Tag: Internet Protocol

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have been quick to blame problems with service quality on so-called “bandwidth hogs.” According to AT&T, the top 5% of their Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) subscribers use 46% of the consumed bandwidth, and the top 1% of subscribers use 21%. But it is unclear what these figures mean, and if congestion problems could even be caused by those who use the network the most. These figures would seem to be describing the bandwidth consumption totals at the end of some designated time period (day, week, month). If this is the case, then 5% of subscribers using 46% of bandwidth consumed is not necessarily cause for alarm.

Excessive bandwidth usage is only a problem when it degrades the quality of service for other users of the network.

For months, Comcast spokespeople have been deny, deny, denying that the FCC has the power to do anything about Comcast’s throttling of BitTorrent traffic. Now, in papers filed as part of a class action lawsuit against Comcast, Comcast has gone the opposite direction, asserting that because “these issues are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the FCC, and because the FCC is actively investigating them,” the judge should put the suit on hold until the FCC renders a decision. The court has agreed, staying the case until the FCC acts.

For the past couple of days, I’ve been in South Korea, attending the OECD’s Ministerial on the Future of the Internet Economy. Rather than try to give a blow-by-blow account, I’ve tried to package some of my thoughts in a series of posts. Here’s one:

The OECD Ministerial has ended with the signing of the Seoul Declaration, a document signed by the member nations of the OECD, as well as the European Community and observer countries Chile, Egypt, Estonia, India, Indonesia, Israel, Latvia, Senegal and Slovenia. The Declaration sets out the international organization’s general policies for ensuring the future of the Internet Economy—including policies they believe will encourage creativity, support convergence, and promote confidence online.

For the past couple of days, I’ve been in South Korea, attending the OECD’s Ministerial on the Future of the Internet Economy. Rather than try to give a blow-by-blow account, I’ve tried to package some of my thoughts in a series of posts. Here’s one:

Video sharing sites hit mainstream a long time ago—by the time a technology is feted as part of a presidential debate, it's no longer got that same early-adopter cachet. That doesn't keep it from being useful, though.

Right now, for instance, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is asking for your input on a key meeting this month.

If you haven’t heard yet, a beta of Adobe’s Flash Player Version 10 is available for download. It offers a host of new features, but one has implications that blow the others out of the water: built-in peer-to-peer. That’s right, all the tools necessary to build a p2p client will be built into the Flash plug-in.

I just got back from a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing on the future of the Internet. Much was said on both sides of the panelist table, so I’ll just take a moment to hit some highlights: competition and innovation, media consolidation and content, and FCC authority. One disclaimer: this summary represents (of course) how I interpreted the statements at the hearing. Where I can, I’ve included timestamps into the video; if you want more detail, watch the hearing direct from the Senate’s web site. Also, check out our press release.

We’re now accepting nominations for our annual IP3 Awards. Each year, Public Knowledge singles out three people who have advanced the public interest in one or more of the “three IPs”: Intellectual Property, Internet Protocol, and Information Policy.

As technology advances, the roles of users, content creators, and service providers expand and blur. This year, more than ever, the areas have overlapped in debates around patents, copyright, net neutrality on the Internet and on other networks, the use of spectrum, and many others. As new questions arise at the intersection of law and technology, certain individuals come forward to advance to public interest in each of the three types of “IP”.

As always, we need your help in choosing this year’s winners. So please send your nominations to IP3nominees@publicknowledge.org, or post your picks in the comments below.

A constant complaint of net neutrality naysayers is that no one knows what net neutrality is. Lacking an agreed-upon definition, the debate swirls into a maelstrom full of red herrings, as various ISP spokespeople talk about how net neutrality threatens legitimate network management, or will interfere with quality of service.

It’s high time we moved past that argument, define some terms, and get on with things. That’s one of the accomplishments of the recent resolution on net neutrality issued by the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialog(TACD). PK’s press release on the resolution is here; Ars Technica has a nice writeup here.

Today, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin announced at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) conference that he is circulating an order at the FCC that would dismiss the petition (pdf) filed by Skype that sought an FCC ruling requiring a wireless network provider to allow the use of any non-harmful device and application on its network.

The rationale behind this decision is one we have heard many times over the past few months: Verizon announced that they are going to be open to third party devices and applications; the FCC already has required the C block of the 700 MHz spectrum recently auctioned to be open (again, controlled by Verizon); the wireless industry is headed in the direction of openness, etc. It’s done, so why do we need a ruling?