Consumers must really hate Comcast. Back in May, the cable company was rated the worst ISP in the nation with a score of 62 out of 100. Its reputation probably won’t improve nationwide, but at least it’s now making an effort, much like Time Warner Cable, to offer competitive prices and speeds when it’s forced to.
DSLReports recently obtained an internal memo from Comcast saying that the company will start offering cheaper Internet/TV bundles to customers in Provo, Utah. If you recall, Google announced in April that it had bought the city-run fiber network in Provo, and would be offering Google Fiber there shortly. Provo citizens probably won’t be getting Google Fiber for at least a year, but Comcast is already slashing prices to attract customers that may get tired of waiting for Google’s incredibly fast Internet.
In the memo, Comcast never specifically mentions Google Fiber as the cause behind its recent price reductions, but it’s totally due to Google Fiber:
In 2013, a number of new and existing competitors have entered or are expanding in West Division markets. As they enter new markets and expand their product offerings, they generate awareness through more focused public relations and marketing tactics to make a splash and garner attention. Typically, things that are new, different or controversial generate more news coverage than those that are stable and growing.
So, what kind of deal is Comcast offering in hopes that people choose it over Google Fiber? For $120, customers can sign up for the Extreme XFINITY Triple Play Offer which includes XFINITY TV, 105Mbps Internet and XFINITY Voice or XFINITY Home Secure 300. It’s not a bad deal when compared with other incumbent ISPs, but it’s highway robbery when compared to the 1Gbps Internet service you get with Google Fiber for only $70. For $120 a month, you get Google Fiber TV, 1Gbps Internet, a 2TB DVR and a Nexus 7 tablet. Comcast is competing, but it’s probably not enough to sway Provo citizens from the immense value that Google Fiber offers.
Still, Comcast has something to gain from all of this. It’s current promotion started on August 6 and will run through the end of the year. At the moment, Comcast is running unopposed with a decent offer. If it can get the word out, people might just switch over to the new deal. It just has to somehow convince them to stay once Google Fiber moves in.
Netflix has released new data for its ISP Speed Index, which tracks the speed of service providers in the U.S. on a monthly basis. Here’s the July rankings:
The index is based on data from over 36 million Netflix members, who view over a billion hours of content on Netflix per month. The listed speeds are the average performance of all Netflix streams on the ISP’s network.
“The average performance is below the peak performance due to many factors including the variety of encodes Netflix uses to deliver the TV shows and movies as well as the variety of devices members use and home network conditions,” noes Netflix’s Joris Evers. “These factors cancel out when comparing across ISPs.”
The data from July doesn’t look too different from that of June, but Bright House moved up two spots, and Verizon DSL moved up one. Mediacom, AT&T U-Verse and AT&T DSL each dropped one spot.
Vermont Telecom made headlines in late April when it announced it would bring Google Fiber-like Internet speeds to its customers for only $35 a month. Now another rural ISP has started to offer gigabit Internet, but at a more expensive cost.
Cedar Falls Utilities, a small city-owned company out of Cedar Falls, Iowa, announced this week that it is the first community in Iowa to offer gigabit Internet service to its customers. It even put together a low-budget video announcing the new Internet option:
CFU’s gigabit offerings is more in line with what we’re seeing in towns like Chattanooga. The city offers gigabit Internet service to residential customers, but the prices ensure that only the well-to-do can afford it. In this case, gigabit Internet with CFU costs $267.50 a month, or $272.50 a month if you live outside of city limits.
Residential customers are getting a steal, however, as gigabit Internet for businesses costs $950 a month. For both residential and business customers, the speed is set at one gigabit down and 500 megabits up. In comparison, Google Fiber offers one gigabit down and up.
Even if the price is ridiculously high, it’s still a good sign to see more local ISPs offering gigabit Internet. The trend may soon force the hands of the major ISPs to start offering faster Internet services. Let’s just hope they don’t exploit their customers by charging ridiculous prices. Knowing ISPs, that’s probably not going to happen though.
The survey shows that Vierzon FiOS, the company’s fiber-based wired broadband service, has a satisfaction rating of 71. From there, the scores keep getting lower and lower until it bottoms out with Comcast at a 62.
What about the other major ISPs like Time Warner Cable and ATT? Time Warner came away with a 63 while ATT scored a bit higher with a 65. The average aggregated score among all ISPs was 65.
To put this all into perspective, ISPs were one of four industries to have an average score below 70. The others were the airline, subscription telephone and social media industries. It’s really kind of sad when ISPs are lumped in with an industry that has been the subject of bad standup comedy for decades.
So, why do consumers hate their ISPs so much? The ASCI lists the usual suspects – reliability, speed and highly monthly costs. It doesn’t help that many are also unsatisfied with the current monopolies or duopolies held by many ISPs preventing them from switching to somebody else.
There is hope, however, and that hope is Google Fiber. The ASCI says that services like Google Fiber may eventually shift ISPs to offering faster service for lower costs. It’s probably not going to happen anytime soon, but I can dream, right?
You’ve seen this ad before. A harmless-looking guy asks you if you want fast, reliable internet and a choice of all the best HD cable channels – all at a reasonable price. Well, sure, golly, gosh – of course I do!
The only difference with this ad is that it’s honest. It’s an ad for “Your Local High Speed Internet & Cable Provider,” and they tell it like it is. They’re going to suck you dry and provide passable service as best, and you’re going to like it.
Today, Netflix unveiled their new ISP Speed Index website, which lets users browse the average performance of multiple ISPs across many of the countries in which Netflix in available.
As of now, Google Fiber is the clear winner with an average speed of 3.35Mbps. Second to Google Fiber is Sweden’s Ownit, which streams at 2.99Mbps on average.
Finnish Netflix users enjoy to fastest speeds overall, and Mexican users the lowest. In the U.S., Cablevison, SuddenLink, Cox and Verizon – FiOS round out the top 5.
Of course, these are averages and Netflix notes that the peak performances for the ISPs are much higher:
The Netflix ISP Speed Index is based on data from the more than 33 million Netflix members who view over 1 billion hours of TV shows and movies streaming from Netflix per month. The listed speeds reflect the average performance of all Netflix streams on each ISP’s network and are an indicator of the performance typically experienced across all users on an ISP network.
Note: the average performance is below the peak performance due to many factors including the variety of encodes Netflix uses to deliver the TV shows and movies as well as the variety of devices members use and home network conditions. These factors cancel out when comparing across ISPs.
Netflix first started releasing monthly ISP rankings back in December of last year, but this is the first time that they’ve aggregated all of their data into a slick little site. Google Fiber has taken the top spot on each month’s list since last November’s rankings.
Piracy is a problem that needs to be dealt with. I don’t think anybody is going to refute that. Where people are divided is how we actually deal with this problem. After years of reputation destroying legal battles against dead people and little girls, copyright owners think they have an answer.
On Monday, the Copyright Alert System, or “Six Strikes”, went into affect across the five biggest ISPs in the U.S. The system hopes to catch those pirating content over P2P networks, and send them a notice detailing their infringement. The hope is that those who are caught will start using legal alternatives.
Do you think the Copyright Alert System will work? Will people truly stop pirating content after receiving an alert?Let us know in the comments.
To better understand the CAS, we have to look at what the Center for Copyright Information is doing with it. First, there are three tiers to the CAS that consumers should be aware of with each tier having two levels within it. The three tiers are as follows – educational alerts, acknowledgement alerts and mitigation measures.
The first two warnings – “educational alerts” – tell consumers they’ve been caught. The email will then direct them to legitimate sources of content with the hopes that the early warnings are enough to scare people into buying content.
The next two warnings step it up a notch with what’s called “acknowledgement alerts.” The first two alerts were simply emails, but these next two will actually hijack your browser. You will be hit with a message telling you that you’ve been caught yet again, and must acknowledge that you’ve been caught before you can start browsing.
The next two tiers, and presumably every alert afterwards, will be “mitigation measures.” In essence, the ISPs will begin throttling your bandwidth or blocking Web sites you frequently visit. The ISPs will not be able to cut off your Internet connection under the plan.
For a visual explanation, here’s the CCI’s soothing jazz version:
The actual specifics of these tiers will be different across the five ISPs participating in the CAS. We don’t know what every alert will look like, but Ars Technica did manage to get a hold of what Comcast’s alerts would look like.
As you would expect, the CAS hasn’t exactly garnered many fans. New Jersey Gubernatorial candidate Carl Bergmanson recently spoke out against it by saying ISPs have no right to monitor what you download:
“The internet has become an essential part of living in the 21st century, it uses public infrastructure and it is time we treat it as a public utility. The electric company has no say over what you power with their service, the ISPs have no right to decide what you can and can not download”.
The EFF has also come out swinging against CAS. The group says the system presents a number of troubling statements that don’t just hurt Internet users but the Internet for itself. For instance, the group points out that the CCI Web site tells people to lock down their Wi-Fi connections so others don’t pirate on your connection. The EFF sees this as an attack on the open Wi-Fi movement and it would be especially troublesome for those who do share their Internet connections with others, like small businesses.
Small businesses are where we run into the biggest problems. The CCI says that rights holders won’t target open Wi-Fi networks run by businesses. Your local Starbucks or Panera Bread are safe as they run off of a business network. The problem comes in the form of small businesses like a local coffee shop or bakery that runs free Wi-Fi off of a residential network. These businesses will be held liable for the actions of its consumers.
The CCI argues that it won’t hurt small businesses running residential networks because the CAS will never terminate an Internet connection. That’s entirely true, and it’s good that copyright owners didn’t go as far to request that ISPs terminate connections. The problem, however, lies in the fact that the fifth warning and afterwards will either block popular Web sites or throttle connections. For a small business that has multiple customers all on the same network, that’s just as good as shutting off the connection. People who want to use the Internet at these places will find it too much of a pain and take their business elsewhere.
Do you think the CAS will hurt small businesses? Or do you think the EFF and other groups are just exaggerating?Let us know in the comments.
This all brings us to the question of whether or not the CAS will even stop piracy. That’s obviously the goal, but it doesn’t look like an attainable one at the moment. In fact, the CAS is its own biggest enemy in the war on piracy.
The alerts obtained from Comcast all have one troubling thing in common. They don’t list any of the alternative, legal sources for content. The main point of the program is to educate consumers on legal alternatives, and it can’t even do that. Consumers receiving the alert with no prior knowledge of the system will most likely see it as a scam email and won’t act upon it. Later tiers require consumers to watch an educational video on copyright, but it doesn’t say whether these videos will present legal alternatives.
Fortunately, legal alternatives are doing a good enough job stopping piracy themselves. A recent report from the NPD found that legal alternatives like Spotify were driving music piracy down. It proves once again that easy access at a fair price can beat out piracy any day. Heck, the proliferation of streaming services even gave the music industry its first raise in revenue since 1999.
So why do copyright owners think the CAS will work? Do they really expect piracy rates to magically drop once the alerts start flying out? Past examples would suggest that no such thing would happen. In fact, previous efforts on the part of copyright owners to curtail piracy have had the opposite effect. Just look at the shutdown of Megaupload or the blocking of The Pirate Bay in the UK. Both cases actually saw an increase in piracy.
At this point, it’s still too early to tell how much the CAS will actually accomplish. At best, copyright owners will be able to proclaim that piracy rates are down as more people either use VPNs or move off of P2P and onto Usenet or Mega. At worst, consumers revolt and ISPs drop it after seeing that it’s costing them customers. Either way, piracy isn’t going anywhere.
Do you think piracy will ever stop being a problem? Or is it just a fact of life in the Internet age?Let us know in the comments.
The “Six Strikes” Copyright Alert System is being implemented across major ISPs this week. Those who regularly download music or movies illegally via BitTorrent might just start seeing these alerts pop up in your email inbox.
Of course, the concerned Internet user may want to know what these alerts actually look like. Ars Technica was able to get their hands on a few of the alerts from Comcast, and they’re pretty much what everybody was expecting.
Comcast provided Ars with only a limited number of alerts – one, two, four and five to be exact. The ISP wouldn’t say why it couldn’t provide all of the alerts, but it’s safe to assume that all the alerts will look similar to what was provided.
Interestingly enough, it looks like the Copyright Alert System isn’t even doing its supposed job. As pointed out by Ars, the alerts don’t even tell consumers what they downloaded to receive the alert. The email also doesn’t point consumers to legal alternatives. You would think Comcast, which owns NBC, would want to point consumers to Hulu or other legal alternatives where its properties are hosted.
Granted, this is just the start and Comcast may refine the system in the coming months. We also don’t know what the alerts from other ISPs will look like. Those may point to legal alternatives and actually provide more information to the suspected infringer.
For those worried about the CAS, it seems that a VPN may be the way to go. Ars confirmed with a spokesperson from Time Warner that the ISP will probably not be able to catch those downloading media through a proxy.
I’m sure we’ll start seeing what the other alerts look like as people with other ISPs start to receive them. We’ll then be able to tell whether or not this is truly an “educational” program, or just another pro-copyright campaign that will only piss off consumers.
Netflix announced the launch of Super HD and 3D streaming options today, with availability only through ISPs who are partners with Netflix’s Open Connect content delivery network, launched last year. Among these partners are Cablevision, Virgin Media, British Telecom, Telmex, Telus, TDC and GVT.
“Our goal is to have all of our members served by Open Connect as soon as possible,” said CEO Reed Hastings.
Netflix says Super HD gives customers “superior video quality” for the same price, and looks “amazing” on 1080p HDTVs. It will be available on PS3, WiiU, Windows 8, Roku, Apple TVs with 1080p and select smart TVs and Blu-Ray players. It also requires an internet connection with at least 5Mb/s download.
“These new Super HD and 3D formats are more challenging to deliver than our other video streams, which is why we will deliver them through Open Connect,” said Ken Florance, vice president of content delivery at Netflix. “Any ISP that wants to be able to deliver our new formats can do so easily and for free.”
In the U.S., Netflix is offering a handful of titles in 3D. These include Immortals, The Art of Flight, African Wild, Scary Tales, and Live Fire. The company says it will consider adding additional 3D titles depending on member demand and expanding availability in international markets.
If you go here, Netflix will tell you whether or not your ISP is configured for Super HD (which, again, requires it to be an Open Connect partner).
Taking into account Netflix streams in November across multiple devices, Google Fiber bests the second-place ISP, Verison FiOS by a significant margin. Google Fiber’s average speed was 2.55 MBPS while Verizon FiOS streamed at an average of 2.19 MBPS.
Comcast, Charter, and Cablevision rounded out the top 5.
“Broadly, cable shows better than DSL. AT&T U-verse, which is a hybrid fiber-DSL service, shows quite poorly compared to Verizon Fios, which is pure fiber. Charter moved down two positions since October. Verizon mobile has 40% higher performance than AT&T mobile,” says Netflix’s Ken Florance.
Here’s the full list:
“The average performance is well below the peak performance due to a variety of factors including home Wi-Fi, a variety of devices, and a variety of encodes. The relative ranking, however, should be an accurate indicator of relative bandwidth typically experienced across all users, homes, and applications,” said Florence.
Netflix also says that we can expect them to publish their ISP rankings list once a month.
Well, this was unexpected. After CCI had been working since late 2011 to get its ambitious anti-piracy alert system off the ground, it looked like the program was finally going to launch this year. Things rarely ever work out as planned, however, and the alert system has been delayed once again.
Due to unexpected factors largely stemming from Hurricane Sandy which have seriously affected our final testing schedules, CCI anticipates that the participating ISPs will begin sending alerts under the Copyright Alert System in the early part of 2013, rather than by the end of the year.
Our goal has always been to implement the program in a manner that educates consumers about copyright and peer-to-peer networks, encourages the use of legal alternatives, safeguards customer privacy, and provides an easy-to-use independent review program for consumers to challenge alerts they believe they’ve received in error.
We need to be sure that all of our “I”s are dotted and “T”s crossed before any company begins sending alerts, and we know that those who are following our progress will agree.
The delay was unexpected, but it shouldn’t change anything in the long run. ISPs will start sending warnings in early 2013, and casual file sharers will be encouraged to use legal alternatives. Repeat offenders will be targeted with more drastic measures such as throttled speeds and blocked Web sites, but the CCI has already said that they’re not going after “serial pirates” who will get around the alert system by using VPNs and related technologies.
For now, however, we wait. The CCI is only saying early 2013 without providing a firm date. There’s a possibility that it could be delayed again if any of the ISPs get cold feet. More ISPs could also join in the fun between now and launch.
You may recall a certain plan being put into place by the Center for Copyright Information and leading ISPs around the nation. It would use a six-strike program to levy harsher penalties on repeat copyright infringers. Beyond that, we didn’t know much else except that the program would be implemented before the end of the year.
Thanks to documents obtained by TorrentFreak, we now know when at least one of the ISPs will be implementing its own six-strikes program. They found that AT&T will start sending out copyright infringement notices on November 28. The other ISPs will also likely launch on this date as the CCI is pushing for a simultaneous launch.
So, how will the six-strike program work? According to the documents, AT&T will send “alert emails” to customers who are downloading pirate materials. How will AT&T know who’s downloading pirated materials? Content owners will send AT&T infringing IP addresses and AT&T will send an email to the customer associated with that IP address.
Such a set up could threaten customer privacy, but it seems that will not be the case. The documents state that AT&T will not share identifying information with content owners unless it’s “authorized by the customer or required to do so by law.”
The only major concern so far is that content owners still think that IP addresses equate to people. Courts around the world, even in the US, have questioned this line of thinking with some even flat out rejecting a plaintiff’s argument that the people behind IP addresses can be held accountable for other people pirating content through their connection. It seems like content owners and ISPs are ignoring these rulings.
Another concern is that some people fear that ISPs will begin to cut off access to repeat offenders. Instead, AT&T will block access to a user’s most visited Web sites until they complete an “online education tutorial on copyright.” It’s not yet known what this tutorial will entail.
AT&T also warns that customers can be targeted by lawsuits after the fifth infringement. It’s not a promise, but AT&T says they will hand over identifying information to the courts in the case of a lawsuit. TorrentFreak points out that this particular clause means that content owners may be seriously considering starting up its lawsuit campaign against copyright infringers.
In related news, TorrentFreak also reports that more people in the U.S. are signing up for VPN services. It looks like everybody is getting ready for the six-strike regime by driving around it via proxies. It only proves that those who are going to pirate are still going to pirate without any consequences thanks to VPN and related technologies.
In short, the six-strike program is only going to affect the casual BitTorrent user that doesn’t know any better. As people begin to receive these warnings, more will turn to VPNs or proxies instead of dropping piracy altogether. The program will probably end up as another failed plan that only serves to annoy customers instead of providing a legitimate alternative that beats piracy at its own game.
You may recall an effort on the part of the Center for Copyright Information to start a six-strike warning system for repeat copyright infringers. The plan called for tracking of Internet users and calling them out when they were found to be downloading copyrighted content. The warning system was to be put in place last year, but has been delayed numerous times. Now it looks like it may finally be launching before the end of this year.
TorrentFreak reports that a source close to the CCI that the six-strike system is up and ready. The only thing standing in its way is a reluctance on the part of ISPs to start warning subscribers. The fist one out of the gate will be seen as betraying the privacy of their subscribers, and they could start to lose said subscribers.
Regardless, the CCI is pushing for a launch by the end of this year. The current plan is to simultaneously launch the effort across the five largest ISPs in America – Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner Cable and Cablevision. These ISPs will begin testing the warning system in November.
TorrentFreak also reports that the CCI has contracted MarkMonitor to find the identity of alleged pirates. They point out that MarkMonitor is owned by the same company that currently identifies pirates under Ireland’s ridiculous three-strikes system.
The concern right now is that the CCI is being rather secretive about the six-strike system. All we know is that ISPs will punish repeat offenders, but it was never made clear what the punishments would entail. ISPs claimed that they would not terminate a user’s service, but there was never any guarantee made.
In slightly good news, TorrentFreak’s source reports that MarkMonitor had its evidence technique reviewed by an independent third party. The report will apparently be released in the next few weeks to provide transparency on their methods. At that time, we’ll hopefully be able to fully understand what exactly is going into this new method of pirate surveillance.
For now, we can at least rest easy that the six-strike system is nowhere near as bad as Mediacom’s self-instituted three-strike system. The ISP recently said that they would ban a subscriber for life if they were found to be downloading copyrighted content three times in a row.
Regardless of the system, any kind of elevated response system just shows that the copyright lobby still doesn’t understand the proper methods of combatting piracy. Services like Netflix and Spotify have done more to reduce piracy than harebrained schemes implemented by dinosaurs. Of course, we wouldn’t expect them to make things easy on consumers.
Are you a Mediacom subscriber? Do you use file sharing services to obtain content? If so, you may want to switch to a different provider. The ISP’s new three-strike system is absurdly anti-consumer.
Mediacom is a very large ISP. They mostly serve small towns and cities throughout the U.S., however, so they don’t get as much media play as Time Warner Cable or Comcast. They’re going to start getting a lot of media coverage today after revealing their new three-strikes policy in dealing with file sharers.
According to TorrentFreak, Mediacom is going to start cracking down on those accused of file sharing. Considering that many right owners send out DMCA notices without even thinking, this could prove to be very bad for Mediacom subscribers.
Here’s how it all go down: The first strike will result in Mediacom sending the subscriber a warning and flagging their account. The second strike will result in an account suspension. The dirty pirate will then have to fill out some paperwork to get their service reinstated. The third strike will result in their service being cancelled and the subscriber will be banned from Mediacom services for life.
The U.S. is working with major ISPs on a similar six-strike program. It’s nowhere near as bad as the plan that Mediacom will be putting into action. Under the six-strike program, the worst any ISP can do is throttle your Internet.
Regardless, Mediacom’s actions prove that ISPs can, and will, take matters into their own hands. It’s absolutely ridiculous that they would threaten to ban Internet users for life, but it’s wholly within their power to do so at this point in time. It would take somebody from within government telling them the practice is anti-consumer for them to change course.
Of course, users could leave Mediacom for another ISP (if they can) to show their disapproval of the new plan. Piracy is an issue, but punishing users isn’t going to stop the practice. If ISPs and rights owners actually cared about consumers, they would realize that offering competitive and more convenient services would curtail piracy in a major way. Until pigs fly, we’ll just have to deal with more hackneyed plans to stop piracy.
The Internet has become a staple of modern communication. While some people use the Internet to watch funny cat videos on YouTube, it’s importance can not be understated for the millions of global citizens who use it to share important information about their world with others. The Internet can be credited with the success of the Arab Spring and the U.N. even announced the Internet as a basic human right. So why does a basic human right cost so much in the U.S. when other countries get faster Internet for far less?
To understand this question, we have to look at a multitude of factors that range from local monopolies to lack of proper infrastructure. it’s a multi-faceted problem with not a lot of solutions out there. There are some companies, like Google, and cities who are trying to win back the Internet for the people instead of making it the luxury that many ISPs treat it as now.
Chances are you live in a city that’s serviced by the one of the big ISPs like Comcast, Time Warner Cable or Verizon. How much do you pay for Internet? According to the White Fence Index, the average cost of Internet among top U.S. cities is $38 a month. Compare that to a country like South Korea where ADSL premium, which blows our best Internet out of the water, is only 30,000 won ($26) a month.
So why do we pay more for inferior Internet? Well, you could argue that the infrastructure is much larger in the U.S. and therefore requires more money to fund which leads to higher prices. That’s certainly somewhat true, but it also comes down to how much importance is placed on the Internet.
South Korea is such an Internet powerhouse because their government has invested heavily in expanding the Internet and their citizen’s access to it. The U.S. has a similar plan that was created with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that was passed in response to the global economic crisis that began in 2008. The plan, kickstarted by the FCC, is called the National Broadband Plan. It’s goal is to give every American “robust, affordable Internet.”
Design policies to ensure robust competition and, as a result maximize consumer welfare, innovation and investment.
Ensure efficient allocation and management of assets government controls or influences, such as spectrum, poles, and rights-of-way, to encourage network upgrades and competitive entry.
Reform current universal service mechanisms to support deployment of broadband and voice in high-cost areas; and ensure that low-income Americans can afford broadband; and in addition, support efforts to boost adoption and utilization.
Reform laws, policies, standards and incentives to maximize the benefits of broadband in sectors government influences significantly, such as public education, health care and government operations.
If successful, the FCC hopes that this plan will bring the U.S. Internet into the 21st century. Their long term goal is to make sure that at least “100 million homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second.”
My local ISP offers up to 50Mbps downloads speeds for $95 a month. I’m paying $60 for only 30Mbps a month. As you can see, my ISP is not quite there and only a few are. For those who are at those speeds, the cost is quite outrageous. Verizon’s FiOS service ,which puts out speeds from 15Mbps to 300Mbps, costs anywhere between $65 to $210 per month just for Internet. That’s not quite what affordable means. Thankfully, there are efforts on the part from companies like Google and local governments to bring affordable, fast fiber at a low price to consumers.
We brought you word on Wednesday that Google was about to unveil their new Fiber network in Kansas City. Google Fiber is somewhat of an experiment on Google’s part to see how affordable, yet cheap, Internet can impact innovation and competitiveness in the ISP market.
Google Fiber will be launching on July 26 and it has ISPs scared. There was the humorous story from last week that saw Time Warner Cable offering rewards to anybody who would spy on Google’s efforts to bring Fiber to the city. Google hasn’t come out and said they want to be an ISP, but people certainly see it that way. The company’s purchase of dark fiber in 2006, while being used to connect data centers, was certainly viewed as Google eyeing the consumer Internet market.
The experiment in Kansas City might be a failure though. It might convince Google to stay out of the consumer market and stick to providing Internet services. The promise of cheap Internet at faster speeds, however, makes that scenario highly unlikely. In fact, Google is probably onto something here. If the city can afford it, they’re going to start providing cheaper Internet to their citizens as well.
One such city in Colorado is already on their way. The city of Longmont is now in discussion to start selling Internet to local businesses. It could be extended to over 1,000 homes as well. While some people would deride government intervening and competing with businesses, the citizens of the city don’t seem to mind. In fact, over 57 percent of those at the city council meeting voted to start construction on the fiber network immediately.
The one thing we must keep in mind is price. Google and Longmont have both stayed away from the issue of price since these plans were announced. They promise that the speeds will be faster and cheaper than the competition, but by how much? It obviously has the ISPs spooked, but we just don’t know how scared they should be.
In a perfect world, Google will thrown down the gauntlet on July 26. A move that will force Time Warner to lower their prices in Kansas City which will then have a rippling effect across the country as more ISPs lower their prices to deal with the demand from consumers for affordable Internet.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world. It’s going to take more competition from Google and the expansion of fiber to really drive down prices in the U.S. Longmont had to specifically vote down a law that prevented the city from offering Internet to its citizens. Other cities and states have similar laws that would need to be amended before such actions could take place.
It really all comes down to how people view the Internet in the U.S. The U.N. obviously sees it as a human right, but many people still see it as a luxury. You can argue that one doesn’t need the Internet, but that only hampers progress. We’re only going to start seeing real results once people decide to see the Internet as a commodity instead of a luxury. Google and Longmont are leading the charge to that future.
Do you think that Google and local cities should become ISPs? Will it drive prices down and speeds up?Let us know in the comments.
Netflix is hoping to improve relations with internet service providers with the announcement of its very own content delivery network, Open Connect. The new dedicated CDN aims to allow ISPs to partner up with Netflix in order to help manage the flow of data streaming to Netflix users, hopefully alleviating some of the cost as well as the burden that streaming Netflix content puts on an ISP’s network.
The new Open Connect initiative will run alongside the general third-party CDNs that Netflix has been using thus far, although Netflix expects that over the next few years all of its data will be served exclusively through Open Connect. Currently, however, only 5% of Netflix data is served by Open Connect, so the time at which all Netflix data is served only through Open Connect could vary depending on how quickly ISPs adopt the CDN.
Given that Netflix content accounts for as much as 30% of all data transferred on the internet, localizing the traffic should help ISPs mitigate the data traffic. Better, as long as they’re used within the Netflix terms of use, the appliances will be free to ISPs. More info for ISPs is available at http://openconnect.netflix.com/.
Netflix has tapped hardware developer Intequus to build the appliances that will link ISPs to Open Connect. The hardware design company will be providing appliances that contain more than 100 terabytes of storage, 10 gigabytes of network throughput, and a Quad Core Intel Sandy Bridge CPU that features low cooling requirements.
Alongside Open Connect, Netflix announced that it will also be sharing its hardware design and open source software components for its server. While Netflix anticipates that these new designs will be very cost efficient for ISPs, the Open Connect network could also create a better user experience for subscribers.
The Netherlands has historically been on the cutting edge in relation to certain concepts, especially in regards to personal freedom. While Amsterdam is famous for its approach to recreational drug use, other concepts like prostitution, which is legal and regulated, are obviously treated differently in the Netherlands than they are in the United States.
Now, it appears as if the Netherlands is once again on the cutting edge, this time, with the country’s approach to net neutrality laws. Thanks to the passage of new legislation, the Netherlands is the first European country to make net neutrality the law of the land. Not only that, but the Dutch lawmakers also introduced restrictions concerning Dutch ISPs wiretapping their users, and introduced limitations concerning ISPs disconnecting their subscribers.
According to a report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the wiretapping limitations include the use of deep packet inspections, which are no longer allowed without legal approval or consent from the subscribers themselves. Regarding the stipulations for which ISPs can disconnect a subscriber, the new legislation introduced six conditions, which are spelled out quite clearly:
…termination at the request of the subscriber, non-payment by a subscriber, in cases of deception, at the expiry of a fixed contract, force majeure, or if the ISP is required to terminate by law or a court order. In addition, the network neutrality provisions also permit blocking of an Internet connection where necessary for the integrity and security of a network.
Furthermore, the disconnection stipulations are based on EU standards from 2009, which states such an interruption of Internet service may only occur if the following conditions are met:
appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society, and their implementation shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and general principles of Community law, including effective judicial protection and due process.
The adoption of net neutrality principles by the Netherlands was happily greeted by Bits of Freedom, a Dutch watchdog group that focuses on citizens’ digital rights:
Bits of Freedom, the Dutch digital rights movement which campaigned for these provisions, applauds the new law. It considers this a historical moment for internet freedom in The Netherlands and calls on other countries to follow the Dutch example.
When are movie and television studios going to learn that the internet effectively makes any country or region-specific premiere into a global premiere. It’s clear that piracy is simply a market correction for those markets that can’t legally obtain already-released content in their area. It’s the stubbornness of studios that refuse to give up on regional releases or that overcharge in certain markets that is fueling piracy. That, and cable monopolies that force viewers who want to watch one show that airs on a premium cable channel to buy an entire cable TV package.
Streaming services such as Hulu and the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) iPlayer similarly restrict content to certain geographical locations. Smaller countries with less buying power are sometimes overlooked completely when it comes to restrictions and late content releases, and at least one internet service provider (ISP) in New Zealand is saying “no more.”
Fyx is a new ISP in New Zealand founded on the promise to provide its customers with the most access and freedom that it can. The provider operates with what it calls “Global Mode,” enabled. For customers, this means they no loger have to worry about being locked out of region-restricted online content, and will no longer see messages such as this:
Fyx doesn’t go into detail about how they accomplish their Global Mode, but the company probably has a software solution that spoofs its location, rather than proxy servers in each content region. Fyx is also careful not to give its customers explicit permission to break the law, stating that compliance with any services’ terms and conditions is a subscribers’ responsibility.
What do you think? Is “Global Mode” a feature or is Fyx flouting some copyright law? Will Fyx stand strong in the face of the predictable lawsuit? Leave a comment below and let us know.
The BBC is reporting that the ruling makes it so that Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must now block The Pirate Bay from being accessed in the UK. Apparently the High Court isn’t publicizing its decision, but the British Phonographic Industry is happy to speak for them.
BPI’s CEO Geoff Taylor said that the High Court agreed with them in that The Pirate Bay “infringes copyright on a massive scale.” He also uses the age old argument that the people who operate the site profit by “commercially exploiting music and other creative works.”
The ISPs are taking a more cautious response to the news. Virgin Media told the BBC that they will comply with the court order, but they believe that outright blocking access is not the right move. They feel that instead of blocking piracy, corporations should compete against piracy with better service. Virgin specifically mentions Spotify as a legal alternative that has already proven wildly successful.
While the UK will be outright blocking access to The Pirate Bay, ISPs in the U.S. will be utilizing a different method to “punish” those who pirate media. It will be a “graduated response” program that will seek to educate those caught file-sharing then introduce stiffer punishments if the initial scare tactics fail.
While the U.S. has a better response to piracy, more and more people may be getting letters from their ISPs. It’s hard to compete with piracy when alternative services like Hulu are now losing their value due to cable companies not willing to evolve and offer a better service.
Do you think the UK should block Web site like The Pirate Bay? Or do you agree with Virgin Media in that companies should compete with piracy instead of trying to stamp it out? Let us know in the comments.
If you downloaded the Academy-Award-winning film The Hurt Locker in the past two years, things are really turning out to be a hassle for you.
That’s because Voltage Pictures, makers of the film, keep going after BitTorrent users.
According to court documents obtained by TorrentFreak, Voltage Pictures is back and ready to sue 2.514 more people, adding to their already-record-setting numbers when it comes to file-sharing lawsuits. This complaint was filed in Florida, and targets customers of a single ISP, Charter Communications.
This looks like the same script we’ve seen in the past. Voltage files a complaint with thousands of John Doe IP addresses, and eventually hopes that the ISP will turn over their real identities. “Plaintiff believes that information obtained in discovery will lead to the identification fo each Defendant’s true name and permit Plaintiff to amend this complaint to state the same.” So there you go. As Ernesto at TorrentFreak points out, it’s possible that Voltage Pictures are going after one single ISP because they won’t put up a fight when it comes to giving up subscriber info.
About two years ago, Voltage Pictures begun the suing bonanza, targeting 5,000 alleged copyright infringers who downloaded The Hurt Locker. Last May they expanded the scope of that suit to include 24,583 defendants. At the time, it broke the previous record for largest file-sharing suit ever – held by the 23,000-person lawsuit that targeted downloaders of the action flick The Expendables.
The M.O. for the Plaintiffs here is first obtaining the user records from the ISP, then offering each a settlement in the $3,000 range. Many people will simply pay the money to avoid any further complications. This is how the studios say they are recouping their piracy-related losses.
The High Court of Australia has soundly rejected the notion that internet service providers (ISP’s) are responsible for their subscribers’ copyright violations. In a unanimous decision by the seven justices of the High Court, the case brought by several Hollywood studios against an Australian ISP for its user’s piracy was dismissed. The case had previously been dismissed by a lower court, but this dismissal is final, as the High Court is the highest appeals court in Australia.
A judgement summary provided by the High Court describes how the case began. The lawsuit was brought against the ISP, iiNet, when it ignored letters the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) sent them alleging that their subscribers were using Bit Torrent to pirate copyrighted material. The “AFACT notices” demanded that iiNet take action, but the ISP did nothing.
The lawyers for the studios argued that iiNet had authorized its users to infringe on the studio’s copyrighted material, which, under Australian law, would make them as guilty as the pirates themselves. The claim was that the ISP had the power to prevent subscribers from pirating by shutting down their accounts. The judges, however, rejected this notion, differentiating the ability to prevent piracy from a formal authorization of piracy. From the summary:
The Court observed that iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the BitTorrent system to infringe copyright in the appellants’ films. Rather, the extent of iiNet’s power to prevent its customers from infringing the appellants’ copyright was limited to an indirect power to terminate its contractual relationship with its customers. Further, the Court held that the information contained in the AFACT notices, as and when they were served, did not provide iiNet with a reasonable basis for sending warning notices to individual customers containing threats to suspend or terminate those customers’ accounts. For these reasons, the Court held that it could not be inferred from iiNet’s inactivity after receiving the AFACT notices that iiNet had authorised any act of infringement of copyright in the appellants’ films by its customers.
It will be interesting to see if this precedent, that ISP’s are not responsible for their customer’s actions over the ISP’s services, will influence decisions in other countries. Earlier this month a court in the U.S. rejected a similar plea from copyright holders to subpoena ISP’s to reveal their subscriber’s personal identity. It is also worth noting that not all ISP’s hold firm and go to court for their subscribers the way iiNet has. Many providers in the U.S. take letters such as the “AFACT notices” seriously, and threaten their paying subscribers with throttling or service termination.
What do you think? Has the High Court of Australia made the right decision, or is iiNet harboring pirates? Let me know in the comments section below.
