The U.S. and Canada are often compared on many different fronts, including technology. A recently published story in several sources, one being cyberatlas, reported that broadband adoption in Canada is higher than in the U.S.
As a percentage of total online population, 53.6 percent of Canadians Internet users access the Net via a broadband connection, while only 33.8 percent of Americans do. But another report cites Nielsen//NetRatings and Ipsos-Reid data, saying that Canadian broadband usage is 64 percent.
No particular explanation for the higher Canadian broadband adoption was given, though a Brent Lowe-Bernie, who is president of comScore Media Metrix Canada, was quoted as saying, "The cable and telephone infrastructure in this country has allowed broadband service to flourish, and Canadian activity within the digital media landscape has responded accordingly."
Of course, there is a huge disparity in the general and online populations between the two countries. For example, U.S. population is pegged at 280.5 million compared to Canada’s 31.9 million. The total online population of the U.S. is 168.6 million (60 percent) versus 16.84 million (53 percent). An additional disparity shows up when comparing “active Internet users,” who are defined as the number of users in any given month. Active U.S. Internet users are 44 percent of the total population, while active Canadian users are only 28 percent of the total Canadian population, according to cyberatlas stats.
One way to sum up these numbers is this: a lower percentage of Canadians use the Internet, compared to Americans, but a higher percentage of Canadians access the Internet via a broadband connection.
Likely, some readers will regard the broadband disparity as somewhat surprising, given the presumed U.S. leadership in technology. But from an insurance industry Web site perspective, lower U.S. broadband adoption figures could be problematic. For example, graphics-intense Web sites (and those with Flash introductions) that are slow to load can produce annoying and time-wasting frustration that could cause dial-up visitors to drop off and go elsewhere.
While last year’s AUGIE survey revealed that the majority of agents
have high-speed connections, those agents should not assume that the majority
of their Web sites’ visitors do. With 66.2% of home users in the U.S.
connected to the Internet at 56Kbps or less, they, in fact, don’t.
The Internet hosting service and tech provider, CrystalTech, recently alerted its customers about another “domain name renewal” scam. Scams such as these periodically make their rounds and owners of domain names need to be aware of them.
This one has been dubbed the “Melbourne IT E-mail Scam.” According to CrystalTech, someone is impersonating a representative of Melbourne IT. The e-mail informs recipients that they need to renew their domains immediately or risk losing their service. An unsuspecting domain owner clicks the provided link, and ends up on a page that asks for personal information and credit card info.
Scams like this one prey upon people who are not sophisticated enough to
know (or remember) how domain registration works, or who do not read things
carefully. When registering a domain name, you should use a reputable registrar
and remember who that registrar is. Reputable domain registrars typically
provide information you can print out for your files and later refer to should
you have questions or be suspicious.
The ever-growing spam problem is producing a host of solutions — at a price, of course. Some products are legitimate, worthwhile, and good. Others are questionable. One product that I regard as suspicious is SpamNet from Cloudmark. In a nutshell, my concern about this product is that, to a large extent, it takes away the individual’s freedom to determine what is spam and what isn’t.
SpamNet is Cloudmark’s solution for the individual user. Another program, Authority, is Cloudmark’s enterprise version that “stops spam at the gateway preventing unwanted email from impacting your employee productivity and computing infrastructure.”
SpamNet is an MS Outlook plug-in that claims to keep over 90% of spam out of your inbox automatically. In reading about the product, this sentence caught my attention: “If a spam message does slip thru [sic] into your inbox, you just click the Block button and you and the hundreds of thousands of community members don't get that spam ever again.
What was this “hundreds of thousands of community members?”
The answer to that questions seems to be buried in the FAQ section of the Cloudmark Web site, under the question, “How does SpamNet know what is spam?” The answer includes the following:
“Cloudmark receives thousands of spam reports each day from SpamNet members. This information allows SpamNet to quickly identify and block the reported spam messages.”
“Individually this reported spam isn't very powerful, but the collective reports of millions of email users networked together blocks virtually all spam on the Internet. SpamNet decides what is spam based on the reputation of the person that is reporting the spam message and the number of people that report a particular message.”
“As members make accurate reports, their trust rating with the SpamNet system will increase. Reports from members with high trust rating weigh more in the decision to identify a message as spam. SpamNet members who wish to increase their trust rating may do so by making regular and accurate Blocks and Unblocks.”
I’m sure Cloudmark’s intentions are good. Without question spam is a huge problem, and, if left unchecked, could potentially cripple the Internet. But how does Cloudmark/SpamNet know the reputation of the spam reporter? How does Cloudmark/SpamNet know whether or not the reports are accurate? How does Cloudmark/SpamNet determine who’s worthy of a high trust rating?
Frankly, there are lots of militant, anti-spam activists out there whose opinions I would not trust. Do we want self-appointed spam police making judgments on things that rightfully belong to individuals? Do I want them — or anyone else for that matter — determining what is spam? No, thank you! I’m perfectly capable of making those decisions myself.
You’ll be reading lots more about spam in Sounding Line and many other sources. Somewhere, somehow, and sometime soon, you will have to determine for yourself what is spam and what you’re going to do about it. Unfortunately, though, it’s not the black and white issue some would make it.
…from an insurance industry Web site perspec-tive, lower U.S. broadband adop-tion figures could be problematic.
Frankly, there are lots of militant, anti-spam activists out there whose opinions I would not trust.
© Copyright 2003 by Sound Internet Strategy. All rights reserved