Putting a lid on broadband use By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com http://news.com.com/2100-1034-5079624.html

Earlier this month, a Philadelphia Comcast broadband subscriber got a letter from his service provider, telling him he’d been using the Internet too much.

Keith, who asked to keep his full name private, said he’d subscribed to the service for four years and never had a complaint before. Now he was being labeled a network “abuser.”

Worse, he said, Comcast refused to tell him how much downloading was allowed under his contract. A customer service representative had told him there was no specific cap, he said, adding that he might avoid being suspended if he cut his bandwidth usage in half. But even then, the lack of a hard number gave Keith no guarantee.

What’s new: Cable Internet service subscribers are quietly capping the volume of downloading they allow their subscribers to do. So far, it’s only affecting the heaviest users.

Bottom line: As broadband providers strive for ever-speedier and economical service–and bandwidth-hogging features such as video on demand become more popular–these caps may become more common. And they may affect digital subscriber line (DSL) providers as well.

“I don’t mind restrictions, but how can Comcast expect users to stick to a limit when they don’t say what the limit is?” he said. “If they’re going to impose limits, that’s one thing, but at least tell us what they are.”

Keith isn’t alone in his newfound position under the Internet service provider (ISP) microscope. Other high-volume Comcast subscribers have been getting letters since late summer warning them of overuse. A few others have even had their service suspended after the first warning. Comcast spokeswoman Sarah Eder said that its new enforcement policy was barely two months old.

As Keith and other frustrated users found, the company’s warnings to subscribers were not triggered by any “predetermined bandwidth usage threshold,” Eder added. Only about 1 percent of subscribers received letters, which were based on having exceeded average usage patterns rather than a specific number, she said.

For now, this quiet imposition of usage caps affects only a tiny fraction of extraordinarily high-volume users. But it goes to the heart of the competitive decisions cable and telephone companies are making as they struggle for broadband dominance . Comcast in particular is working to provide ever-increasing download speeds , and as result it is struggling to contain busy file swappers and others who are putting stress on their networks.

It is not something the broadband providers are eager to talk about. Even as Comcast sends out letters to its customers targeting high-volume users, the company bristles at the notion that the policy is a cap.

It’s easy to see why: As cable and DSL companies race to bulk up on subscribers, companies tagged as “bandwidth cappers” could be at a disadvantage. The problem is particularly awkward for cable companies, which have tried to avoid a price war with the telephone companies by promising better quality of service.

“The industry is leery of explicit caps, because even people who don’t come anywhere near the caps feel like something is being taken away from them,” Jupiter Research analyst Joe Laszlo said. As consumers grow more used to broadband services and begin understanding what to expect from their connections, companies “can’t claim their service is unlimited if there is some kind of informal limit,” Laszlo added.

Hard caps and fuzzy ones Different ISPs are taking widely different approaches to this issue, although caps seem for now to be limited to the cable companies.

Cox Communications started phasing in hard usage limits in February, and now a majority of that company’s subscribers are limited to downloading 2 gigabytes a day–the equivalent of about two compressed feature-length movies or about 400 MP3 songs. AOL Time Warner’s Road Runner cable modem service has no caps yet, although sources say the idea is being discussed internally.

Comcast’s policy has proven most controversial. The company’s terms of service say only that users cannot “represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an unusually large burden on the network.” According to a spokeswoman, the company began sending notes about two months ago to the top 1 percent of the heaviest users–people who collectively use about 28 percent of the company’s bandwidth–telling them they were violating their terms of service.

Eder said there was no specific line crossed by these subscribers, but she added that some of those people were downloading the equivalent of 90 movies in a given month.

Comcast customer Keith, a British immigrant, said he used his cable modem service to watch the BBC, have video conversations and trade DVD-quality home movies with his family in the United Kingdom.

Comcast defended the policy of having the unstated–but still enforceable–limitation on bandwidth use, saying that any hard cap would have to change in any case as high-bandwidth applications such as video on demand became popular.

“The Internet is growing, and there are more broadband applications every day,” Eder said. “If we were to set an arbitrary number today, we could be changing it tomorrow.”

Both Cox and Comcast have a policy of sending warning letters to subscribers before suspending or terminating service. No subscriber would be affected without substantial warning, spokespeople from both companies said.

Some smaller cable companies are imposing much lower caps. Alaska’s GCI Cable , for instance, limits its subscribers to transferring just 5 gigabytes a month.

Telephone companies offering DSL service in the United States say they have no limits in place for their users, unlike Canadian, British or Australian counterparts that routinely cap their subscribers’ usage. Verizon Communications and SBC Communications, the largest DSL providers in the United States, both said their services remain unlimited.

“The customers buy the lines,” SBC spokesman Michael Coe said. “We make whatever bandwidth they need available to them.”

There’s a limit The caps are a small but crucial part in the latest round of skirmishing among broadband companies over price and features. Cable companies have had a lead in the consumer market for years, but they’re now nervously watching telephone companies’ DSL services–particularly co-branded offerings like the SBC Yahoo service–start to close the gap.

Both sides are trying to figure out how best to attract and then support the mainstream dial-up Internet audience, which is finally starting to come to broadband in droves.

DSL companies have brought deeply discounted prices into their arsenal. It’s now rare not to see a $29.95 per month offer from the likes of SBC or Verizon, and that’s helping bring subscribers in quickly. The cable companies, on the other hand, tout faster download speeds and Web surfing than the average DSL connection provides, and they are working to make their networks even faster.

Comcast, leading the way, has promised to double the average Net surfer’s top speeds, from 1.5 megabits per second to 3 megabits per second, and to get even faster in future years. Analysts say the drive to keep very high-volume users under control is necessary if the company is to reach this goal economically.

Most broadband subscribers use their service for some music or video downloading, to send and receive digital photos or for other high-bandwidth applications. But ISPs say that a tiny percentage of people are using an enormous percentage of their total bandwidth. According to Comcast, just 6 percent of subscribers use about 78 percent of the company’s bandwidth.

Cable networks are particularly susceptible to the dangers of this imbalanced usage, because all the homes in a given neighborhood share access to the same local network. One extremely high-volume user can therefore have a Net-slowing impact on his neighbors.

Nor are DSL companies exempt from this issue, despite their rhetorical distain for caps today. Even if their subscribers don’t share their local wires, DSL uploads and downloads do wind up merging into a shared network a little farther upstream, and so heavy users can wind up having a negative impact on others’ speeds.

For this reason, some analysts think that bandwidth usage caps will ultimately be a far more common part of the Net’s daily life, particularly at the lowest tiers of service.

“It’s partly just so the economics make sense,” Jupiter’s Laszlo said. “If you’ve got someone downloading 60 gigabytes a month and paying $29.95, it’s hard to make it work.”

Related News Broadband adoption skyrockets worldwide   September 16, 2003 http://news.com.com/2100-1034-5077230.html

Comcast: Faster downloads by year’s end   September 8, 2003 http://news.com.com/2100-1034-5072641.html

Survey: Users want DSL but can’t get it   August 6, 2003 http://news.com.com/2100-1023-5060701.html

Endless summer of DSL discounts   July 7, 2003 http://news.com.com/2100-1034-1023465.html

Get this story’s “Big Picture”

FBI seeks Internet telephony surveillance

The Justice Department and the FBI ask regulators for expanded technical capabilities to intercept Voice Over IP communications… and anything else that uses broadband. By Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus Mar 27 2003 1:11AM

The FBI and Justice Department are worried that Voice Over IP (VoIP) applications may become safe havens for criminals to communicate with one another, unless U.S. regulators make broadband services more vulnerable to lawful electronic eavesdropping, according to comments filed with the FCC this month.

The government filing was prompted by the efforts of telecom entrepreneur Jeffrey Pulver to win a ruling that his growing peer-to-peer Internet telephony service Free World Dialup is not subject to the regulations that govern telephone companies.

Free World Dialup has been called “Napster for Phones.” It’s a free service aimed at developing Internet telephony as a mainstream alternative to the public switched telephone network. After an initial investment of about $250 for a Cisco SIP telephone — a device that functions much like a conventional analog phone, but plugs directly into an IP network — users can “dial” each other over the Internet anywhere in the world at no cost. Free World Dialup provides a directory service that assigns each user a virtual telephone number, and sets up each phone call. Since it was launched in November, the service has gathered over 12,000 users.

If it catches on, FWD could be a nightmare for old-fashioned telephone companies. Those companies were likely agitated further when Pulver asked [pdf] the FCC in February for a “declaratory ruling” that his service is outside the commission’s jurisdiction. Pulver argues that FWD is not a telecommunications service, but is just an Internet application, no different from e-mail or instant messaging. Verizon, SBC and other phone companies filed comments in opposition to Puliver’s petition.

And on the last day of the public comment period, so did the FBI.

It turns out that one of the regulations from which FWD would be incidentally exempt is the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), the federal law that required telecommunications carriers to modify their networks to be wiretap-friendly for the FBI. Crafted in 1994, before the Internet was a household word, it’s not entirely clear that CALEA even applies to Voice Over IP , but the government has had some success persuading companies that it does, or soon will, according to Stu Baker, a partner in the Washington law firm of Steptoe and Johnson. “Right now, I think Justice would lose a case trying to apply CALEA to VoIP,” Baker wrote in an e-mail interview. “But eventually… VoIP will be a mainstream substitute for the switched network. So a lot of companies are complying now to avoid a hassle later.”

The government worries that Free World Dialup’s petition could buck that trend: if the FCC finds that FWD is free from the plug-and-play wiretap requirements, other Internet companies handling VoIP traffic might start thinking they’re exempt as well. “The DOJ and FBI are concerned that if certain broadband telecommunications carriers fail to comply with CALEA due to a misunderstanding of their regulatory status, criminals may exploit the opportunity to evade lawful electronic surveillance,” reads the government filing.

Pulver says it’s the government that misunderstands the situation. “My hope is that the DoJ/FBI did not take the time to fully understand what Free World Dialup is and isn’t, and after some proactive education it will be clear that we don’t fall under the definitions,” says Pulver. “It is much easier to build the wiretap function into the access method, which is infrastructure based, rather than on every Internet application that comes along.”

Easier Broadband Surveillance Sought Indeed, extending CALEA to cover Free World Dialup and services like it would likely be futile, says Orif Arkin, founder of Sys-Security Group and an expert on IP telephony security. Arkin says users determined to skirt surveillance could easily set up their own ad hoc directory services on the fly. “It’s like a buddy list on instant messaging,” says Arkin. “They just have to build up such a server, and give everyone access to it.”

Arkin says the FBI’s best bet for spying on VoIP users is to eavesdrop directly on a target’s broadband connection, perhaps using the Bureau’s “Carnivore” DCS-1000 network surveillance tool. With access to the raw traffic, VoIP phones become exceedingly easy to listen in on. “Those phones don’t have a lot of CPU power, so the communication between the two ends is not encrypted,” Arkin says. “Whoever was to sniff the information on the uplink or downlink or between those two can hear whatever is said.”

That point isn’t lost on Justice and the FBI. The government is asking that, should the FCC not reject FWD’s petition outright, the commission at least delay its decision until after it’s ruled on two other broadband proceedings that the Justice Department filed comments on last year.

In those proceedings, Justice is asking the FCC to reinterpret CALEA as extending to DSL and cable modem service — not just telephone calls. It’s also asking the commission to expand the scope of the law to include raw data communication — Web surfing, e-mail, and anything else that crosses the wire. Broadband providers are already obliged to cooperate with court-ordered surveillance requests; the government’s FCC proposals would go beyond that and require companies to reengineer their networks to make Internet eavesdropping easier technically, and dirt cheap on a case-by-case basis. “It would be a major expansion of the CALEA requirements,” says David Sobel, an attorney with the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “It would really obliterate the distinction between voice and data.”

Opponents of the CALEA expansion include AT&T and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. But the government’s argument for the additional capabilities is the same one that persuaded Congress to pass CALEA in the first place eight years ago, and it only carries more weight today. “Although we cannot describe in this forum the particular circumstances, the FBI has sought interceptions of transmissions carried by broadband technology, including cable modem technology, in terrorism-related … investigations involving potentially life-threatening situations,” the Justice Department wrote [pdf] in one of its filings last year. “Unless carriers are required to ensure such access, law enforcement surveillance capabilities will suffer a serious and dangerous gap.” If the FCC adopts the government’s position, then broadband’s last mile will be the FBI’s listening post, and Free World Dialup will be off the hook.

> From: Jeff Pulver
> Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 6:00:01 AM US/Pacific
> To: FWD [at] LISTSERV.PULVER [dot] COM
> Subject: [FWD] FBI, DoJ OPPOSE COMPANY’s EFFORT TO WIN REGULATORY
> FREEDOM FOR VoIP OFFERING
> Reply-To: Free World Dialup – The Future of Dialing
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> Below is a snip from a news story written by Tom Leithauser at TR.com.
> This wasn’t the kind of news story that I was expecting… 🙁
>
> Looks like we need to better educate some people in Government as to
> what
> FWD is all about. I will be holding a special meeting/session at Spring
> VON to discuss this. If you will be at Spring VON please let me know
> and
> I will provide you with the meeting details.
>
> If anyone has any concepts of a strategy for the best way to
> re-approach
> this, please let me know. Now may be the time we need to out to the
> media
> and make sure our story is known.
>
> You can read each of the referenced filings by visiting:
> ( http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi ) and entering:
> 03-45 in the Proceeding Box.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jeff
>
> ———- Forwarded message ———-
> FBI, DoJ OPPOSE COMPANY’s EFFORT TO WIN REGULATORY FREEDOM FOR VoIP
> OFFERING
>
> The FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau should reject an Internet
> telephony provider’s request for a declaratory ruling that its service
> is
> free from telecom regulations, say the Federal Bureau of Investigation
> and Department of Justice.
>
> The request from Pulver.com should be dismissed without prejudice or
> held in abeyance until the Commission completes work on two related
> proceedings that will determine the regulatory treatment of wireline
> broadband and cable modem services, the FBI and DoJ said today in
> comments filed in Wireline Competition docket 03-45.
>
> The broadband proceedings are important to the FBI and DoJ because
> their outcome may affect how telecom carriers will meet their
> obligations under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law
> Enforcement Act (CALEA), which requires carriers to help authorities
> with wiretaps and other law enforcement activities.
>
> “If certain broadband telecommunications carriers fail to comply with
> CALEA due to a misunderstanding of their regulatory status, criminals
> may exploit the opportunity to evade lawful electronic surveillance,”
> the FBI and DoJ said.
>
>
>
> Other commenters, including Verizon Communications, Inc., and
> BellSouth Corp., agreed with the FBI and DoJ that the larger
> proceedings should be completed before the FCC rules on
> Pulver.com’s petition. But Cisco Systems, Inc., which supplies
> Internet telephony gear, expressed support for Pulver.com’s request.
>
> “The one course of action the Commission should avoid is to permit
> the regulatory status of computer-to-computer VoIP [voice-over-
> Internet protocol] to become unsettled,” Cisco said. Doing so could
> well slow the growth of IP networks generally.”
>
>

This beats the old daze, when the RBOCs would have tried to replicate this huge media empire themselves, but I still don’t see how Yahoo! can reap profitability based strictly on the ad revenues. There’s got to be some cash flowing from SBC to YahoO!

-Ian.

— http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020913/ap_on_hi_te/ yahoo_high_speed Technology – AP Yahoo, SBC Unveil High-Speed Service Fri Sep 13, 6:13 AM ET

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – Online powerhouse Yahoo Inc. and regional phone giant SBC Communications Inc. on Friday unveiled a high-speed Internet service designed to convince more people that broadband is worth the extra money.

Sunnyvale-based Yahoo and San Antonio-based SBC have been working on the service since they joined forces last year. The new service, available in all 13 states where SBC provides phone service, will allow subscribers to surf the Web at speeds up to 25 times as fast as traditional dial-up modems.

The new service’s content is supposed to be just as big of a selling point as its speed. Yahoo has developed a souped-up version of its popular Web page that will provide subscribers with a wide range of exclusive entertainment options and other applications unavailable anywhere else.

“We have been programming to the lowest common denominator until now,” said Jim Brock, a Yahoo senior vice president who oversaw the project. “This is going to change the broadband landscape.”

The alliance between Yahoo and SBC stems from a recognition that the fast speeds and “always on” connections provided by broadband aren’t enough to persuade most people to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for the service.

“Broadband adoption is going to have to be content driven,” said industry analyst Mark Kersey of the La Jolla research firm ARS Inc. “There has to be something available on broadband that people can’t get on dial-up before people will pay more.”

The average monthly charge for a digital subscriber line — one of the most widely used forms of broadband — is $51.36, according to ARS. The average monthly price for a high-speed cable modem ( news – web sites) is $45.31, ARS said.

In contrast, the most popular dial-up services charge $20 to $24 a month.

To promote their new service, Yahoo and SBC will offer promotional discounts of $29.95 to $39.95 per month, depending on which of three transmission speeds a subscriber wants. After six months, the subscription rate will become $42.95 to $59.95 per month.

The companies are confident price won’t discourage subscribers.

“This will bring broadband to the masses,” predicted Jason Few, an SBC vice president overseeing the new Yahoo service. Subscribers should be able to launch the service within a week of signing up, Few said.

Yahoo and SBC aren’t the first formidable partners to enter the broadband market with lofty ambitions.

Microsoft’s MSN service and regional phone carrier Qwest Communication last year rolled out a high-speed Internet service that hasn’t made a significant dent in the market, Kersey said.

The broadband market has been growing steadily, but not at the rapid clip that telecommunication providers envisioned when they made huge investments in broadband networks during the late 1990s.

There’s about 15.2 million broadband subscribers today, up from 9.1 million a year ago, ARS said.

The new Yahoo and SBC service will have a big customer base to build upon.

SBC has about 35 million residential customers in California, Texas, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Connecticut and Nevada. The company already has 1.7 million broadband subscribers and 1.6 million customers with dial-up Internet services.

Yahoo is counting on the new broadband service to help it recover from the dot-com bust that wiped out a large chunk of its advertising revenue. The company has been trying to sell more fee-based services under a new management team led by former Hollywood executive Terry Semel.

“We view this as a foundation for developing compelling subscription products,” Brock said.

———–

🙂

-Ian.

——– http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/12/19/BU44717.DTL

COMMUNAL BROADBRAND Neighbors sharing high-speed Internet access via wireless networks is popular and controversial Matthew Yi, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, December 19, 2001 ©2002 San Francisco Chronicle

Sean Berry shares his broadband Internet connection with three neighbors – – including one across the street — but doesn’t have any wires running out of his windows or doors.

And in return, his neighbors sometimes pitch in to help pay the monthly $80 DSL service fee.

“There’s no formal money that changes hands. I’m not looking to make any money on it, but they do chip in every once in a while,” said Berry, a 27-year- old Unix systems engineer who lives in a one-bedroom apartment in Menlo Park. “It’s about the same rate as people chipping in for pizza.”

With the cost of rigging local-area, high-speed wireless networks plunging during the past couple of years, some tech-savvy Bay Area neighbors are finding economies in sharing broadband Internet service.

The movement is rubbing at least one broadband service provider the wrong way.

“We view it the same way as cable theft . . . and that’s against a variety of state and federal laws,” said Andrew Johnson, spokesman for AT&T Broadband, which provides cable modem service to 1.4 million customers across the nation.

The cable company even conducts flyovers in selected areas twice a year looking for any unauthorized “leakages” of cable TV and broadband signals, he said. When found, AT&T said it simply disconnects the customer.

While there may be some who splice and split broadband connections illegally, there are plenty of ways to share bandwidth legally, users say.

And many are finding online groups such as the Bay Area Wireless User Group to swap ideas on how to do it.

The user group, which began a year ago, now has about 1,200 people in its digital ranks. The list of techies who publicize their own wireless networks on the group’s Web site for others to use for free has grown from just a few to more than 20 in a year.

“And that’s just the tip of the iceberg,” said Tim Pozar, co-founder of the user group. He shares his wireless network and DSL connection with his next- door neighbor and a friend two blocks away, using a directional antenna atop his three-story Sunset District home in San Francisco.

The technology that enables this sharing is 802.11, also known as Wi-Fi, which can be found in such consumer products as Apple’s AirPort, Lucent’s Orinoco and Intel’s AnyPoint II Wireless Home Networking Kit.

With a range of little more than 100 feet, the gear is designed to help users wirelessly connect their broadband-linked desktop computer to laptops, PDAs or other peripherals such as printers and scanners.

But if you attach an external antenna, the range can easily go beyond just a couple of hundred feet.

And more importantly, the cost of setting up such networks has dropped substantially, from more than $2,000 two years ago to about $300 to $400 or even lower, depending on the latest closeout sales.

The network typically has one access point device tethered to a desktop computer and uses radio signals to communicate with other computers or devices.

That’s what Berry has done. Using an external antenna to increase the range,

his next-door neighbors, friends who live a floor below and other friends across the street can all tap into his network and the Internet.

“It’s wonderful stuff,” Berry said. “I work in the tech industry, so it’s fun to play with this stuff at home.”

Others have taken ideas off the Internet, such as using a Pringles potato chip can to build a directional antenna with a range that extends for miles.

“Hey, it cost me $6 (for parts) and it works,” said Sameer Verma, assistant processor of information systems at San Francisco State University.

Raines Cohen and 19 other neighbors in their downtown Oakland condo building each pay $4 for their DSL connection by sharing a single $80 DSL line using a combination of traditional Ethernet connections — which the building developer installed before the residents moved in — plus a wireless network.

“It is a backdoor way of saving money,” said Cohen, a 35-year-old software consultant. “All our neighbors (which include nurses, teachers, retirees and architects) now have computers at home and several have laptops using the wireless connection.”

While cable modem carriers such as AT&T may have stringent rules about sharing bandwidth outside the customer’s home, some DSL providers are lax about the issue.

“We don’t think it’s good policy to open up your line to people you’re not responsible for, but it’s not an expressly forbidden policy,” said Hunter Middleton, Covad’s group manager of consumer product marketing.

He said customers need to know there are potential liabilities, such as unauthorized users downloading illegal material like child pornography, and that sharing bandwidth with others may slow the connection speed.

“It seems like a lot of effort for a service that’s fairly low priced,” Middleton said, noting that DSL services can be had for as little as $50 per month.

Pacific Bell also doesn’t specifically forbid the practice, but does discourage customers from doing it, said Shawn Dainas, spokesman for SBC Communications, the utility’s parent company.

“It’s not in the policy, but that’s not the intended use,” he said.

Dave Solomon, systems administrator at an East Bay Internet service provider, Idiom.com, said his company doesn’t mind customers sharing connections.

“The angle most smaller ISPs will take is that this will make our customers happier, and happy customers are what we’re looking for,” he said.

But security is something users need to be aware of because the current encryption standard on Wi-Fi networks — known as Wired Equivalent Privacy, or WEP — has been broken, said Tony Bautts, a security design consultant who currently works for Wells Fargo Bank.

The bottom line is that hacking into a wireless network is “really, really easy,” he said.

An 802.11 industry group plans to announce a fix to the WEP security problems in existing units next month, while continuing to work for a more complete solution in future products.

For now, though, not only can hackers tap into the wireless network bandwidth, they can also look through files in your hard drive — a dangerous proposition, especially if the user keeps such information as bank account and credit card numbers on the computer. There are ways to keep people out of the computer files — such as instructing your OS to not share files — but these are precautionary steps wireless network users must actively pursue, Bautts said.

Despite these possible pitfalls, the benefits do outweigh the downsides, especially if proper precautions are taken, users say.

“You don’t trip over Ethernet cords, I take my laptop to the kitchen to look up recipes, take it outside when the weather’s nice . . . and I have social contact with others using the network,” Berry said.

E-mail Matthew Yi at myi [at] sfchronicle [dot] com.