Although the intentions aren't yet explicit, most of the coalition members have openly opposed net neutrality legislation and are in favor of allowing ISPs to have the "freedom" to monitor their customers. But Microsoft is a little bit more squirmy on the subject. Thomas C. Rubin, Microsoft’s chief counsel for intellectual property strategy, told Hansell:

We think that this is an opportunity to work with leaders across industries to put our heads together to discuss the opportunities that exist to facilitate the promotion of the availability of legitimate content on the Internet. We are not in favor of filtering at the network level.

Hopefully that is enough of a bulwark against rampant abuse of power. As the forces align, it's important for pirates and non-pirates alike to keep watch. Meantime, check out the full article. [NYT]

First of all, this isn't the first time a consortium like this has been established. For example: The Secure Digital Music Initiative was formed in 1998 only to die a horrible death a few years later. Second, I don't see any mention of Apple on the list of participants—but I do see Comcast on there. You know, the same ISP enforcing 250GB data caps on its subscribers. So they are all for unlimited access to content...as long as you keep it within reason. It doesn't seem to be viable to me in its current form, but I will withhold judgment until the full details are revealed in January at CES.

Industry Leaders to Create Global Standard Enabling

"Buy Once, Play Anywhere" Consumer Experience for Digital Media

Major Hollywood studios, retailers, service providers, and consumer electronics and IT

companies to develop framework for bringing together digital products, content and services

for consumers

LOS ANGELES (September 12, 2008) – Today, an international and cross-industry group of more than 20 leading companies announced the formation of a consortium, Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem (DECE) LLC ("DECE LLC"), that will define and build a new digital media framework using industry standards, and will enable consumers to acquire and play content across a wide range of services and devices. Anchored by Alcatel-Lucent, Best Buy, Cisco, Comcast, Fox Entertainment Group, HP, Intel, Lionsgate, Microsoft, NBC Universal, Paramount Pictures, Philips, Sony, Toshiba, VeriSign and Warner Bros. Entertainment, DECE LLC will address growing consumer confusion around buying, downloading and playing digital content offered by multiple services by working toward a simple, uniform digital media experience.

"This is great news for consumers hungry for access to a wider array of digital content they can enjoy on any device they own. We formed this consortium to give consumers that kind of power and choice," said Mitch Singer, president of DECE LLC, on behalf of its members. "To open up the market for digital distribution, we are developing a specification that connects a wide variety of services and devices. DECE LLC is taking the lessons learned from the successful "buy once, play anywhere" experience that we enjoy with CDs, DVDs and Blu-ray today, and using a similar approach in developing the next generation digital media experience."

Over time, DECE LLC will issue a licensable specification, along with a recognizable brand and logo for compliant products and services that will assure consumers that content they download will play on their devices. The specification, based on industry standards, will outline the hardware and software requirements for companies to follow as they define new consumer experiences.

The specification will also define how consumers can enjoy their purchased content on an assortment of devices, or even remotely, thereby creating the convenience of a virtual library, accessible in the home or on the road. By offering consumers the same level of confidence and comfort with digital content that they feel today with physical media, DECE LLC believes it can bring real value to digital content.

As DECE LLC moves ahead, it will continue to seek broader industry support across the content, software, hardware, retailer and service provider sectors, and will issue more information around its development and release plans.

The move shouldn't be all that surprising if you kept up with the 700 MHz spectrum auction earlier this year. During the auction, Cox dropped $304 million for its piece of the wireless pie. Esser noted that the company plans on investing a total of $500 million in wireless spectrum before all is said and done. No doubt they will need every penny (and probably more) if they want to make a mark in the highly competitive wireless business. [PC Mag]

This might seem like an odd topic for Giz Explains, our weekly "WTF is that?" series, but a bunch of comments last week revealed a need to plainly explain the tussle going on between internet service providers, the Federal Communications Commission, content providers and you, and how it's shaping the way you'll use internet over the next couple of years. First, a quick primer.

Comcast was caught slowing down BitTorrent traffic last year by the Associated Press. It (re)sparked cries for government-mandated net neutrality—treating all internet traffic equally, whether it's email, Skype or a bootleg of The Dark Knight over torrent. While that didn't happen, a complaint against Comcast went through the FCC, which ruled against it last week, saying that slowing down BitTorrent was a naughty thing to do, and that they must disclose all management practices to subscribers.

In the meantime, a different network management trend started to emerge among the major ISPs: metered broadband, aka data caps. It's like dial-up service or wireless data: After reaching your alotted amount of data for the month, you pay extra, maybe through the nose, as our northern neighbors in Canada are familiar with. Conveniently, it's "net neutral," since it doesn't discriminate against particular kinds of traffic, and it's fully disclosed to subscribers so it satisfies guidelines discussed by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin. In case you're looking to file a complaint, Electronic Frontier Foundation Senior Staff Attorney Fred Von Lohmann told us, "There's certainly nothing to stop them from pricing that way if they want to."

Time Warner was the first major to float the plan, which is currently in testing, with a 40GB cap at the high-end. Comcast is considering a metered approach as well, its spokesman has confirmed. AT&T is the most recent major ISP to jump onboard, and it'll be testing caps in the fall. Not to mention Cox Cable and a whole mess of regional ISPs already implement them.

Here's the rub: The P2P apps ISPs point to as pillaging their networks are increasingly a nonexistant bogeyman. Video is now the actual bandwidth monster, and it's only getting hungrier and hungrier.

The thing about all that video is that it competes with what your ISP is probably delivering to your other screen in the living room. Why watch 30 Rock on your couch at specific time when you can grab it on demand on your laptop with Hulu, or on a Netflix Roku box? That awesome Vudu box you bought? Pulling in Transformers in HD uses your cable provider's pipes, but it doesn't see a dime from the transaction.

Suppose you decide to be pseudo-green and opt for an all-digital approach from Vudu or Apple TV, and you have a moderate habit of two movies a week. A 90-minute movie running at a constant bitrate of 2.5 megabits per second (you're talking HD here) will swallow 1.69 GB. If you've got a 40GB cap, eight movies will eat over a quarter of it. And that's just your rental habit, with today's specs. The 1080p flicks they'll be streaming tomorrow will be even more bandwidth intensive.

More importantly, today's geek frontier is tomorrow's mainstream playground. Like game demos on Xbox Live? Or games-for-purchase on Steam? Those are a gig or two a pop, and as more and more games are distributed digitally, the gigs will add up. Which is also part of the problem as far as the ISPs are concerned: AT&T's tech chief glibly notes that "traffic on our backbone is growing 60 percent per year, but our revenue is not."

While I wanted to tell you that data caps will destroy the internet as we know it, really video is what's actually facing the greatest threat. Time Warner has openly said content providers can't have it both ways. And the EFF's von Lohmann told us that while he hasn't "seen any evidence that [metered broadband] will radically change the internet" he is "worried that companies that have their own video they're delivering over the same pipe they deliver internet service will have an incentive to reduce caps" and it's a "valid concern worth watching." It would effectively have us paying twice for video delivered over the internet. Most people can barely stand paying for it once.

The FCC decision will basically tell Comcast to stop blocking BitTorrent and to disclose its practices to consumers (both are sorta moot points). It'll be challenged in court, which will take a long time and be messy, and either confirm or (most probably) deny the FCC's power to tell ISPs what to do.

The end result though, and what we're already seeing, is that ISPs will move away from network filters and get into data caps—which are FCC approved. Or at least, not disapproved. So, we've won—Comcast is getting thrashed—but we really haven't. [WSJ]

Granted, when you experience the kind of growth Comcast has in recent years, I can understand how customer service might drop off. But what happened here was pure ignorance. In fact, it seems that they are going out of their way to irritate their own customers in some cases. So my question is: when will customers start seeing the benefits of the "billions of dollars" Comcast claims to have poured into improving their network, customer service and sales operations? [Washington Post via Fark]

Martin's aim now is to punish Comcast via an order he is trying to push through his fellow commissioners. If passed, Comcast would be forced to stop P2P blocking, provide details on its P2P blocking practices and inform its customers about its plans for the future. Fortunately, he only has to secure two more votes on the five-person panel to make his plan a reality. And there are two Democrats on the commission that are staunch supporters of net neutrality and are likely to follow his lead. So it looks like Comcast will be getting the big FCC boot in its ass in the very near future. Bout' friggin' time if you ask me. UPDATE: The WSJ is reporting that Martin is not looking to add a fine in addition to the bill against Comcast. [AP via Arstechnica]

Going through our logs we can tell that nearly a dozen of you are still using AOL via dial-up. For lots of people in remote locales it's their only choice, and starting at the end of the month their bills are going to be going up a whopping $2 a month from $9.99 to $11.99. That's about 20%, but they don't have to pay it; AOL is offering users the chance to keep their $9.99 plans if they pinky swear to not call technical support if its not a connection-related issue. How exactly does this work?

Does AOL give them a different support number so they can tell who's who? Does the technician's caller-ID pop up and display, "This is a $9.99 customer, do not help"? Are they shunned in AOL chatrooms as being unclean? We're not sure.

We're pretty sure AOL is doing this because there are many people who would call AOL support for non-dial-up related problems. Grandma knows they can help with some problems and assumes they're there to help with all problems. While it's weird making customers choose a different plan to avoid this problem, we can completely understand. [CNet, via Consumerist]

The cap is being put into place to control a small number of users who have set up file sharing servers and are pumping out far more than that a day. If you're a downloader, don't you worry, no download cap is going to be put into place, so feel free to continue using the hell out of that gorgeous 100Mbps connection of yours.

Sure makes that Time Warner download cap of 40GB per month seem stingy as hell, doesn't it? Stupid jerkface American ISPs. [Ars Technica]

It is more or less accepted that a minority of users use disproportionate of bandwidth, but what they're using it for is changing. It's increasingly video, not BitTorrent. The whole pro-BitTorrent thing is a smokescreen, because BitTorrent is less and less of an issue—video, and increasingly, HD video will be the real one. (Along with any number of other increasingly bandwidth-intensive apps.) And it'll be more and more competitive with providers' TV offerings—we've already seen Time Warner cry about it. But there's no legitimate way to block it and protect their content.

They can, however, make it more expensive for you to download with bandwidth caps (which is conveniently net neutral). And that's what I think this is partially about—protecting their TV business, not just curbing voracious bandwidth appetites. Regardless of the motivations, it's definitely coming. Comcast's tests will probably start soon, Time Warner's are already underway and regional ISPs have been doing it for a while. It's looking very much like the future of broadband here.

At least if we're using it less maybe the internet won't explode now. [Wired]

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

"Application designers need to understand what will and what will not work on the network, and consumers must be fully informed about the exact nature of the service they are purchasing."

"Particularly as broadband providers are trying to provide tiers of service, it's critical to make sure that we are understanding that the broadband network operators are able to deliver the speeds and service that they are selling."

Poor Comcast, it really is looking like their whole P2P vaudeville show might not stop the FCC after all. If none of this made any sense to you, check out our quick guide to ISPs and network practices, and what they mean for you. [Reuters]

As Ars points out, they don't plan on inviting consumer groups to this constitutional convention, viewing it as more of an "industry" deal. Which is what we told you guys earlier about ISPs suddenly seeing the light of P2P. It's an industry thing, not a you thing. Protocol agnostic management, for one, can simply mean slowing down all your traffic equally, be it p2p or streaming video.

Also, if they make a "bill of rights" on their own terms, it's a further case for the industry that the FCC doesn't need to step in with a government-mandated bill of rights or net neutrality rules—which no ISP wants, not even Verizon, who is the most vocal about not policing or throttling their pipes.

The upside, again, is smarter use of increasingly taxed pipes with more efficient protocols. But that's not necessarily about you. And if the rest of the industry doesn't jump aboard, this could all amount to jack. [Comcast, Ars, Multichannel]

The CALEA was originally written to make digital phone lines easier to wiretap. In the case of cellphones, where the tech has "100% penetration, it's credited with boosting the number of court-approved wiretaps a carrier can handle simultaneously, and greatly shortening the time it takes to get a wiretap going," according to Threat Level.

For the low, low price of $164, you can check out the official specs ISPs will use to route over pretty much any "information sent or received through a user's broadband connection, including on-line banking activity" should the FBI be granted a court order to see what's flowing through their (or your) Intertubes.

So, happy surfing tomorrow! And be sure to use emoticons! FBI agents are people too, and I bet a smiling face would really brighten their day. — Matt Buchanan

Reminder: Monday is Wiretap the Internet Day [Threat Level]

EFF and others have long warned that copyright claims could become an altar on which personal privacy is sacrificed. Now the RIAA wants your ISP to voluntarily wield the knife, and there's no telling what else the RIAA might ask for once this cut has been made.

So now the ball is in the ISPs courts. Will they bend over to this new demand from the RIAA? We definitely need to be putting pressure on ISPs to let them know that we're paying attention and that their customers won't stand having their private records sold out to thugs. –Adam Frucci

EFF [via Broadband Reports]