Hulu caused quite a stir this week when, at the request of rights holders, it shut down Boxee’s access to its streaming video platform. While many discussed the business implications of this move, some are ready to do more than just talk about it. One reader wrote to tell us that he’s gonna stop using [...]
Worried that your broadband provider is slowing down your Web traffic?
If so, you might want to download the aptly named “Switzerland”–a tool that tests whether your Internet provider is violating the principles of so-called “network neutrality.”
Network neutrality, which prevents carriers from blocking traffic or manipulating the speeds of traffic from certain Web sites, became a hot-button issue several years ago when carriers suggested they should be allowed to charge content providers more for using faster lanes on their networks.
If you thought that federal regulators were upset at Comcast’s throttling of BitTorrent, wait until they start scrutinizing what wireless providers are doing.
Comcast came clean with the Federal Communications Commission late Friday, detailing how it throttled and targeted peer-to-peer traffic–maneuvers it has repeatedly denied.
The cable concern said it indeed hit “particular protocols that were generating disproportionate amounts of traffic.”
Comcast Corp. rightfully received a smackdown from the Federal Communications Commission last week for not telling customers that it was blocking some of them from using peer-to-peer services to download videos and other content off the Internet.
The music industry should embrace illegal file-sharing Web sites, according to a study of Radiohead’s last album release that found huge numbers of people downloaded it illegally even though the band allowed fans to pay little or nothing for it.
The Federal Communications Commission’s order last Friday in the Comcast-BitTorrent dispute should help ensure that today’s broadband networks remain open platforms to the Internet. But more broadly, the recent attention on Comcast–and on Time Warner’s recently launched trial of “consumption-based billing”–raises the question: what is a reasonable approach for broadband networks to manage their Internet [...]
Like millions of other Americans and many of New York City’s “bridge and tunnel” crowd, I live in the ‘burbs. While I do a great deal of travel for my full-time job, I am also classified as a “mobile” employee, so I’m not formally attached to an office. Currently, I’m a cable modem subscriber. I pay approximately $65 per month for Optimum Online’s boost plan, which gives you up to 5Mbps/30Mbps in theoretical upstream and downstream bandwidth. In practice, however, I’ve become accustomed to a number of service interruptions, where my broadband can go down for hours at a time, and days where the local XBOX kiddies and torrenters are clearly over-saturating the network.
A whole bunch of folks have sent in the “debate” that was held on the BBC Web site last week, starting with regular columnist Bill Thompson trashing Virgin Media, a U.K.-based broadband provider, for agreeing to send out warning “notices” to folks that the entertainment industry claims are file sharing.
I hate to break this to you and risk damaging the relationship of trust and faith that you have with your cable company, but according to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, Comcast has not been totally forthright in describing its handling of bandwidth-sucking BitTorrent transfers of large media files. Ever since it was caught using surreptitious, hacker-like techniques to interrupt such activity, the cable giant has claimed that it was simply exercising sound network management practices to ensure decent service for all, and that the throttling was applied only in times of high network congestion. Tuesday, Martin told a Senate committee that his agency’s ongoing investigation indicated otherwise.
Comcast recently announced a deal with BitTorrent that left me dazed and confused. It was basically a roundabout way for the cable company to backtrack from its P2P traffic-blocking gaffe. In describing the deal, Comcast tried to shift the focus away from their so-called “network management” — and by extension, the limitations of their network that prompted them to resort to traffic manipulation in the first place. On Friday, I caught up with Tony Werner, chief technology officer of Comcast Cable, to get the real skinny.
The race is on to get the last word in on the Comcast/BitTorrent controversy. With 10 days left to file, telcos, trade and advocacy groups are sending the Federal Communications Commission their statements on whether Comcast and other ISPs purposefully degrade peer-to-peer traffic, and if so, what to do about it. Not surprisingly, the debate pits broadband content providers and advocacy groups against the big telcos, cable companies and their trade association backers.
Comcast, the second largest Internet service provider in the country, is making the controversial and aggressive case that Internet service providers should be allowed to serve as traffic cops on the Internet. In an 80-page filing with the Federal Communications Commission yesterday, the company says it has a right to clamp down on the use of peer-to-peer file-sharing programs on its network to preserve the smooth flow of bits to and from all its customers. The filing was in response to an FCC complaint from network neutrality groups in November after the Associated Press revealed that Comcast was stopping some customers from using BitTorrent, a file-sharing program often used to swap copyrighted copies of songs and movies over the Internet.
Paulo Coelho, the best-selling author of “The Alchemist,” is using BitTorrent and other file-sharing networks as a way to promote his books. His publishers weren’t too keen on giving away free copies of his books, so he’s taken matters into his own hands. Coelho’s view is that letting people swap digital copies of his books for free increases sales.
This is a section of the All Things Digital Web site featuring posts from around the Web, from other Dow Jones properties and also original pieces we solicit. The section is now explicitly labeled that it comes "from other Web sites."
We are fully aware of the controversies around how linking and aggregating is done on the Web and we, in no way, are attempting to "scrape" original content created by others. Instead, regarding third-party posts, we are trying to point readers of this site to other posts from around the Web that we admire and are trying to do so in the quickest manner possible.
The Internet is full of terrific content that is not ours and we want to help our readers find it by making editorial suggestions--Look, Mom, no algorithm!--of posts we think are worth their time.
That is why we have made even more changes to Voices to ensure we do this in the most transparent and timely way. While we don't expect that everyone will agree with our policies, we have made changes that reflect our intent in pointing to content outside our site.
So here is exactly what we do:
Because the site is wholly owned by Dow Jones, publisher of The Wall Street Journal, we aim to adhere to the journalistic standards of the best of the mainstream media. But, because it is run autonomously as a small online startup, we aim to exhibit the fresh thinking and nimbleness of the best of the new media. We want to be first, and sassy, but also well sourced and accurate. We will offer lots of opinion and analysis, but plenty of fact as well.
D is unlike any other executive conference. Since its debut in 2003, D has brought to life the energy and excitement of the digital revolution in an unscripted, upfront and unparalleled way. Read more »
Don't miss a post! Sign up for our Daily Email and get AllThingsD.com delivered each day.
Get columns, blogs and video from D and All Things Digital on your iPhone. Download now »
