must be able to quantify it properly.
• Apps can choose not to participate
  – especially low-data-usage apps, which can convince their customers that their apps are not a threat to their cap.
• No filtering based on functionality – Carriers may only apply this regime in the context of traffic volumes. If Skype or Instagram or whoever disrupts a competing carrier product within these rules, then so be it.

Such a regime would correct several problems that have been intractable thus far:

• App developers would have a direct economic incentive to optimize the bandwidth their apps consume, whereas right now we have (in wireless) limited spectrum resources with potentially unrestrained demands.
• Carriers would gain a direct linkage between the traffic their networks support and the revenues they generate, giving them more visibility for long term network investments.
• Users would not have to worry as much about exceeding their caps, encouraging them to *use* their bandwidth rather than calling them data hogs.
• Large content providers would not have an undue advantage.
• Last mile providers would not need to start disputes like the Comcast/Level3 traffic exchange dispute.

It doesn’t solve everything (what does?):

• How are the prices determined? It’s always been unclear how to find a non-regulatory way to have fair prices across a last mile bottleneck. In this case though, perhaps the popularity of apps and devices could help balance things. If the app everyone wants is available cap-free from carrier A but not from carrier B which charges developers more, then carrier A would perhaps start to lose customers. But it’s not clear this is enough, and of course nobody wants access fees and such.
• Tracking actual traffic usage per app may not be easy for the carriers without standardized tagging and such, which would take time to work out. There are also probably privacy issues to overcome in collecting the data.

Now, I can hear the howls out there that anything with a carrier charging a new fee is bad. But we already have a new fee in place in the form of the data caps and the related overage fees. If things go as they currently are then they will just keep the caps low and charge fees anyway. That places the onus on users, and nobody should want it there – not carriers who bear the brunt of their customers anger on the subject, and not content providers who really want users to feel free to consume content without watching the meter anxiously out of the corner of their eye.

Virtually everyone is against network operators arbitrarily blocking and filtering our content. Heck even the carriers should be against that, they can’t possibly want to spend the next decade telling customers, with whom they already have an image problem, what they can’t do as opposed to what they can do. But the economics have to be aligned somehow, and right now they’re not. For network neutrality proponents to take too hard a line on all this leaves a giant gap here that would be similarly counter-productive. Why not use the need for economic balance in raw traffic growth to negotiate for freedom of the content itself?

Whether such a 1-800 model for last mile bandwidth can fill the current gap or not, sooner or later a compromise will need to be found. And this feels much better than other ideas we have seen in the past. There must be a more robust linkage between bandwidth usage by apps and users on the one hand and the capital costs for the network that must carry that bandwidth. And there must be the freedom of content and innovation too.

Neither side should win this battle outright, because both are correct on many fronts. It would be disastrous for the carriers to gain full, arbitrary veto power over content on their networks, but it would be equally disastrous for the economics driving infrastructure investment to become dysfunctional. We want an environment where so-called ‘data hogs’ are instead ‘valued customers’, where innovative products that use less bandwidth to create more value are celebrated, and where needing to add more capacity is a cause for celebration all-around. Utopia? Perhaps, but we can do better than the status quo.

What do you think? Would such an effort be a step forward, backward, or sideways?

On Net Neutrality, Could a 1-800 Model Really Work? | Telecom Ramblings