Tag: ISPs

Australia Content Industry Pushing For New Internet Laws

Australia content owners and ISP executives met last Wednesday in Sydney to hammer out potential laws and policies in response to content piracy.

The meeting, led by Roger Wilkins, secretary of the Attorney-General’s office, sought to create a draft proposal that would combat piracy while being acceptable to both industries and the government according to the Financial Review.

The content industry was pushing a graduated response scheme, like the policy that may soon be implemented in the U.S. It will require ISPs to send infringement notices to customers that have been found pirating content over BitTorrent. They claim that educating customers is one of the best ways to combat piracy.

While similar legislation has been passed in Britain and New Zealand, Australian film representatives are arguing that the cost of the graduated response scheme is too high.

A source familiar with the discussions said the content industry was also wanting to push the responsibility, as well as the cost, of operating the graduated response system onto ISPs.

ISPs have a beef with the potential laws as well. They feel that any policy enacted in the country should be forced onto all ISPs. They feel that if it’s voluntary, those that comply will lose customers to competing ISPs.

These potential laws are frightening as they have the potential to end up like France’s current system which has repeat offenders losing access to the Internet.

Thankfully, both sides in the Australian debate seem to agree that terminating Internet access is the wrong way to go.

If the two industries can come to a consensus, the Attorney-General’s department can put out a draft proposal for public consideration.

The content industry in Australia is pushing for this new policy instead of waiting for a decision in a current High Court case between Australian ISP, iiNet, and Hollywood movie studios.

The studios accused iiNet of intentionally letting customers download pirated films. Unfortunately for the movie studios, two lower courts have already found in favor of iiNet. The High Court judgment may happen in the first half of this year.

If the talks break down, a source said the content industry would try to issue infringement notices to ISPs and launch new litigation.

No date has been set for the next meeting between the two, but we’ll be sure to keep you up to date on these and other meetings between the Internet and content industries.

February 13, 2012
Canadian Supreme Court Rules ISPs Not Broadcasters

Is an ISP a broadcaster? The Canadian Supreme Court doesn’t seem to think so.

Canada’s Supreme Court, in a ruling this morning, says that ISPs are not subject to the same rules that broadcasters are. Cultural groups argued that since ISPs distribute content, they should be considered a broadcaster according to The Globe and Mail.

“An ISP does not engage with these policy objectives when it is merely providing the mode of transmission,” the court ruled. “ISPs provide Internet access to end-users. When providing access to the Internet, which is the only function of ISPs placed in issue by the reference question, they take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content.”

If the court had ruled in favor of the cultural groups, it would subject ISPs to levies that broadcasters currently pay. The money that the broadcasters pay go back to content producers in the form of grants to encourage the creation of the original Canadian content.

The case was filed by the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, Canadian Media Production Association and the Directors Guild of Canada and Writers Guild of Canada.

The groups said that they will continue to “press for solutions to ensure all those involved in broadcasting, including ISPs, have a regulatory responsibility to contribute to the Canadian broadcasting system.”

February 9, 2012
Hawaii Lawmaker Backing Down On Privacy Law

We reported yesterday on an idiotic bill proposed in Hawaii that would required ISPs to record every Web site customers visit. One of the main backers of the bill is retreading her stance on the controversial legislation.

Representative Kymberly Pine, an Oahu Republican and House minority floor leader, told CNET that her intention with H.B. 2288 was to “protect victims of crime.” She didn’t mean the bill to imply that it would collect information on every resident in Hawaii.

“We do not want to know where everyone goes on the Internet,” Pine said. “That’s not our interest. We just want the ability for law enforcement to be able to capture the activities of crime.”

Pine has said that the bill will now be revised. She admits that the idea of collecting and keeping information on users “was a little broad.”

The House Committee on Economic Revitalization and Business heard from opponents of the bill yesterday. They said it was anti-business and would do nothing to reinvigorate the economy.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii said that the bill was a “direct assault on bedrock privacy principles.” They said that instead of keeping more records, a good privacy practice is to delete data that’s no longer needed.

Other opponents warned that the bill’s data collection requirements “could be misused in lawsuits.” The U.S. Internet Service Provider Association even jumped in to warn that the bill would be “incredibly expensive” to implement.

Pine told CNET that the law wasn’t based upon her own experience of being attacked with a Web site, but rather those who were affected by crimes like child pornography. She said that they will rewrite the bill with the help of ISPs. They have a month to discuss the legislation to propose changes that all sides will be content with.

The bill currently has no privacy protections or security requirements. These will be most likely added in as the bill is modified over the next month.

John Mizuno, the lead sponsor for the bill, has not changed his stance on the bill. He also introduced H.B. 2287 which would toughen punishments for computer crime.

January 27, 2012
Hawaii Could Force ISPs To Log All Browsing History, Indefinitely

In the current political climate, with all the buzz about SOPA & PIPA and now H.R.1981 & ACTA, Hawaii state representative John Mizuno has to be outside of his mind to introduce a comical piece of legislation like H.B. 2288.

Take that back. In any climate, John Mizuno would have to be outside of his mind to introduce a bill like this. That is, unless it passes – in which case we will all feel like we’re the ones taking the crazy pills.

Anyway, the idiotic and dangerous bill that I’m referring to was proposed on Friday and would basically require all internet providers to retain customer records for a time “no less than two years.” The “customer records” would not only include each subscriber’s personal information, but their entire browsing history.

Seriously. The language is as plain as it is vague. Check it out:

Recordkeeping requirements for internet service providers. Any internet service provider that provides internet service to a consumer in the State shall retain consumer records for no less than two years. The required data for the consumer records shall include each subscriber’s information and internet destination history information. Destination information shall include any of the following:

(1) Internet protocol address;
(2) Domain name; or
(3) Host name.

This is the only directive included in H.B. 2288. Nothing else to describe motivations, or specific clarifications either. When a politician introduces legislation this moronic, one immediately thinks about ulterior motives. But what could Rep. Mizuno have to gain from this?

The bill simply requires ISPs to log all of this data and makes no mentions of how they can use it or who they can give it to – the police? Advertisers?

And as CNET points out, if passed, this could end up affecting more than just Hawaiian citizens:

Because the wording is so broad and applies to any company that “provides access to the Internet,” Mizuno’s legislation could sweep in far more than AT&T, Verizon, and Hawaii’s local Internet providers. It could also impose sweeping new requirements on coffee shops, bookstores, and hotels frequented by the over 6 million tourists who visit the islands each year.

The bill is being heard in the House today. A companion bill has also been introduced in the Hawaii State Senate, with no hearing yet scheduled.

I’m not sure that I’ve heard legislation so dangerously vague in quite some time. What do you guys think? Let us know in the comments.

January 26, 2012
AT&T Drives the Most Business Traffic in the U.S.

AT&T is responsible for sending the most Internet traffic to businesses in the United States, according to a new report from comScore, highlighting data from September.

The report is an analysis of Internet Service Provider market share within businesses in the country. AT&T leads with 20% market share of all browser-based Internet page views.

Verizon came in second place with 12% share, followed by CenturyLink with 7%. The five largest business ISPs drove about 50% of business Internet traffic.

“The current state of the domestic business ISP market reveals a landscape led by a couple of top providers. However, even with smaller carriers contributing only a fraction of the traffic delivered by top carriers, the business ISP market is still more competitive than the residential ISP market,” said Greg Mishkin, comScore VP of Telecom and Wireless. “The small business segment is even more competitive among ISPs, highlighting the need for providers to develop strong marketing strategies to ensure they can retain and grow market share.”

Still, AT&T leads the pack across all sizes of business: large, small and medium-sized:

The top five ISPs account for nearly 70% of all traffic for large businesses. The percentage goes down, however, the smaller you go. The number is 56% for medium-sized businesses and 40% for small.

November 14, 2011
The FCC Is Still Trying That Net Neutrality Thing

In no way is the title of this post meant to be against the concept of net neutrality. Quite the opposite, in fact. That being said, considering how directly connected the telecommunications industry is to the political machine in the United States, I’ve pretty much given up hope for true net neutrality being implemented.

I suppose the FCC should be commended for going forward with the concept, as watered down as their version is, but there’s a real sense that whatever version the United States receives will have the fingerprints of AT&T, Verizon, Time-Warner and any other powerful telecom entity in the United States all over what gets adopted. Considering AT&T’s burning love for capping its Internet customers, as well as their oft-discussed political influence via the purchase of various politicians, and the Supreme Court’s previous acquiescence to Verizon over the FCC, and it’s easy to see why this particular writer isn’t holding his breath for true net neutrality in the United States.

Editorials aside, the FCC has officially laid down the soon-to-be cast aside guidelines for what net neutrality adherence would mean in the United States. The rules, courtesy of an FCC pdf, are as follows:

i. Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services;

ii. No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and

iii. No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

These “three basic rules” should be the backbone of any Internet network — in a perfect world, anyway — but we already know that AT&T and Verizon oppose these rules, thanks to their desire to turn the Internet into a 21st century cable television subscription package, and when you consider the sway these corporate entities have over the very government that supposedly backs the FCC, you can see why it’s hard to be optimistic about net neutrality being truly adopted in the United States.

With that in mind, at least the FCC is giving it the old college try. These net neutrality provisions are scheduled to become active rules on November, 20th of this year, but it’s doubtful these rules go unchallenged by the corporate masters who rule the telecommunications industry.

September 23, 2011
ISPs Hijack Users’ Searches, Apparently to Monetize Them

Internet Service Providers are hijacking their users’ search queries on major search engines like Google, Bing, and Yahoo, and directing them to third-party proxies.

This news was revealed in an article by Jim Giles at New Scientist, who explains: “The hijacking seems to target searches for certain well-known brand names only. Users entering the term “apple” into their browser’s search bar, for example, would normally get a page of results from their search engine of choice. The ISPs involved in the scheme intercept such requests before they reach a search engine, however. They pass the search to an online marketing company, which directs the user straight to Apple’s online retail website.”

He says patents filed by Paxfire, a company involved in the hijacking, indicate the whole thing might be part of “a larger plan to allow ISPs to generate revenue by tracking the sites their customers visit,” and that “it may also be illegal.”

A class action suit has already been filed by New York law firms Reese Richman and Milberg.

ICSI researchers Christian Kreibich, Nicholas Weaver and Vern Paxson, with Peter Eckersley posted on the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s site:

In short, the purpose appears to be monetization of users’ searches. ICSI Networking’s investigation has revealed that Paxfire’s HTTP proxies selectively siphon search requests out of the proxied traffic flows and redirect them through one or more affiliate marketing programs, presumably resulting in commission payments to Paxfire and the ISPs involved. The affiliate programs involved include Commission Junction, the Google Affiliate Network, LinkShare, and Ask.com. When looking up brand names such as “apple”, “dell”, “groupon”, and “wsj”, the affiliate programs direct the queries to the corresponding brands’ websites or to search assistance pages instead of providing the intended search engine results page.

The ISPs that are redirecting search queries, according to New Scientist, are: Cavalier, Cincinnati Bell, Cogent, Frontier, Hughes, IBBS, Insight Broadband, Megapath, Paetec, RCN, Wide Open West, and XO Communication. Charter and Iowa Telecom, the publication says, were also doing it, but have stopped.

On Google+, Google’s Matt Cutts wrote, “More than ten U.S. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have apparently been caught hijacking search sessions. Crazy….To protect yourself against this, you can search Google via SSL search at https://encrypted.google.com . It might also help to change your DNS provider. Google has a Public DNS service:http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/ and OpenDNS has one too.”

@mattcutts
Matt CuttsWow. 10+ ISPs have been proxying search sessions, and sometimes hijacking them, possibly for profit: http://t.co/cYh6gc4 1 hour ago via Tweet Button · powered by @socialditto

SEOs sure have their work cut out for them these days.

August 5, 2011
White House Throws Support Behind New Anti-Piracy Agreement

Not long after the news broke that top Internet Service Providers had agreed to a deal with the music and film industries to adopt a new, graduated response to piracy, the White House threw its support behind the deal on their official blog.

Yesterday, the agreement that had been rumored for weeks was finalized. In brief, ISPs have said that they will participate in the efforts against online piracy by implementing a “graduated response,” which basically means a penalty system that increases in severity with each infraction.

Except the first four measures are simply slap-on-the-wrist warnings to “illegal file sharers.” Upon the fifth time that copyright holders flag you as a participant in piracy, the ISPs have the “voluntary” responsibility to implement one of many measures. Those include actions like the slowing of internet speeds and redirecting web traffic to designated pages pending the completion of an educational program on the ills of piracy.

Speaking on behalf of the White House, U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel said that the Obama administration is “committed to reducing infringement of American intellectual property.”

Here is some more of her statement –

The joining of Internet service providers and entertainment companies in a cooperative effort to combat online infringement can further this goal and we commend them for reaching this agreement. We believe it will have a significant impact on reducing online piracy.

We believe that this agreement is a positive step and consistent with our strategy of encouraging voluntary efforts to strengthen online intellectual property enforcement and with our broader Internet policy principles, emphasizing privacy, free speech, competition and due process.

As such, we will follow the implementation and outcomes of this arrangement with great interest. Our expectation is that the new organization created by it will have ongoing consultations with privacy and freedom of expression advocacy groups to assure that its practices are fully consistent with the democratic values that have helped the Internet to flourish.

Simultaneously, the Administration will continue to pursue comprehensive solutions to the problems associated with Internet piracy, including increased law enforcement and educational awareness. To win the future and succeed in the global economy, it is critical to protect the intellectual property of America’s innovators and creators.

The takeaway: To win the future, we have to prevent John Q. P2P from downloading The Expendables?

Another, more serious takeaway from this statement: With the administration officially behind the agreement, does it really fall into the realm of “voluntary” for the ISPs anymore?

With regard to broader issues like free speech and communication, do we really want ISPs having the final say on our “guilt” when it comes to filesharing? Do we want them to be able to limit our internet access based on accusations by copyright holders? And is it alarming that the White House thinks that they should?

As Nate Anderson at Ars Technica writes –

There’s a huge, obvious risk to piling up the obligations on intermediaries, who begin taking action against people without court orders and in areas in which they may have no technical expertise. (While appeal mechanisms are available, the new infringement agreement is a “guilty until proven innocent” approach.) ISPs dealing with spam and viruses and DDoS attacks is one thing; ISPs dealing with copyright, speech, and fair use issues is another entirely.

Today’s focus on “education” is therefore an encouraging one, but the “mitigation” measures ISPs will start taking raise key questions. How far we want ISPs to go in private enforcement actions that might target speech, communications, and even Internet access itself is a debate well worth revisiting in light of today’s news—and the White House support for such approaches.

Folks on Twitter, for the most part, aren’t too happy about the White House involvement –

@JPBarlow
John Perry BarlowWhite House will “win the future” with heavy copyright crackdown. Yeah. And lose my vote. http://arst.ch/q51 6 hours ago via Twittelator · powered by @socialditto

@The_Real_KC
Kinson ChanISP copyright cops. What’s next? Make auto manufacturers control speeding? http://tncr.ws/rGOe 8 hours ago via BlackBird for Playbook · powered by @socialditto

@rsingel
Ryan SingelThis is embarrassing. White House says it will “win the future” by turning ISPs into copyright guardians. http://1.usa.gov/qPTcVX 11 hours ago via Tweetie for Mac · powered by @socialditto

What do you guys think? Should ISPs become protectors of copyright? Let us know in the comments.

July 9, 2011
Top ISPs Adopt Graduated Response to Piracy, Give Users Six Strikes

A couple of weeks ago, we told you about a new anti-piracy campaign being pushed by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA). The deal, backed by the music and movie businesses would have major Internet Service Providers sign a voluntary agreement to crack down on illegal file sharing by adopting a “graduated response” method of attack.

Today, according to Ars Technica, that agreement has been signed.

The ISPs that have agreed to begin implementing the new set of warnings include big players like AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon.

Here’s how it will work, in brief –

Copyright holders (the industry) will continue to do what they already do, which is scour the interwebs for copyright infringers. When they snatch some IP addresses from a P2P file sharing network, they will report that IP address to the providing ISP.

ISPs will then implement the graduated program that they have just agreed to. it is important to note that ISPs have not agreed to automatically turn over your information to copyright holders. They will still need a court order to do that. This new agreement simply allows for the ISPs to notify you that you have been tagged.

Here is the complete list of the six steps of the graduated response, courtesy of Ars.

First Alert: In response to a notice from a copyright owner, an ISP will send an online alert to a subscriber, such as an email, notifying the subscriber that his/her account may have been misused for content theft, that content theft is illegal and a violation of published policies, and that consequences could result from any such conduct. This first alert will also direct the subscriber to educational resources which will (i) help him/her to check the security of his/her computer and any Wifi network, (ii) provide explanatory steps which will help to avoid content theft in the future and (iii) provide information about the abundant sources of lawful music, film and TV content.

Second Alert: If the alleged activity persists despite the receipt of the first alert, the subscriber may get a second similar alert that will underscore the educational messages, or the ISP may in its discretion proceed to the next alert.

Third Alert: If the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, he/she will receive another alert, much like the initial alerts. However, this alert will provide a conspicuous mechanism (a click-through pop-up notice, landing page, or similar mechanism) asking the subscriber to acknowledge receipt of this alert. This is designed to ensure that the subscriber is aware of the third copyright alert and reminds the subscriber that content theft conducted through their account could lead to consequences under the law and published policies.

Fourth Alert: If the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, the subscriber will receive yet another alert that again requires the subscriber to acknowledge receipt.

Fifth Alert: If the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, the ISP will send yet another alert. At this time, the ISP may take one of several steps, specified in its published policies, reasonably calculated to stop future content theft. These steps, referred to as Mitigation Measures, may include, for example: temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter. ISPs are not obligated to impose any Mitigation Measure which would disable or be reasonably likely to disable the subscribers voice telephone service (including the ability to call 911), e-mail account, or any security or health service (such as home security or medical monitoring). The use of the mitigation measure is waivable by the ISP at this point.

Sixth Alert: Whether or not the ISP has previously waived the Mitigation Measure, if the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, the ISP will send another alert and will implement a Mitigation Measure as described above. As described above, it’s likely that very few subscribers who after having received multiple alerts, will persist (or allow others to persist) in the content theft.

So basically you will receive warnings for the first 4 instances of “illegal file sharing.” Upon being flagged for the 5th time, the ISP may take measures to slow down your downloading or browsing. “May” being the operative word. They don’t have to implement any punishment, but if they do, it’ll be up to them to determine the nature of it.

And like we talked about before, the “education” part of the agreement is front and center. It’s possible that users can only receive full restoration of their service after participating in some sort of educational program about the horrors of file sharing.

There’s no indication that shutting off service completely is any part of the deal, even after 6 strikes.

There are two basic questions that arise from this news. First, will ISPs consistently take the initiative to implement these “mitigation measures,” since it’s all voluntary? And second, will four slaps on the wrist deter flagged P2P sharers before ISPs have to implement the harsher stuff?

Let us know what you think.

July 7, 2011
AT&T, Comcast Preparing For Stricter Anti-Piracy Measures

Top Internet Service Providers and media groups are very close to a deal that would amount to one of the most serious anti-piracy measures to date. According to multiple sources, CNET is reporting that a group of ISPs that includes AT&T, Comcast and Verizon is only a month or so away from an agreement with the RIAA and the MPAA. The deal is being brokered by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), whose members include Time Warner Cable and Qwest Communications.

The agreement, which has apparently been in the works for some time, would see participating ISPs put some teeth on their anti-piracy efforts.

Under the proposed plan, ISPs would send out written warning to users who were flagged as sharing copyrighted material across P2P networks. These written warning would be called “Copyright Alerts” and there is no word on how many warnings a user would get before more drastic measures were implemented.

This is basically what is in place right now for many ISPs. Not all ISPs send written warnings, some send emails and make phone calls as well.

Where the new plan distinguishes itself is with the strategies for dealing with the repeat “offenders.” Apparently ISPs would have some flexibility in choosing how to deal with these customers, but CNET’s sources give some specific examples of possible responses. A user who is deemed to have shared files illegally may see their internet restricted – maybe just to the top 200 sites until the sharing ceases. The ISP may even be able to intentionally slow down the user’s bandwidth speed.

Here’s the best part – “The subscriber may also be required to participate in a program that educates them on copyright law and the rights of content creators.”

So…P2P traffic school? Seriously? Will it help me avoid points on my internet license?

The plan is called a “graduated response” method.

Of course the ISPs will not be constantly monitoring users for “illegal file sharing.” It will be the job of copyright owners to accuse internet users of malfeasance, and then the ISPs will be at liberty to act.

Recent attempts to combat file sharing by industry groups include the takedown and eventual settlement with P2P service Limewire. Some film companies have enlisted the services of U.S. Copyright Group. That particular organization monitors IP addresses for “illegal file sharing” and then subpoenas ISPs for user’s information. Many times they will sue large numbers of users, as we’ve seen with the Hurt Locker and Expendables cases. They will then offer smaller settlements, maybe a couple thousand dollars, to the defendants.

Those cases involved over 47,000 people combined. These new measures, if they go into place, have the ability to affect an even larger number of people.

CNET’s sources made a point to stress that the deals were not finalized, but were incredibly close. Unless the communications fall through, it looks like ISPs are going to join the anti-piracy movement in a big way.

June 23, 2011
Did Comcast Help Restore Pirate Bay Connections?

Following up to yesterday’s Comcast/Pirate Bay confusion, it was claimed that Comcast helped restore connections to the Pirate Bay, the notorious bittorrent site. Evidently, there was some confusion as to what happened and what Comcast was given credit for. Did they directly restore access or was another party responsible for the disconnection?

The initial issue had to do with Comcast customers not being able to access The Pirate Bay, something Comcast naturally got the blame for. After denying any action against TPB, apparently Comcast conducted an investigation of their own, actually assisting the oft-maligned torrent tracker by making sure their service wasn’t filtering any data packages originating from TPB. Comcast members also defended their service on the XFINITY Facebook page, responding directly to accusations of Pirate Bay filtering:

Comcast’s “not us” response didn’t stop there, either. Besides assisting The Pirate Bay’s developers, Comcast also informed Serious Tubes, an ISP that adheres to the open Internet ideology, of the connection issues. The Serious Tubes developers then took action, correcting the issue, while placing the blame where it was supposed to be. They also made it quite clear Comcast did not fix the TPB connection issue:

Comcast did not help us fix The Pirate Bay. The problem was GBLX using reverse path filtering. We shut down one of our transits because it was flapping. The result was that all outgoing traffic to GBLX got filtered even though the packets took the same path as before. The Pirate Bay is using different paths for incoming and outgoing traffic to avoid beeing traced. We don’t even know where their servers are. We resolved the issue by activating our other transit again.

GBLX is short for Global Crossing, an international ISP that uses an AT&T-inspired business logo.

So, does Comcast deserve credit for assisting here or will they forever be buried under their history of previous peer-to-peer filtering situations? They know what The Pirate Bay can be used for, but yet, they actively tried to avoid the negative press that comes from ISP filtering, going as far as reaching out to The Pirate Bay developers. How significant is this potential olive branch? Or can it even be constituted as such? It’s a pretty safe bet any illegal file sharers caught while using Comcast’s service would be punished, but the fact Comcast even addressed the situation means they are willing to give users enough rope to hang themselves.

In closing, this is why contextual advertising is and will always be awesome. The following screenshot was taken from a site that has a “Comcast Service Sucks” page, with not much of significance on it. There is, however, a Google-served ad that captures just how much quality the Internet experience truly offers:

Alanis Morissette may have to weigh in here.

May 13, 2011
Comcast Blocking Pirate Bay? (No, According to Comcast)

Someone might want to let ISPs know that, no matter how much they want the opposite, net neutrality rules are still in effect. Of course, considering their success the last time Comcast went against the FCC, perhaps the ISPs just doesn’t give a damn.

Thanks to various reports, word is Comcast is blocking access to The Pirate Bay, perhaps the most outspoken, defiant bittorrent site out there. While this writer isn’t subjected to Comcast’s iron rule, I can’t confirm or deny Comcast’s approach, but there are a number of publications that can. Over at Techland, Doug Aamoth confirms the active denial:

I’m a Comcast subscriber and I can report that the site is inaccessible for me where I am in Boston at the moment.

TorrentFreak goes a little further:

Several tests and numerous user reports reveal that Comcast subscribers from all across the United States are unable to connect to The Pirate Bay. The traceroute from Comcast connections stops at thepiratebay.piratpartiet.se, as it’s supposed to, but The Pirate Bay website does not appear.

And on the reddit thread, well, if an active Internet forum could have all of Comcast pilloried, we’d no doubt see Brian Roberts walking through the town center in stocks while the onlookers threw rotten fruit and vegetables at him.

An example of the average reddit member’s thought process concerning Comcast:

Well. F**k comcast, then. [edit added]

However, there are some measured responses as well, like this one from user bazhip:

I can still access it through a proxy, but I feel that I should not have to. If Comcast is actively blocking it, I have a large problem with that. I don’t feel like using Tor whenever I want to get on there. Demonoid is nice, but not a big enough selection. I called Comcast to see what they had to say, and they told me that everything was fine on their end and it was not being blocked, but who knows. Minnesota here.

With all of the above in mind, it’s pretty clear something is going on in relation to Comcast allowing its customers to access the Pirate Bay. The question now becomes what prompted such action? Is such action even legal, because, as pointed out in the lead, net neutrality measures are still an active part of Internet service provision, Republican backlash be damned.

Granted, net neutrality may not remain in place, but currently, it is. With that in mind, is Comcast simply ignoring these rules in favor of protecting those who are charged with “protecting” intellectual properties? Should they face an attempt at punishment from the FCC or does the new appointment of Meredith Attwell Baker give them even more protection — not that they really needed it, seeing how the Supreme Court has already sided with them once already?

Is this how the fight against file sharing should be fought, with ISPs doing the work of true legal entities, or does the infrastructure of the Internet demand ISPs get involved? Should Comcast be in the business of denying the wishes of its customers even if they plan to conduct illegal activity? Should a liquor store not sell alcoholic beverages to people who might drunk drive?

For what it’s worth, Comcast denies they are blocking access to The Pirate Bay. In an email response to WebProNews, Charlie Douglas, Senior Director of Corporate Communications, says:

We’re not blocking PirateBay and reports online indicate users from several ISPs around the world are affected.

Does this change your perspective? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Lead image courtesy of Deviant Art member, keerochee.

May 12, 2011
Goodmail Comes to an End

Goodmail Systems will shut down this month, according to Direct Marketing News, who reports that CEO Daniel Dreymann says the main reason is an acquisition attempt by an undisclosed Fortune 500 company was taken off the table.

"We were on track to be acquired," Dreymann told the publication. "We got a terms sheet, and they left us at the altar at the last minute."

Five years ago, when Goodmail announced that AOL and Yahoo would implement their "pay-to-play" email authentication system, iEntry CEO and WebProNews publisher Rich Ord raised some interesting points about the company: "What exactly would publishers be paying for? Simply the right not to have their email publications distorted and made useless to subscribers by removing images and links? Paying a third party in order not to have my publications messed with seem a little bit too much like a Sopranos episode to me. As publishers we need to ask ourselves, does AOL have the right to distort our publications and damage our brands unless we pay?"

"Our newsletter subscribers asked to receive our emails," he added. "If an ISP takes on the service of offering email accounts, there is an expectation by the consumer that the ISP will not alter their email. An altered email deligitimizes a publishers brand and can cause the consumer to falsely report it as spam."

He then added, "What has become clear over the last few days is that Goodmail is not designed to combat spam. It’s sole purpose is to generate revenue for itself and partner ISP’s. The only companies who could afford to pay the Goodmail fee are the larger emailers which ISP’s already identify as non-spammers."

Criticism of the service was even able to achieve bi-partisan support. WebProNews later reported: "RightMarch and MoveOn hold diametrically opposite positions in the political spectrum. To bring these two rival political action committees to a common ground usually requires a staggeringly horrifying event taking place, like the launch of New Coke. This time, it’s the proposed fees for delivering bulk email to opt-in recipients that MoveOn and RightMarch find difficult to swallow." Still, even the White House would become a Goodmail client. After all, they want their messages to be received.

Goodmail lost Yahoo support last year, and according to Dreymann, the acquisition that never happened would have addressed this, but when it didn’t happen, he says he had no choice but to shut down the service. "I could not sustain the losses," he said. Gmail had resisted the use of Goodmail in the first place. Google said that the power of email filtering should rest in the hands of its users.

Goodmail reportedly sent customers an email saying that they were working with ISPs on a transition process.

February 4, 2011
Incentives Keep Broadband Customers Loyal

Offering loyalty incentives, such as discounts on monthly fees, service upgrades and other benefits, provides a significant boost in customer satisfaction with fixed and mobile broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) in the UK, according to a new report by J.D. Power and Associates.

Around 15 percent of fixed broadband customers and 16 percent of mobile broadband customers report having received incentives from their ISP to reward their continued loyalty.

Among these fixed and mobile broadband customers, satisfaction averages more than 100 points higher than among customers who don’t receive loyalty incentives. Among fixed broadband customers, the difference is an average of 102 points on a 1,000-point scale (737 vs. 635, respectively) while the gap averages 107 points among mobile broadband customers (701 vs. 594, respectively).

"While many Internet service providers offer discounts and rewards when customers initially sign up for or bundle services, incentives for ongoing loyalty have the greatest positive impact on overall satisfaction," said Stuart Crawford-Browne, senior manager of service industries research at J.D. Power and Associates.

"Loyalty rewards provide an important and impactful opportunity for ISPs to differentiate themselves, particularly in the increasingly competitive market landscape in which rewards are becoming an expectation among customers."

The report also found providing high levels of satisfaction with Internet service has a strong positive impact on recommendation rates. Among mobile broadband customers with the highest levels of satisfaction (averaging between 800 and 1,000) with their service provider, 67 percent said they would recommend their current ISP. This figure averages 64 percent among highly satisfied fixed broadband customers.

In contrast, among the least satisfied customers (with satisfaction averaging 700 or lower), only 8 percent of mobile broadband customers and 9 percent of fixed broadband customers would recommend their ISP.

"To keep customers satisfied, ISPs will need to focus on investing in infrastructure in the coming years," said Crawford-Browne. "Building networks with the ability to handle fast data transfer speeds will be important not only to customers, but also to businesses and, by extension, the economy as a whole."

March 31, 2010
Google Re-Imagined As World’s Third-Biggest ISP

It’s common knowledge in the U.S. search industry that Google has a market share of about 65 percent. Lots of people know (or at least know how to check) the search giant’s market cap, too (it’s currently at $180 billion). But another measure of Google’s size was presented yesterday, and it turns out that Google is on par with all but the biggest ISPs.

Craig Labovitz, Chief Scientist of Arbor Networks, stated on his company’s blog, "If Google were an ISP, it would be the fastest growing and third largest global carrier. Only two other providers (both of whom carry significant volumes of Google transit) contribute more inter-domain traffic. But unlike most global carriers (i.e. the ‘tier1s’), Google’s backbone does not deliver traffic on behalf of millions of subscribers nor thousands of regional networks and large enterprises. Google’s infrastructure supports, well, only Google."

Those are some fairly astonishing observations. Then here’s another fascinating tidbit: Labovitz continued, "Based on anonymous data from 110 ISPs around the world, we estimate Google contributes somewhere between 6-10% of all Internet traffic globally as of the of summer of 2009."

It’s hard not to see Google’s fiber network experiments in a different light after absorbing this information. The company might not just thrill the residents of a few towns and make ISPs nervous; Google really does appear capable of changing how the industry works, and may even be able to do so without breaking a figurative sweat.

We’ll be sure to keep an eye on ISPs’ reactions as Google moves ahead with its tests.

March 17, 2010
What Google Looks for in a Town for its Broadband Project

As previously reported, Google is planning to build and test "ultra high-speed" broadband networks in select communities around the U.S. We contacted Google to try and find out a bit more about what criteria Google is looking for to make its selections for these trial locations.

"Above all, we’re interested in deploying our network efficiently and quickly, and are hoping to identify interested community partners that will work with us to achieve this goal," Minnie Ingersoll, product manager on Google’s alternative access team tells WebProNews.

"To that end, we’ll use our RFI [Request for Information] to identify interested communities and to assess local factors that will impact the efficiency and speed of our deployment, such as the level of community support, local resources, weather conditions, approved construction methods and local regulatory issues, says Ingersoll. "We will also take into account broadband availability and speeds that are already offered to users within a community."

"The RFI is a first step – we plan to consult with local government organizations, as well as conduct site visits and meet with local officials, before announcing our final decisions, says Ingersoll.

Google also pointed out to us that there are already a number of Facebook Groups popping up, based on communities looking to be chosen for Google’s project. The very fact that Google pointed them out means they must be paying attention.

A number of organizations from the FCC to the Open Internet Coalition have weighed in on Google’s plans. "Big broadband creates big opportunities," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a statement. "This significant trial will provide an American testbed for the next generation of innovative, high-speed Internet apps, devices, and services. The FCC’s National Broadband Plan will build upon such private-sector initiatives and will include recommendations for facilitating and accelerating greater investment in broadband, creating jobs and increasing America’s global competitiveness."

The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors said it applauds the move, and the Open Internet Coalition says Google’s initiative will spur innovation not only by app developers, but will help create a new field of ISPs that will create and sell new high-speed consumer services over the project. The organization’s Executive Director says that it will "hopefully inject new life into the extinct third party ISP marketplace."

February 11, 2010