Public Knowledge published a paper last week about data caps and so-called “usage-based billing.”  Directly from their Executive Summary:

Usage-based pricing (UBP), today most commonly encountered in the form of data caps, is rapidly becoming part of the Internet access landscape.

The paper considers economic and historical perspectives and raises some concerns, both in regards to competition and to national priorities such as broadband adoption, education, employment, and innovation more generally.

Unfortunately, not too long ago the FCC gave UBP an unequivocal green light (at the request of industry stakeholders) to expressly allow “bandwidth- or consumption-based” billing to address network congestion (whether or not it exists!).  The FCC adopted the reasoning that UBP (which includes data caps) can be an effective mechanism to ensure that consumers pay for what they use.

This argument alludes to many falsehoods, including that Internet bandwidth is being eaten up by Bandwidth Hogs.  Here’s what the report says:

Before considering the existence of Bandwidth hogs, we should examine the nature of Internet access as a service.  For starters, bits are not physical goods, and therefore cannot be “consumed” in any meaningful sense.  Absent network congestion, one person’s use of bandwidth does not interfere with another’s.  This is because the Internet is largely a “non-rivalrous” technology:  one’s use or consumption of the Internet does not impede or deprive anyone else from enjoying it as well.  Furthermore unlike, for example, vehicular traffic, bits do not “wear out the road.”  Maintenance costs for networking equipment are not directly related to the volume of traffic they process.  The rhetoric behind the cost-recovery rationale for data caps is heavily charged with notions of equity, scarcity, and unjust  subsidization.  It begins with the intuitively appealing notion that users of a resource should “pay for what they use.”

…

The Internet is based on a technical concept called “statistical multiplexing” where multiple users can share the same bandwidth that previously would be consumed by one user making a single phone call.  In theory, with statistical multiplexing there is no limit on how many users can share the bandwidth represented by the circuit for a single phone call.  Unlike other utilities such as water, electricity, gas or oil, where the product is actually “consumed” by end users, network bandwidth is never truly “consumed”: bandwidth is infinitely reusable and therefore only temporarily in use (or “consumed”) at any given time.

Although our major ISPs make the claim that UBP is needed to counter network congestion, there is no data available to support their claim.  Network congestion apparently does occasionally occur, almost exclusively during the evening hours (after work) when people are getting their Netflix or Hulu fixes.  But UBP will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to alleviate this congestion — when & if it occurs.  More often than not, it’s due to the ISP’s practice of “oversubscription” (i.e., selling more bandwidth than it can actually provide at any given time).  This usually happens at the endpoints, i.e., neighborhood Customer Aggregation Equipment (CAE).  Fortunately, this is easily (& inexpensively) resolved by the ISPs.

Bottom line?  For both cable (coax) & wired (tele company) broadband, there is little evidence that “bandwidth hogs” are imposing costs that are either unpaid or borne by other users.

All data coming from Canada (& other countries) that have imposed data caps indicate that competition (as in lack of), rather than congestion, determines whether a service provider feels entitled to impose UBP on its customers — which is particularly troubling in the U.S. given the lack of competition in the broadband market.

The communications industry in the U.S. is moving rapidly towards UBP, and is stigmatizing flat rate pricing as unjust and unsustainable.  However, much of the rest of the world (except Canada) is moving in the other direction.

The conclusion of the paper begins with:

Flat pricing schemes should be regarded as an ideal goal, supporting innovation and social and economic welfare, and not as irrational aberrations that promote inefficiency and waste.  However, sometimes temporary resource constraints may make flat rates infeasible.   Currently, in the wired Internet, that does not appear to be a real concern, as the rate of progress in technology appears to be comparable to the rate at which traffic demand is rising, so that should be possible to support the growth in traffic without increases in the level of investment.  On the wireless side, traffic is growing faster than carriers are investing in capacity improvements, so the case for UBP appears far stronger.

My concern is with wired broadband, not wireless.  With more ISPs (i.e., Comcast, Time Warner, etc.) offering their own content, which does not count against their data caps, it’s going to get increasingly difficult (& definitely more expensive) for users to obtain content from 3rd-party providers like Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Amazon Instant Video, etc..  In addition, it will hasten the downfall of any 3rd-party competition.  The sad fact of the matter is that American ISPs have a monopoly.  By allowing them to also sell their own content, they’re now in a position to eliminate any outside competition.  This will make it even more difficult to ‘cut the cord’ from cable content.

Don’t ya just love how monopolies rule in America?

UPDATEs:

• Hulu announced yesterday (4/30/12) that they are going to require users to have a pay TV subscription before they can stream video online.   As I mentioned in previous posts (here & here), the major Hollywood/TV studios are doing everything they can to destroy alternative video services and to keep people from “cutting the cord.”  Don’t pay for cable, telco, or satellite TV?  No streaming video for you!  More on this from Techdirt.
• Sony announced Monday (5/1/12) that they are putting their Internet video on hold due to Comcast’s data cap.  Netflix CEO Reed Hastings accused Comcast of violating net neutrality a couple weeks ago.

I’ve read over a dozen copyright-related books over the past 10+ years, some more than 500 pages in length, but never have I read a more compelling case for the need to reform copyright law as is presented in this relatively short book.

It starts out with the fact that today’s copyright legislation is completely out of  balance and out of tune with the current times.  It has turned an entire generation of young people into criminals in the eyes of the law, in a futile attempt at stopping technological development.  And yet… file sharing continues to grow exponentially.

The “bottom line” of the book:  It is impossible to enforce the ban against non-commercial file sharing without infringing on fundamental human rights.

The book provides an ample dose of copyright monopoly history and how it came about,  primarily instituted as a censorship mechanism back in the 1500’s.  Isn’t ironic that now, several hundred years during which the “censorship” portion was somewhat eliminated, the content industry is having such great success in passing laws in the US (and throughout the world) requiring “censorship” of the Internet?

In 1641, when England’s Parliament abolished the court for copyright cases & made violations of copyright a sentence-less crime (no punishment), creativity in Britain soared.  This only lasted a couple years before the Stationers (printing guild monopoly) reestablished harsh punishments.  In 1695 the Stationer’s monopoly expired and there was once again NO copyright.  Creativity AGAIN soared.  Unfortunately, the London Company of Stationers once again were able to get their monopoly reinstated.  It is noteworthy that authors did not ask for the copyright monopoly — only the printers & distributors did.

“What we see at this point in history is copyright in its unspun form:  a monopoly with heritage from censorship where artists and authors were not even considered, but where it was always for the publishers profit.”

Gee… that doesn’t at all sound like the MPAA & RIAA, does it?  (Nah…. that could never happen…)

Although copyright didn’t originate in the United States, our constitution was the first one to specify the REASON for copyrights (and patents) to be granted:

… to promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts…

Please note:  the purpose of the US-established copyright monopoly was NOT for any profession to make money — neither writer nor printer nor distributor.  The only justification for the monopoly is if it maximizes the culture and knowledge available to society.

The monopoly holders, while certainly being beneficiaries of the monopoly, are NOT legitimate stakeholders and should have NO say in its wording!

Uh… gee… uh… then why is the content industry allowed to take charge in writing bills and treaties in the US Government???  (i.e., SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP, to name just a few).  Not to mention their success in getting the US Government’s own Immigration, Customs & Enforcement (ICE) to act as the content industry’s copyright enforcers on the Internet.

In the late 1800s, the publishers’ ever-strengthening copyright monopoly had removed creators’ chances of making any revenue from their works.  Due to the copyright monopoly, all the money went to publishers and distributors, leaving creators starving.  Wow.  That’s not much different than the situation now.  Do you get it?  200+ years later and nothing has changed!

What is happening today with the “Copyright Industry vs. the People” is practically identical to what happened when the printing press was introduced and the Catholic Church declared war on self-educated people.

Below is an excerpt from Chapter 4:

The printing press was a disruptive technology that threatened the control over information that the Catholic Church had enjoyed so far. When the old power structures saw the risk of their power slipping away or being eroded, they fought back in every way they could. And although technology won in the end, the former information monopolists managed to create quite a lot of collateral damage to society before they had to accept the inevitable defeat.

The Internet is a disruptive technology that threatens the control over information that the entertainment industry has enjoyed so far. When the old power structures see the risk of their power slipping away or being eroded, they fight back in every way they can. And although technology will win in the end, the former information monopolists are creating quite a lot of collateral damage to society right now.

Our job is to put an end to this damage as quickly as possible, so that society can take full advantage of the new opportunities that technology has opened up. The region of the world that is the first one to achieve this will be among the economic winners of this century.

As I mentioned above, I’ve read a lot of books on copyright history over the past decade or two, and this is by far the most precise & compact compilation of copyright monopoly history I’ve ever found in one book.  If reading this doesn’t alter your view on copyright and the danger of unlimited copyright monopolies, then we might as well give up now & go ahead and let them fully censor the Internet.  If we (the people) don’t stand up for our fundamental rights, we’re going to lose them.

File sharing has been rampant for over a decade now, and yet we have more music; more movies; and even more books being created than ever before.  Revenues have increased year by year for both the cultural sector as a whole, and for each individual segment (i.e., film, music, books, computer games).  The content industry’s bogus claim that file sharing is killing the creative industry is just that — BOGUS!  There is not (and never has been) any credible data to support ANY of their claims.  The only “losers” have been the gatekeepers, or middlemen (RIAA, MPAA), whose obsolete business models do not work anymore.  They’ve now aimed their sights at destroying what happens to be the latest disruptive technology - the Internet - with the firm assistance of the US Government, attempting to eliminate our right to private communication, due process, and proportionality in punishments.

Our policy makers & politicians have a responsibility for making sure that we have a society where culture can flourish and where creative people have a chance to make money from what they do — NOT protect old business models or invent new ones.   It is not easy to make a living as an artist, and never has been, but the Internet has opened up new opportunities for creative people who want to find an audience — WITHOUT selling their soul to the big companies who used to control all the distribution channels.

“The Case for Copyright Reform“ is available in these formats:

• Adobe PDF
• ePub
• Kindle Mobi
• MS Word DOC

Not to worry… “NHTSA says you can keep your GPS — as long as it’s completely useless” (Techdirt article).   Me thinks their new acronym should be NHTSBA (Nat’l Highway Transporation Safety & Buffoon Agency).

Now… I don’t have a GPS, auto or handheld (altho’ I’ll probably buy one now before the NHTSBA renders them useless).  I grew up with maps and still use them.  Most folks probably don’t even remember the Rand McNally Road Atlas that nearly everyone who traveled cross-country had.  When is the last time you saw maps for sale in a gas station?

I was a navigator in the Navy (NFO) and we relied exclusively on maps.  Even when GPS became more prevalent, training still included extensive map training, as the Navy used to follow the axiom: “The more you rely on technology, the more likely that technology will fail when you need it most”  (in other words, the reliability of technology tends to be inversely proportional to just how badly you need it to complete your mission).  Yes, I know… yet another version of Murphy’s Law.

But I digress… back to NHTSBA’s recommendations.  Why not cut to the chase and make the leap to new technology?  Like Cadillac’s new “Driver Awareness & Driver Assist” package, in which the seat vibrates to alert the driver to roadway threats.   That technology could be modified to vibrate the hell out of your ass whenever it determines that you’re distracted (or falling asleep).  Because some people - of either sex - might find a vibrating seat just a little “TOO” enjoyable, why not go with electrodes (or a butt probe) that shocks the shit out of you when the system somehow determines that you’re either distracted or falling asleep at the wheel?

Better yet… isn’t it about time that the “Heads-Up Display” technology prevalent in military aircraft finally became mainstream in the automobile?  With GPS overlays of driving instructions to a desired location displayed right on your windshield?   Of course, prepare yourself for complete failure of this technology when you absolutely NEED to get to your destination for any of the following possible reasons:

• Trying to find the closest hospital to deliver an emergency victim
• Trying to find the closest bathroom
• Late for job interview
• Late for wedding
• Nearest Starbucks
• Nearest Bar or Medical Marijuana Dispensary
• Finding your way back home…
• etc., etc., etc.

Ain’t technology just wonderful???

P.S.  As a backup for technology failure, don’t to forget to look up your destination on Google Maps & print it out BEFORE you jump in the car! (and, uh, don’t forget to bring it with you)

From CNET:

The country’s largest Internet service providers haven’t given up on the idea of becoming copyright cops.

Last July, Comcast, Cablevision, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and other bandwidth providers announced that they had agreed to adopt policies designed to discourage customers from illegally downloading music, movies and software. Since then, the ISPs have been very quiet about their antipiracy measures.

But during a panel discussion before a gathering of U.S. publishers here today, Cary Sherman, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, said most of the participating ISPs are on track to begin implementing the program by July 1.

Supporters say this could become the most effective antipiracy program ever. Since ISPs are the Internet’s gatekeepers, the theory is that network providers are in the best position to fight illegal file sharing.

…

That’s OK… we can just switch to another ISP, right?  Oh yeah… I forgot… ISPs have a collective monopoly on high-speed services in most regions of the USA.  In other words — many of us have no alternative ISP to sign up with.  But should you have an another ISP to switch to, don’t hold your breath.  The goal of the content industry (again with White House backing) is to get all ISPs to sign the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the copyright holders and begin cracking down on “suspected” copyright infringement by their paying customers.

Rick Falkvinge has a different view of the copyright industry.  While most people think that they just don’t understand the Internet or how technology has changed, Rick believes they understand exactly what the Internet is and what it means to their totally obsolete business model.  The copyright industry believes that the Internet must be destroyed in order for them to remain even slightly relevant.  By making the ISP’s copyright cops, they’re well on their way to destroying the Internet (at least as we know it).

The US content industry has been working to get three-strike laws installed in many nations with some success — France (HADOPI), UK (Digital Economy Act) and New Zealand are just the first.  Since the entertainment lobby has been unable to get such similar laws passed in the US, they’ve instead enlisted (or forced?) the help of US’s largest ISPs to turn them into “copyright cops.”

So how is this all going to work?

Again from CNET:

. . . .

The program, commonly referred to as “graduated response,” requires that ISPs send out one or two educational notices to those customers who are accused of downloading copyrighted content illegally. If the customer doesn’t stop, the ISP is then asked to send out “confirmation notices” asking that they confirm they have received notice.

At that time, the accused customers will also be informed of the risks they incur if they don’t stop pirating material. If the customer is flagged for pirating again, the ISP can then ratchet up the pressure. Participating ISPs can choose from a list of penalties, or what the RIAA calls “mitigation measures,” which include throttling down the customer’s connection speed and suspending Web access until the subscriber agrees to stop pirating.

(for more detail, see Ars Technica’s “Major ISPs agree to “six strikes” copyright enforcement plan”

I don’t think this is the type of Internet we want, nor is it something we should accept lying down.  The Internet community rose up in January to kill the Stop Online Piracy & Protect IP Acts — bills that previously seemed all but sure to pass.   I can only hope that the Internet community will respond with just as much vengeance to prevent our network intermediaries (ISPs) from taking on the role of “copyright cops” — something that they are neither competent at or entitled to perform.

Remember — OUR Internet is being stifled by a bloated, outdated and completely obsolete entertainment industry (primarily the RIAA & MPAA).  Piracy is nothing but UNMET CONSUMER DEMAND.  But “serving their customers” has never been NOR will it ever be on the entertainment industry’s agenda.  And why not??? — because they have an obsolete business model to prop up!

More Info:

• Top ISPs agree to become copyright cops (7/7/11)
• Should you fear new ISP copyright enforcers? (7/7/11)
• MPAA, RIAA Team Up With ISPs to ‘Alert’ Pirates (7/7/11)
• ISPs To Begin Punishing BitTorrent Pirates This Summer (3/15/12)
• Op-ed: Imminent “six strikes” Copyright Alert System needs antitrust scrutiny (3/19/12)

Really???  Are the movie studios, MPAA, etc., really that stupid?  Or do they just think that the consumers are that stupid?  Frankly, I don’t know which is worse.  Either way, the “disc-to-digital” initiative described above is just plain dumb AND stupid!

As for other related news…  every three years the US Copyright Office considers requests for exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that prevents breaking or circumventing digital locks (making copying DVDs illegal).  Right now Public Knowledge is fighting for an exemption to allow anyone who lawfully owns a motion picture (including TV shows) on DVD to break the digital lock on that DVD in order to copy the motion picture to another device for noncommercial purposes (i.e., smartphone, iPad, laptop, etc.).  While I wholeheartedly support this effort, I’m not going to hold by breath because the entire movie industry (& friends) are fighting this exemption tooth & nail.

Many people started digitizing their (lawfully purchased) DVD collection almost a decade ago, when DVD Shrink first hit the street in 2003.   Many also accelerated their digitization when the movie industry started taking control of their DVD players, by not allowing users to skip over previews and the increasingly annoying & longer FBI Warnings (in multiple languages, no less), among other irritating features.

Unfortunately, by 2008 the studios had added additional copyright protection features to DVDs that thwarted the use of DVD Shrink, which hadn’t been updated since 2006, and many people switched to other software, such as DVDFab (which also allows conversion to many popular video file formats).  There now must be over a dozen different vendors of updated DVD ripping software.  Here’s a review from one site of the top ten DVD rippers for 2012.

So… for those who desire to build a digital library of their (lawfully purchased) DVD collection, the tools are all there (and have been for some time).  As for Warner Bros. “disc-to-digital” initiative?  Good luck with that.

Latah’s…

Be sure to browse the Internet Archive website as they have a ton of other stuff, including many old B&W sci-fi movies such as “Plan 9 from Outer Space“, “Night of the Living Dead“, “Killers from Space“, and many more.  They also have old TV episodes such as the first episode of the Beverly Hillbillies.  Due to our outrageous copyright laws, many of the television episodes had to substitute different sound tracks (including theme songs) because they couldn’t license the original sound track.

Enjoy!

Imagine returning from an exhausting adventure only to find that your home is abandoned, empty. Not just your home, but your neighborhood, your city, in fact, everyone, everywhere, seems to be missing. This is what happens to the crew of the first manned mission to Barnard’s Star – they return after awakening from suspended animation to find that their ship-board AI has sent them on a relativistic tour of the stellar neighborhood while they slumbered, dilating time so severely that nearly 200 years have passed on Earth. After coming to, they discover their vessel is adrift at LaGrange point 5, within visual range of a vast O’neill cylinder-colony. The night side of the Earth shows no lights, and no one answers their calls across all frequencies. They have no choice but to dock with the colony and explore its cavernous interior in the hopes of finding help. When they find the colony to be airless and devoid of life, the remains of human civilization baking in the Sun for decades, their predicament becomes even more dire. Following in the traditions of great legendary hard science fiction, their exploration of this relic of their own civilization will take them on a trans-humanistic and spiritual sojourn.

The pilot episode of L5 can be viewed or downloaded here.

One of the best resources provided by this blog are the analyses & reports from the Congressional Research Service (CRS).  CRS is primarily known for “analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan.” Its highest priority is to ensure that Congress has 24/7 access to the nation’s best thinking.  As a taxpayer-funded organization within the Library of Congress, it’s certainly appropriate that ‘taxpayers’ should have access to these analyses and reports.  (We ‘taxpayers’ might as well read these, as it seems fairly apparent that few  - if any - in Congress spend much time reading them)

Here’s just a small sampling of CRS reports over the past few months:

• Representatives & Senators: Trends in Member Characteristics Since 1945 (2/17/12)
• The Federal Budget: Issues for FY2013 and Beyond (2/17/12)
• Reducing the Budget Deficit: Policy Issues (2/15/12)
• Previewing the Next Farm Bill (2/15/12)
• The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy (1/24/12)
• Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress (2/9/12)
• Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data (2/8/12)
• Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress (2/7/12)
• Smart Meter Data: Privacy and Cybersecurity (2/3/12)
• Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress (1/7/11)
  
• Economic Downturns and Crime (12/19/11)
• U.S. Periods of War and Dates of Current Conflicts (12/29/11)
• Gun Control Legislation (11/7/2011)
• Military Retirement Reform: A Review of Proposals and Options for Congress (11/17/11)
• 2012 edition of the U.S. Army Weapon Systems handbook

You can subscribe to Secrecy News here.

Cheers!

I’ve been reading it for several years and have found it to be not only extremely accurate, but simply one of the best & easily accessible sources of information for non-DOD/non-Intel folks as to “what’s really going on” in Iran, Syria, Egypt, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere throughout the world.

You can either read the nightly reports directly on their website or subscribe to the newsletter via email here:   KGS NightWatch Newsletter