All I can say is wow.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation did some preliminary analysis of ACTA. What it comes down to is that ACTA is about to require that signatory countries impose liabilities on ISPs for their users’ behaviors. That means ISPs need to be enforcers/police/nannys for their users. And US ISPs will lose any protections they currently enjoy from the DMCA.

If you use the Internet to share copyrighted information, YOUR ISP could face penalties. Do you think ISPs will accept this? You might expect ISPs to be up in arms about ACTA, but instead they look like they might accept ACTA openly. By all counts ISPs were lucky the FCC lost the case against Comcast. Otherwise ISPs would have no way to be an enforcer! Just kidding.

With vertical ‘content to provider’ consolidation, the big ISPs have a vested interest in becoming an enforcer. Remember, they own some of the copyrighted data being “illegally” shared on their networks. My bet is that the big ISPs are going to start throwing users to the lions as fast as they can.

I can also see that the US government is troubled by copyright infringement on the net. They HATE p2p networks. But thanks to provisions they worked out in the early 90′s for promoting the growth of the Internet, they can’t directly legislate for ISPs to become copyright enforcers. It’s easier to sign onto a treaty…

ACTA is going to seriously challenge US law, possibly overturning rulings by the US Supreme Court.

Maybe “wow” is an understatement.

On a somewhat related but adjunct topic, Steve Jobs recently let the world know his opinion on Adobe’s Flash. Steve put together a nice letter explaining his thoughts and reasons on why Apple has not incorporated Flash on it’s newest technology.

I admit, I’m sometimes frustrated that I can’t view a website on my iPhone because it’s a Flash site and even cursed Steve under my breath. But I can see Steves point.

So does Charlie Stross. Charlie has a theory that might explain what is really going on at Apple. Apple seems to be able to see into the future and Charlie thinks they’re seeing the end of the PC.

How is this “somewhat” related to ACTA?

Simple.

Industry leaders are pushing towards the 3 screens and a cloud scenario. The basic idea is to have all your content accessible to all screens. This would be great, right? Yes, it would. My content available on any device I own would make life a little simpler.

And if copyrighted content is all online, located in large warehouses and I can only license ACCESS to the content, copyright enforcement becomes easy. Very easy.

Right now, Apple keeps 29¢ for each 99¢ sale on the iTunes store. So why should Apple change its model? Steve realizes that maintaining a strong vertical market for content and the devices that consume content requires the strong ENFORCEMENT of copyright. That enforcement is much easier if the copyrighted content is not on the device, but in the warehouse…

Apple realizes that a strong enforcement of copyright is the ticket to maintaining revenues for Apple, not for the holders of copyrighted materials.

The iPad is a reasonable device to view content on, regardless of it’s copyright status. The iTunes store is a great place to purchase or even license content from, especially is you own the copyright… And if you’re Apple, you can change your model to let consumers view content through a device you totally control. Once the content is in the “cloud” you never let consumers actually HAVE a copy of the content (yeah yeah, if I can see it, I can copy it, I know). but I can see copyright infringement beginning to solve itself, which draws in more people with content they want to protect, which enlarges the offering to consumers, which brings more profits to everyone, which makes everyone happy. Right? Right.

WRONG.

Aged consumers like me want to be able to share what moves us. I enjoy giving books and CDs and DVDs to my friends. It’s exciting to see someone light up when they connect to a piece of art like I do. More importantly, I want artifacts I can hand down to my kids that they can hand down to their kids. I expect that I will bequeath my iTunes account to my children. But for some reason it does not have the same heft as that first edition of The Hobbit by Tolkien.

It appears that content in the cloud will protect copyright. But if content really IS king, then the secrets that the next generation iPhone might have held could explain the reaction the “police” had to Jason Chen. What else could explain the over-reaction by the law? Not protecting copyright.

Peace.

-Bil

——

We live in a society that has mostly agreed on what is right and what is wrong.  We have coined the term, Common Values in order to build communities where we can agree on what is acceptable behaviour.  To enforce our safe communal living, we turned these common values into laws.  As a society, we have set up governments to enforce the laws (common values) and protect us from those who would harm us.

As members of society, I think we’re all in agreement that theft is a bad thing.  No matter what country you are from, it’s pretty much a given that stealing is frowned upon.  It’s a pretty common value, maybe even sacrosanct.

As an individual living in a society with common values, government is the enforcer of the laws and government prosecutes suspected thefts.  What is interesting is that if an individual is convicted of theft, they receive a punishment based on the severity of the crime, and that punishment is roughly agreed upon by the COMMUNITY.  As a defendant, you have rights of due process and would be able to defend yourself according to the law of the land.  Further, in this country a defendant is protected from the Government, as the Government must also follow the law of the land.

Let’s flip it around.  As a society, we have agreed that if you are the victim of a crime, you will take your grievance to the government and file a claim in court.  As a plaintiff, you also are protected by the laws of the land and due process.  This is how even a single individual can take on a corporation and win.  There is DUE PROCESS for each side, Plaintiff and Defendant that as a society, we have all agreed upon using.

The process of using the governmental courts to settle disputes is what our society has agreed upon for longer than I know without Googling it.   If you feel like an individual or a corporation or even the government has wronged you, you must take your claim to court.

So why are corporations looking to ISP’s to become the enforcers of copyright law? The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is being manipulated into a Copyright enforcement act.  But isn’t the enforcement of violated law the job of Government?

If you feel your copyright has been violated, file a claim in court!

There is a push for ISP’s to become the monitor, the snitch, and the enforcer.  That’s not what we’re good at.  I hate to say this, but isn’t that the job of Government?

Lions and tigers and bears!  Oh My!

This is my 4th post to this blog and I am seeing a recurring theme.  I feel like the future of the Internet is at stake.  I don’t know what the outcome of this treaty will be, but I’m hoping that some smart people start looking at this issue RIGHT AWAY and make sure EVERYONE is required to follow due process.

Peace.

-Bil

If you are a small business with just a couple people, you can use addresses like sales@mydomain.com, support@mydomain.com and billing@mydomain.com and have all the email delivered to the same one or two mailboxes.

The use of aliases gives your business a more professional look while at the same time making it easier for your customers to remember how to get in touch with you.

Within your mail client, you can setup rules that sort or mark mail differently, depending on the alias it was sent to. If all your billing mail, for example, is in the same folder, it makes it easier for you to read through all of it before you post invoices.

If you are an individual user, aliases can help you track who is selling off your email address. Just setup a couple aliases that you can use when responding to different offers. Then watch to see which of your mail addresses are receiving any unwanted email.

Setting up your aliases is easy. Just go to our customer account management system ipMom and click on Aliases.

On Monday, April 27, the wise and knowing Minnesota Department of Public Safety (MDPS),  Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division (AGED) delivered written notice to 11 telephone / Internet service providers demanding they “prohibit access to all Minnesota-based computers to nearly 200 online gambling websites.”  Here’s a link to the press release. 

Ok, this is the Internet we’re talking about, right?  You know, the Information Superhighway?

I am guessing that these 11 respectable companies are recognized as Common Carriers by the great state of Minnesota.  That must be the only criteria for being selected for this list, otherwise, we at ipHouse would have received a request too.  Just for the sake of clarity, as of this posting, we have not received a request from the AGED.  But if we had received a request, we would have asked for some kind of legal backing.  And that’s where this falls down.  The great state of Minnesota is relying on the Wire Act of 1961 to enforce this ridiculous request.  

What I can’t see is how this request can be enforced, even using the Wire Act.  Before I snicker at any enforcement discussion I’ll put that question aside and just wait and see.

Now, as a citizen, I understand that the Minnesota Department of Transportation does not expect the companies who build our roads and bridges to enforce the speed limits on the roads they build.  Further, we would never expect or request these same construction companies to do vehicle contraband inspections at the state border.  So, WHY ON EARTH does the Minnesota Department of Public Safety  think that they should conscript the builders of the Internet (Information Superhighway, get it?) to do their enforcement?    Why not go after the people who are committing crimes instead of the people who build the roads?  You don’t task road builders with catching drunk drivers, do you?

John Willems is the director of AGED and I can’t help but wonder  what he was really thinking when he said this:

“In broader context, the long-running debate on online gambling continues to raise significant issues, including absence of policy and regulation, individual rights, societal impact, international fair-trade practices, and funding for criminal and terrorist organizations.”

Does he really think that Joe the Plumber is betting on the Red Sox and innocently funding Al-Qaeda?   Come on.  Isn’t the whole terrorist thing a little over used? 

I agree that there is a long running debate on gambling in our society.  But it’s not just online gambling.   To me, the issue of gambling in our society PALES in comparison to some of the other issues Mr. Willems mentions; individual rights and international fair trade practice.  If Minnesota is going to remain competitive in the WORLD, we cannot be xenophobicly locking down our borders to international trade across any of our transit ways, be it by water, air, rail, road or Internet.

Now, as you look at these various transit ways, all of them EXCEPT the Internet have a specific geographic nexus.  Nearly all transit ways have ports of entry and it’s easy to see geographic boundaries between nations and states.  It’s pretty easy to understand the nexus of a shipment of goods coming across the St. Lawrence sea way is the port of entry at Duluth harbor.  It’s all very black and white.  But the Internet is in as gray area and different because the NEXUS of the transaction is vague.  What is the nexus of a Minnesotan purchasing software from Belgium or India?  What happens when part of the software is written in China?    The nexus of Internet transactions are VAGUE.

It appears that Mr. Willems has defined the nexus of online gambling is at the individual users computer, right here in Minnesota.  If that’s right, then Mr. Willems should target the individuals who are committing the crimes.  Why not go to the credit card companies and ask them to report all the transactions between the citizens of Minnesota and these 200 gambling websites?  Because he can’t afford to.  It’s easier for him to push on the road builders instead of all the motorists who use the roads.

We all know that as citizens of Minnesota have REAL problems that need REAL attention.  Like drunk driving and alcohol addiction.  Like air pollution and lung disease.  If Mr. Willems wants to protect the citizens of the great state of Minnesota, maybe he should focus on some of the more pressing problems facing the state.

I’m a firm believer in regulating things to protect our society.  Regulating polluters so future generations can enjoy the outdoors seems obvious to me.  Regulating alcohol sales to prevent underage drinking, I’m all on board.  So why not legalized and regulated online gambling?  It could be a revenue source for the state just like the other areas that Mr. Willems has under his jurisdiction.  Mr. Willems, why not be progressive and start regulating online gambling like you do with bricks and mortar gambling?  

Whatever the outcome Mr. Willems, just don’t ask me to collect your revenue for you.  I’m neither an enforcer nor a tax collector.  I’m a road builder.  

Peace.

-Bil

Well THEY have thought of a way to track and sell information about you using cookies placed on your computer while shopping.  I have been a privacy hawk when it comes to cookies for a while (more on that below).  As such I was surprised that a  NYTimes article was the one to inform me about a newish Internet marketing technique that uses behavioral targeting and cookies across multiple sites.   Read the article quick or you may have to register for their website to read it.   Basically there are companies (the two biggest are eXelate and BlueKai) that work with online merchants to place tracking cookies on your computer and mate them with information about your interests.

Those interests may be garnered from products you add to a shopping cart, to search terms on those websites, and pages/products you read about on the websites.  These Cookie Monsters then essentially sell the cookies with targeted information to buyers.  I suppose there is an argument that “you are going to get ads anyways so and might rather look at targeted ads rather than random ones”.  But what would stop a online store from pairing these “anonymous preferences” with your personal information they get from their shopping cart?  I suppose the Cookie Monster’s terms of service say they can’t do that, but I am sure it will happen.  After all, anti-spam companies are now spam-promoting their anti-spam services.

So, there you go – yet another thing to worry about.

If you are paranoid about cookies (like me – go ahead make fun of me in comments)…  I use Mozilla Firefox and have privacy preferences set up to block all cookies.   For sites that I trust that require cookies, I add that domain name as an accepted cookie.  Firefox also lets me add these exceptions with a condition that deletes the cookie at the end of the browsing session.  Therefore when I went to BlueKai’s preferences page to see what info they have about me I got a pleasant message “We currently do not have anonymous information of your online preferences.”

While we are on the subject…  Google recently announced behavioral targetting although they call it “interest-based” advertising.   When I read Google’s disclosure it just doesn’t seem as intrusive and open to improper capture of preferences with personal data as these other solutions.  Just in case I’m drinking the Google Kool-Aid, here are a couple other blogger takes…

• Transparent Google?
• Google Watches its Language

- Eric Snyder

One big issue at hand is, what happens to the data that you create when using the Internet.  “Data I create?  I don’t create any data when I’m on the Internet…do I?”  Yes, you do.

Currently when you do any of the following, you are likely creating data that can be tracked.

You create data…

• When you make searches at Google.
• When you look at movies at Netflix.
• When you check scores at ESPN.
• When you read customer reviews on Amazon.
• When you search for someone on Facebook.
• When you watch a video on Youtube.

All of these are innocuous, but together, they create a profile of you, and can reveal some very private data.

Let’s start with the first item:  Search terms.

Lets stipulate that the actual search term you use on a search engine is private data, similar to a request you make at the library or at a book store.   To follow on, it’s strongly possible that the results that are sent to your browser are private data.  Today, it requires a search warrant to see the contents of your computer hard drive so I can infer that the results from the search engine are private data.

“Whew, I’m safe, right?”

Nope.  In order to use the search engine, it’s possible that you’ve given “consent” to use the data you supplied and have waived any privacy rights you may have had. Further, the search results are logged before they are sent to you.  This creates a big gray area for data privacy that is not currently protected.  And from the content providers point of view, It’s NOT private data.

This goes for all type of data you send across the Internet.  The search requests you make, the stock quotes you review, the movies you download, the books you buy.  The list goes on and on.

“Wait a minute, why would someone even WANT this data?”

The motivation for companies to keep your privacy intact is two fold.  Penalties from regulatory bodies and the all important revenue.  If a company will face a penalty or lose revenue, they will likely keep your privacy intact.  But if they analyze the situation, they may conclude that selling the data is more financially beneficial than protecting your privacy.  This is not new to data that companies hold, but it’s new in context to the online world in which we live in.

Today, much online content is “free”, with only the hidden cost being you accept some loss of privacy.  We are so used to clicking “accept” that we’ve lost track of the value of what we are giving up.  It’s compounded by the good track records of the companies that are collecting data.   So far, their use of the data has not directly affected us, so who cares if someone knows what movies we like?  ”So really, nothing bad has happened so far, right?”

Right.  But that’s because the data is broken into chunks that are hard to combine.  I would guess that Travelocity and Orbitz and Expedia don’t share too much data because there is probably not an financial model that makes it profitable.  But let’s take another model and see what happens… Comcast has an on demand video solution, as does Apple and Netflix.  Should Netflix and Apple be worried that Comcast is going to start reviewing what their visitors are doing?  Does Comcast wants to have the online video business for themselves?

Luckily or not, each website you visit has only a piece of your online escapades.  The New York Post does not know what articles you read at the Washington Times.  Fidelity can’t see what stocks you traded at Etrade.  From the content providers point of view, you’re a statistic only when you visit them.

Which leads me to the next thought.  The ISPs’ point of view.

Above, I talked about data collection from each web site being possibly harmful.  That’s nothing.  Really.

The real loss of privacy will come when ISPs’ start collecting data on your browsing habits.  Think about it.  As much as Google knows what you’re doing when you visit Google, your ISP really knows what you’re doing at every website you visit.  And they can read your mail (like Google) and track your IM conversations and capture your VOIP calls… They know all that you do online and everything else about you.  SCARY.

Thankfully today, ISPs’ do only a little TRAFFIC monitoring.  ISPs’ legitimately monitor traffic to:

• To protect their revenue (keep customers online and happy).
• To protect their assets (network).
• To protect their customers (SPAM filtering).

Most ISPs’ don’t monitor the CONTENTS (data) of the traffic they manage except to comply with regulation and law enforcement.  Really, most monitoring is often “look at header info and discard”.  It’s important here for me to point out that any data collected by ipHouse is not held in order to create profiles of users.

Traditionally, ISPs’ have NOT monitored data because it was just too hard to do.   But that’s all changed.  Deep Packet Inspection technology has advanced to the point of being able to transparently evaluate traffic for specific patterns and usage without impacting the consumer experience.  This allows the ISP to deliver “tailor made” content to users.  Remember Travelocity not seeing Orbitz or Expedia data?  Forget that.  The ISP can now sell all travel related “traffic” from its subscribers to the highest bidder. Or bidders.

Deep Packet Inspection technology allows the management of traffic and/or data according to a set of policies that promote security or revenue or censorship or whatever.  The ISP sets the policy according to their desires.  “Really? My ISP can just monitor my data if they want to?”  Yes.  But there may be existing law that prevents the monitoring of data and that needs to be proven.

If the existing law is shown to not be applicable to ISPs’, it might make a lot of sense (and dollars) to monitor customer data.  But all things have a cost.  One anticipated cost is that spying wouldn’t be done just for profit.  How long would it be until ALL data is monitored and reviewed?  If ISPs’ monitor data, should they block data based on some policy for decency or obscenity? Who’s policy would that be?  Should ISPs’ be responsible for any and all security or ethical breaches (by whos standards?) that occur because of the data on their network?   Should ISPs’ send all suspicious activity to some authority for review?  Data monitoring could become mandatory.

So, should ISPs’ monitor thier customer data?  I say no. This is MY ethical position.  It’s ethically wrong to spy on people.   Further, I feel it is ethically wrong to profit from spying.  ISPs’ should NOT monitor data for profit or for government.

The power and beauty of the Internet is in its ability to bring people together across cultures, faiths and boundaries.  Once one group or government starts dictating “inappropriate” content, the Internet becomes simply a tool for that organization to push their own agenda and the “one world” quality of the Internet is lost.

Peace.

-Bil

Thoughts for comments:

• Privacy is not a technical issue and should not be addressed by ISPs’.
• ISPs’ should remain neutral to content of the data streams they manage.
• Our society should rethink privacy from a contextual integrity perspective.
• Online Privacy == Network Neutrality

Further Reading:

Paul Ohm : The Rise and Fall of Invasive ISP Surveillance

Daniel Solove : Understanding Privacy

Phishing is spam that attempts to extract personal information from the recipient. Here are some quick points about Phishing:

1. Email asks for your password: ipHouse will never ask for your password via email. This is a common policy with many companies so feel free to make it your own policy: Never send a password via email even if you think you know the recipient.

2. Strange reply-to address: The reply-to email address is not an official email address. ipHouse employees and internal addresses are all @iphouse.net. This latest round had the reply-to as an email address in Brazil (.br) or a yahoo.com address. A general rule for anyone is to always check a provider’s website for valid contact information. When going to their website type in the address yourself or use an existing valid bookmark. Do not click a link in an email even if it looks valid is it may be a “masked” URL whose destination is a different address.

3. Credit card fraud. While this email was looking for passwords, many Phishing scams ask for credit card numbers. And for decades there have been phone-based credit card Phishing scams. ipHouse will never ask for your credit card number via email nor ever via a call we initiate. Feel free to make it your own policy with everyone – never send a credit card number via email and never give your credit card number out to someone unless you initiate the call.

4. Spam filters don’t catch everything. While our multiple levels of Antispam catch most Phishing expeditions, some can get through. This one was harder to catch as it didn’t have any off-site hyperlinks and had enough words that it looked valid to the filters. We don’t publish for spammers how we adjust but trust me that we do adjust. Of course we do want to see what might get through. For example, yesterday alone ipHouse blocked 1,463,418 spam, Phishing, and viruses. We pride ourselves on an extremely low “false positive” rate. If a spam or Phishing message does get through, please forward it with full headers to spam@ipHouse.net. If you have an individual question or concern, our Support team can help.

5. Learn more! Here are some links to several sites’ take on Phishing:

• Blogs about Phishing: PhishingScam
• Popular OS: Apple, Microsoft
• Popular Guides (always with a grain of salt please): WikiPedia , About
• Trade/Industry groups: APWG, National Cyber Security Alliance, AARP
• Government: Stop-Think-Click

- Eric

Any discussion on network management these days must include a discussion on net neutrality. Why? Because limiting access to certain types or sources of content is one way to ease resource demands across a network.

What is net neutrality? Net neutrality is the idea that access to content on the Internet should be equal and fair, regardless of the access method or the provider of access. This sounds simple, but it’s not.

A neutral network is free of restrictions to all Internet content and is also free of restrictions on the equipment used to access the content.  A partially non-neutral network would be a cellular phone company.  They restrict what equipment you use to get access to the content. You typically must buy a phone they provide. A neutral network will let you use any equipment you choose when connecting to the network.

What’s the big deal? When Internet access companies are also content providers, net neutrality issues come to the forefront. A great example of this is Time Warner. Time Warner owns and produces content as diverse as Bugs Bunny videos and CNN. They also own Time Warner Cable. If you’re a Time Warner Cable subscriber, chances are that you will have unrestricted access to Bugs Bunny videos, but if you subscribe to DSL from a phone company, Bugs Bunny videos may not even be available to you. Now take the Time Warner Cable subscriber who wants to watch a video on the Fox News website.  Fox News is a direct competitor of CNN. Is it in the best interest of Time Warner Cable to restrict or filter the access to the Fox News website in order to get their subscribers onto their own website (CNN)?

But the market will win, right? Maybe. It is obvious that not all content will be owned by one access provider. That’s not the issue with net neutrality. Net neutrality is about allowing unfettered access to all types of content, regardless of ownership, viewpoints, opinions, or criticisms. It’s my opinion that net neutrality can be legislated, but access providers will find ways to show preferential access to certain types of content no matter what the regulations say, thus bypassing regulations. The reason Access providers will bypass regulations is simple, the demand for bandwidth is skyrocketing.

Unprecedented demand for bandwidth. Access providers are seeing explosive growth in bandwidth utilization. Access providers are supplying larger connections and oddly enough, consumers are using them. The old adage is, “On the Internet, content is king and the king is damned fat”. 

Recently the iTunes store started offering both high definition and standard definition formats for episodes of this season’s television shows.  You might say hurray, but the Access providers are saying OUCH! A standard definition episode might be 300 Megabytes, but a high definition episode will be anywhere from 1 gigabyte to nearly 3 gigabytes.  iTunes is only 1 reason Access providers have seen a huge jump in bandwidth utilization over the last 18 months.  

We at ipHouse have seen a 35% increase in the bandwidth utilization from our individual accounts over the last year. During that time we have transferred over 4 petabytes (4,000,000,000,000,000 bytes) of email, pictures, videos, songs and who knows what else. When I divide this into my subscriber base, the numbers are staggering. It means that every single one of my subscribers is downloading 1 Megabyte of data every day, even when they’re not online!  But this is not a true representation of what is really happening on the network. Statistics show that most subscribers are downloading less than 200 kilobytes a day. 

The majority of bandwidth is being consumed by a few individuals who are transferring an unprecedented amount of data. These individuals pay their bills on time, do not utilize tech support and are advocates in the market place by praising us to their friends. Still, they’re consuming a large amount of technical resources… We categorize the top 5% of our individual subscribers as “excessive” utilization users, regardless of other business metrics.

“Excessive” utilization? Access providers are focusing on these heavy users, creating their own definitions of excessive utilization. This month excessive utilization might be 250 gigabytes. Next month it might be more, less, or the same. The Access provider holds all the cards when it comes to defining Excessive utilization. The Access provider can restrict when a subscriber can get full or limited bandwidth, what services are available (for example, bit torrent or file sharing), and how many bytes can be transferred in a given period. Access providers are already providing Quality of Service on their networks, so restricting “excessive” utilization is just another metric that becomes automatic. 

Coincidently, Quality of Service also creates what appears to be a neutral network while still meeting the business objectives of having preferential content delivered to subscribers. By defining the Quality of Service for a given set of content, or services, it becomes easy to show Net neutrality, while delivering something completely different.  Net neutrality only works when bandwidth is not limited or when bandwidth paid for on a consumption basis which leads me to…

Time based vs. consumption based markets. Consumers of services are used to two basic billing models. The first is flat rate but time based.  We are all familiar with this model. You can rent a movie for 24 hours for 99 cents. The second model is a variable rate, but purely consumption based. The water company or the electric company charge based on a small but measurable variable rate and the consumer pays for the amount of service consumed. There is also a hybrid model of time and consumption. An example of the hybrid model is a car rental that is a $39 dollars per day PLUS mileage.

Access providers had originally chosen the hybrid time/consumption model, as an example – $19.99 for 100 hours per month. The heavy costs to provide the service were tied to acquiring and supporting customers, not in the technical resources the customers used. Access providers quickly abandoned the hybrid model for fixed rate service offerings with “unlimited” access. Access providers quickly learned that the demands of some subscribers would heavily tax the infrastructure they share with other subscribers. Limiting the heavy users proved problematic as those subscribers cried foul and demanded that the Access provider provide what they were sold.  Access providers have no choice but to either jettison “Excessive” users or bill those users based on what they consume. It’s probably too late to change the model one more time and I doubt subscribers would be accepting of a model based purely on consumption.  Instead Access providers are looking for ways to offer “full spectrum” services while limiting what is being consumed in some fashion. The cable operators that provider Internet access were the first to move in this fashion.  AT&T recently joined the pack in limiting the data transfers available with each access account.

The underlying question is, can the demands of more and more bandwidth by subscribers be in concert with network neutrality?

The marriage of network policy and business objectives The answer to the above question is YES – IF subscribers are willing to pay for it.  I believe that the typical Access provider wants to offer neutral access to content.  Most Access providers do not own content and are interested in allowing their users unfettered access to content. The problem is who is going to pay for the bandwidth? Some access providers are forming alliances with content providers to support their bandwidth needs. These alliances can create sticky situations for the Access providers though. I think the better answer is simple Quality of Service offerings that manage the bandwidth demands on the network.  By keeping this issue as a technical problem, a technical answer can be found. If bandwidth demand becomes a financial issue, then the logical course of action is to implement a hybrid time/consumption billing model. While a small number of subscribers may be dismayed by the new billing model, only the excessive users will actually be impacted. But what about access to content regardless of where it originates and how much bandwidth it uses? This raises the question of regulation of Access providers… 

Regulation preventing access to networks, prevents network neutrality. Most small Access providers are not worried about getting access to the content kings of the Internet such as Google/YouTube, but Access providers are worried about the old media empires restricting access to content.  Regulation now prevents small Access providers (like ipHouse) from accessing the cable and phone company physical networks for providing network access to our subscribers.  Since we’re locked out of the telecom side, the next logical step is for the content companies, (who own the cable companies) to restrict content access to their own Internet access subscribers.

Time will tell, but net neutrality is a war that is likely to be lost by consumers and small Access providers. Even though most of the individuals battles are winnable, the small Access provider just doesn’t have the resources to win this war, even if we have legislation on our side.

I was also asked to talk about managing data content as an Access provider. within the following topics:

File sharing / Individual Privacy: Should access providers become data managers? I think this question is best asked, why should Access providers become data managers for content owners? I cannot find an analogy in any of the historical media distribution systems that is similar to the models that have been proposed for Access providers. One model makes the Access provider responsible for their subscribers’ file downloads, with the Access Provider paying the Content Owner for all downloaded media. That’s similar to the old C.O.D. model used for shipping chattels.   Why on earth would Access providers want to collect revenues for a third party?

Another model is a $5.00 per month ISP tax for music. The Access provider collects a tax and sends the revenue to someone to be distributed to someone else, thus adding a middle man. Huh? Do they think Access providers are a replacement for the jukebox companies of yesteryear?

The answer is no. Access providers are not data managers for Content Owners, nor should they become data managers by legislation. Still, stranger things have happened.  It’s been more than a decade since the Internet Revolution and people are STILL trying to figure out how to munge their old business model, be it music distribution or classified ads, into the Internet connected world.

Who would pay for such management? Ok, lets say either model gets some foothold. Access providers are acutely aware of bandwidth and resources required to shape bandwidth as it is delivered to subscribers. The infrastructure required to measure file downloads is technically available, but the cost to implement such a system is not worth the costs when divided into the number of subscribers. Assuming the Access provider is collecting transfers or a flat tax, who will pay the Access provider for the infrastructure to measure and tabulate the data? Adding systems adds costs and managing data is not a cheap cost.  So the question should really be, why are old world Content Owners forcing their old business model into the new world? Update the business model and the question of who will pay becomes moot.

What about the privacy of subscribers?  Who will protect them? Part of the problem with monitoring subscribers use of Internet access is just the “Big Brother” aspect of snooping into innocent and private communications. What do Access providers do when they stumble upon a discussion about a possible transportation strike or a shortage of a flu vaccine? Are Access providers responsible for monitoring the activities of their subscribers? Are telephone companies responsible for the drug deals that are setup via the telephone network?  

Today, Access providers are bound by existing law to protect consumer information and are treated as publishers and as carriers without liability to the content that traverses their networks. Assuming Content Owners get their way, this will all change and your tastes and interests will become just another metric Access providers will have in their database. Access providers need to manage their subscribers to the benefit of their own business, not the business of Content Owners.

Where does that leave net neutrality?  As much as you might think that Content Owners want net neutrality, think again.  Dedicated partnerships between Content Owners and Access providers might force subscribers to pay for content, fully to the benefit of Content Owners and logically, Access providers can restrict the choice of the content available.  Legislating net neutrality might be a good thing or it might not. Consumers need to speak out and make sure their voices are heard before they don’t have a way to speak out.  

Peace.

-Bil

We can and do patch our machines and lock them down as much as possible.  However, as an ISP, our job is also to make sure that information flows smoothly to and from your account. To a very real extent, you are in direct control of the weakest security link for your account, your password.

We have lately seen a rash of accounts compromised because they had passwords that were less than ideal. You may think your account isn’t worth hacking, but you would be wrong.

Most hackers do not target individual accounts to determine the best ones to compromise. They just setup their password cracking programs, aim them at encrypted password files and let them do their thing. The password files are encrypted but have to be publicly accessible in order for customers to actually log-in to their accounts. The cracking programs are very fast and very sophisticated. In the first couple minutes they will have tried all dictionary words and common names not only in English but in other languages. Then they move on to any and every password combination that includes the actual username or makes simple number-letter substitutions like using a 0 for an o.

Once an account is compromised, the hackers can use it to gain access to other systems, read or re-direct your email and, most commonly, use your account to send spam out to the rest of the world. It doesn’t matter who you are or how interesting your email is, accounts are compromised on an equal opportunity basis.

Some people feel that it is more trouble than it is worth to have a secure password. Remember, it is okay to write down your password, just don’t write it down in an easily accessible location and never keep it with your account name. Some people use the phrase trick to create secure passwords that are easy to remember. For example: “Traveling up the amazon in 1974 by boat was a great vacation!” becomes the password “tuTA’74bbGV!” Don’t be afraid of forgetting your clever, secure password. We all forget passwords sometimes, just call the friendly ipHouse support team and we can help you re-set your forgotten password.

Protect your account. It is a good idea to change your password annually if not more often. If you are still using the password that was auto-generated for you when your account was originally setup, change it now.

Does your password pass the 5 basic rules of password security?

(1) At least 8 characters
(our system can handle passwords of over 200 characters).
(2) Not a dictionary word or a name.
(3) Not a dictionary word or a name with select numbers substituted for letters like 0 for o or 1 for l.
(4) A mix of lower case and capital letters with numbers and symbols thrown in for good measure.
(5) Your password is completely unrelated to your name and your account name.

You can change your ipHouse password now by going to:

https://ipmom.iphouse.com/

And remember, you need more than one secure password. If you use the same password for multiple accounts or in multiple places, that creates its own level of insecurity.