McLaughlin, a major supporter of net neutrality rules, made the comment in a telecom law conference last Thursday by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln law school. Reaction was swift from AT&T's chief lobbyist, Jim Cicconi:

"It is deeply disturbing when someone in a position of authority, like Mr. McLaughlin, is so intent on advancing his argument for regulation that he equates the outright censorship decisions of a communist government to the network congestion decisions of an American ISP. There is no valid comparison, and it's frankly an affront to suggest otherwise," Cicconi said.

Maybe so, but it's a slippery slope. At any rate, the bottom line is that ISPs are going to end up screwing us one way or another—either with some sort of tiered internet, or pricey data caps. [Washington Post]

And before you dismiss the chart outright, check out your cable company's channel packages. Replace content provider fees with new network backbone charges, and cable packages with traffic or website packages, and hey, look, shit—this doesn't seem so crazy, does it? Click here for the full version. [Reddit via Crunchgear]

This is painful for the vast majority of the world's online population, who live out their lives in a sub-10Mbps ghetto, but doubly so for South Korea, who seemed to have the claim to the first 1Gbps connection all locked up. If it's any consolation, nobody's even claiming they'll be able to hit 1Gbps here.

Of course, there will be disadvantages. 1Gbps connections surely won't come cheap, and seriously, beyond extremely well-seeded torrents, you're going to have trouble finding too many places that are willing to serve you content at over 128 megabytes per second. But still, this hurts. UPDATE: Apparently Japan might already have this? Well, screw you guys too. [Broadband TV News]

I won't try to be elegiac here, since I only really remember CompuServe's service as that quasi-internetlike thing that my parents would let me use on our Gateway for about two minutes at a stretch, as we watched the minutely charges rack up and I desperately tried to figure out where the hell the games were. But those of you of a different generation vintage, with your own super-numerical email addresses, memories of horrifying, unexpected phone bills and bitterness towards the ungrateful kids of today with their "broadband" and "wireless," feel free to reflect in the comments. [Basex via Beyond the Beyond]

Ars Technica says the constituents in Massa's district have been subject to data caps from both of the available broadband providers, and Massa thinks that the lack of competition in the broadband market makes volume usage fees unnecessary and unfair to consumers.

Instead, he wants broadband to be treated more like a utility, with the Federal Trade Commission deciding whether or not data caps are fair. And with the current phone/cable duopoly structure in the broadband landscape, Massa thinks companies can do without usage fees.

That said, this bill still has to make its way through House, then Senate and then onto the President's desk. And there have already been a fair number of detractors both inside and outside of congress. Basically, it has a long way to go. [House of Reps via Ars Technica]

Midsize ISP DSLExtreme has announced that it will be offering a 50mbps service in 17 states at an introductory rate of $100/mo. This will climb to $105 after the first year, but still undercuts Verizon's standard price (in most markets) of $145/mo. The weird thing? DSLExtreme is beating Verizon's prices on Verizon's own service. The ISP has become a FiOS wholesaler, meaning that DSLExtreme's service operates on their fiber, through their network.

That makes it all the more odd that they can undercut a giant like Verizon, but they're doing it anyway. Voodoo! Economics! [Ars Technica]

But perhaps it's time to examine the cable industry's lease model. Is having all of those logo-branded boxes on the balance sheet worth the pittance consumers pay to rent them? Is it worth dooming customers to a clunky experience when a third-party box could do the job better? Heck, gaming consoles, DVD players and other CE devices could simply double as cable set-tops if the cable industry could just finally… let go. All of this was supposed to happen years ago, by the way, with set-tops proliferating at retail. But it never came to pass for a variety of reasons. And now competition is fierce, online video is the boogeyman and gee… wouldn't it be nice if all those advanced boxes were out there right now?

Using Apple and AT&T as an example, the author notes that both companies are notoriously closed minded, but third party development has made the App Store wildly successful—and AT&T has benefited by letting Apple control all of the hardware and software issues. He even questions whether or not an Apple "iSetTop" for the cable industry would be a "competitive superweapon."

I doubt that the cable industry is ready for Apple to step in, but it appears that cable providers are starting to realize that change is necessary. Spending big bucks for subscriptions each month is increasingly unnecessary, and its only a matter of time before our televisions are all connected to the internet in some form or another. It's nice to know that that there are at least a few forward thinkers in the industry, but everyone is going to have to get on board with this in order to survive. That having been said, the article kind of glosses over the problem of pricing and customer service—an issue which really needs to be addressed first and foremost. Obviously, this would go a long way in retaining customers who might think about jumping ship before cable can catch up with the technology. Hit up CableFax for the full argument. [CableFax]

In other words, if they are not going to get the blood money they planned from CBB, they might not feel the need to roll out wideband (even though they are not implicitly tied). Alex Dudley, VP of public relations for Time Warner explains via his twitter feed:

@gigastacey it was scheduled as part of cbb trial, but we all know how you feel about that.

@netpro2k It doesn't...just that the rollout was scheduled with the trial and now all of it is on hold.

@Stryph Biggest cost is actually bandwidth allocation.

Obviously, if they are concerned about another major public backlash, they had damn well better come through with this. As a TWC customer, I will definitely be one of those people shaking my fist. [PCMag]

Apparently, the new plan is to roll out some sort of meter system that will help customers gauge their internet usage and, in most cases, realize that the bandwidth caps will not really affect them. As far as I can tell, there is no "misunderstanding" here. No matter how you break it down, it's pretty obvious that TWC customers are getting screwed. [TWC via DemocratandChronicle Thanks George!]

AT&T says they're not doing any of the actual spotting—the RIAA is handling that part—they're just "forwarding notices from content providers to our customers" to edumacate them. Cnet's Greg Sandoval reports that a Comcast executive said that they've sent customers two million warning notices about infringement. [A Comcast spokesperson later added that these letters weren't part of any new campaign, see below.]

What happens if you ignore AT&T's notices? Will they disconnect you? Here is their lovely wishy-washy answer that really doesn't say anything at all: "We are not suspending or terminating our customers' service. With that said, we do refer customers to our Acceptable Use Policy, which governs use of our service." Just keep in mind, it's the same AT&T that was plotting a massive, intelligent anti-piracy dragnet that would sweep their entire network for pirated content.

Update: Comcast adds via spokesperson that nothing's changed:

"Comcast, like other major ISPs, forwards notices of alleged infringement that we receive from music, movie, videogame, and other content owners to our customers. This is the same process we've had in place for years - nothing has changed. While we have always supported copyright holders in their efforts to reduce piracy under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and continue to do so, we have no plans to test a so-called 'three-strikes-and-you're-out' policy."

Probably not a distinction they want, but since they're the only major ISP that's not seriously clamping down on bandwidth usage and hanging out with the RIAA at bars—the RIAA's new buddy group reportedly includes AT&T, Comcast and Cox—Verizon still looks like the best ISP around for people moving around less-than-legally shiny material (i.e., everyone on the internet), especially if you get FiOS. [Cnet via CrunchGear]

The golden rule—which we covered a bit here—to keep in mind is this: If you use more than 70 percent of your downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutes, you'll be slowed down for at least 15 minutes, or until you're brought back down to using 50 percent of your bandwidth. The other, more esoteric way to bring on the sludge is actually a pair of conditions: If a certain CMTS port—cable modem termination system, the hub your cable modem, along with those of up to 15,000 (but probably fewer) runs to—is congested and if you've been targeted as the asshole why.

By slowed down, it means all of your packets are assigned "Best Effort" quality of service, a lower tier than Priority Best Effort. Which means this, according to Comcast:

If there is no congestion, packets from a user in a BE state should have little trouble getting on the bus when they arrive at the bus stop. If, on the other hand, there is congestion in a particular instance, the bus may become filled by packets in a PBE state before any BE packets can get on. In that situation, the BE packets would have to wait for the next bus that is not filled by PBE packets.

This all happens in a compressed time frame though—missing 50 buses would mean being delayed by about a tenth of a second, but it is possible to have your packets dropped in "extreme cases." (See? The bus metaphor was theirs.)

Don't forget your bandwidth counter either, guys. You wouldn't wanna zoom past your 250GB cap and get slowed down, would you? Enjoy your internets, and don't hog it all! [DSL Reports]

On the issue of net neutrality, the project, tellingly called "OpenEdge", seems to indicate an about-face on Google's part. According to an extant Google Help page, the company's official position is as follows:

In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.

This was posted around the time that Google was lending its considerable influence to fighting the S.2686 Telco bill, which threatened net neutrality. In a letter opposing the bill, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said:

Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.

Pretty clear, right? Then how does Google justify installing ISPs to host their content at higher speeds than other content? While it is easy to see how faster Google and YouTube access might be appealing to Google and consumers, it's clear that the company would have to pay for such preferential treatment, a practice which runs directly counter to their previous stance.

A likely defense would be that, in the case of OpenEdge, ISPs wouldn't be throttling other traffic, just accelerating Google's traffic. That would be true, but not the point. The system wouldn't adversely affect existing services or threaten P2P traffic, but it would be creating a tiered internet, which—no matter how it's packaged—is the greatest fear of proponents of net neutrality. When pressed on the issue, the company simply indicated to the WSJ that "other companies such as Yahoo and Microsoft could strike similar deals if they desired." Coming never: fast-tracked Giz, courtesy of Comcast.

UPDATE:: Epicenter reports that Google responded to WSJ's article, calling it confused. They claim that their OpenEdge, which uses a technology called edge caching (already in use by Amazon), does not contradict their policy on net neutrality. Rather, they claim it only improves the end user experience by colocating a server to minimize the distance between their content and the user, thus speeding up the time it takes to load content. Google feels that ISPs and content providers working together to improve performance is not the same thing as ISPs only making content available for a select audience. [WSJ]

The chart here was sent to the Post by a German hosting facility manager, showing spam's immediate decline after McColo's shutdown (Security Fix has several more charts from security organizations and individuals showing the same thing). It's fun to consider the trickle down effects here—just think of the saved CPU cycles on webmail hosts worldwide who suddenly had 70% less U.S. spam to crunch on, and the energy savings resulting?

Last time this happened, when a similar northern California spam ISP called the "Atrivo" network was busted, it only took spammers a few days to get back to their old ways on another network. So, be sure to revel fully in a world free of Viagra deals, Kenyan wire transfer offers and content sharing proposals from personal lubrication sites (Mark's claim to wealth) while you can. [Washington Post, Security Fix]

This would be a "three-strike" system. You get two warnings before your ISP is legally empowered to cut you off. The first warning arrives by email; the second is snailmail, perhaps just in case the first got caught in your spam filter.

Just months before, the powerless rubber-stampy European Parliament called a denial of net access a violation of "civil liberties and human rights." Apparently President Sarkozy, his totally hot recording-artist wife and a lot of other people disagree.

Though the bill still has to get past France's lower legislative house before it can go into effect, it's looking good: The Senate passed it with near unanimity. Oddly enough, the Communists abstained and one hard right-winger opposed it, due to the fact a ruling could seriously complicate a bundled net-phone-TV package. (10 bucks says his kid's all over them torrents.) [UPI]

The amount of P2P activity is going to grow by 400% in the next five years. In 2012, 8 petabytes will be swapped worldwide every month, as opposed to the piddly 1.6 petabytes of net traffic today. Accounting for much of this explosion will be legal P2P, which MultiMedia says will grow 10 times faster than the pornier, copyright-infringier variety. This doesn't mean the legal stuff will necessarily eclipse the illegal stuff, but it will become a more noticeable sharer of the bandwidth.

Re: those poor long-suffering ISPs, let's not forget that just because it's "legal" doesn't mean your cable or phone co. is gonna let you bring it on. [MultiMedia Intelligence]

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.