Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Netflix is a bandwidth hog. Who will pay? (Hint: You.)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Netflix is clogging up the Internet. There's a debate raging about who should pay for it -- but ultimately, it's going to be you.

The latest skirmish is a fracas between Comcast, which connects users to the Internet, and Level 3, which signed a deal three weeks ago to host and deliver Netflix's streaming videos to networks like Comcast's. Comcast ultimately delivers those videos to its paying broadband customers.

Here's the quick blow-by-blow:

After Level 3 (LVLT) inked the deal, it went to Comcast and asked permission to send twice the amount of traffic to the cable and Internet provider's network as it had done before. The data spike isn't surprising: Netflix represents more than 20% of download traffic during peak hours, according to a new study by Sandvine.

Comcast (CMCSA, Fortune 500) scoffed. That's a whole lot of bandwidth that Level 3 is asking for, and it's expensive for Comcast to constantly beef up its network to support additional traffic.

Typically, content delivery networks (CDNs) like Level 3 have what's called "peering" agreements with Internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast. The two sides figure that a roughly equal amount of traffic will be driven to each of their networks, so neither charges the other a fee for use.

But Comcast says that with the new Netflix load, Level 3's traffic to Comcast's network would be five times more than the cable company is driving to Level 3's network. So Comcast demanded that Level 3 pay for that traffic increase.

"Level 3 wants to compete with other CDNs, but pass all the costs of that business onto Comcast and Comcast's customers, instead of Level 3 and its customers," Comcast said in a blog post.

In response, Level 3 lashed out at Comcast. It called the new fee unfair and accused Comcast of abusing its "dominant" position as the nation's largest cable provider.

"By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network," Level 3 said in a press release.

Still, it says it grudgingly agreed last week to pay up. "After being informed by Comcast that its demand for payment was 'take it or leave it,' Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions," the company said.

Somebody's gotta pay

The explosion of online video -- especially the movie-length content Netflix (NFLX) spotlights -- isn't an easy problem to fix. The amount of video watched online has nearly doubled in a year, to 15.1 hours per user per month, according to comScore. It is costs increasingly more to host and serve that content, and to build the infrastructure for the bandwidth that allows users to download it.

Someone has to pay for that. But who should it be?

That's where it gets sticky: Both Comcast and Level 3 are playing on both sides of the fence.

In addition to being one of the world's largest CDNs, Level 3 is also a so-called "tier 1" Internet backbone. It's one of around a dozen companies that provides major routes for data to flow between networks like Comcast and content networks (including its own) that host websites and videos.

Level 3 squawked loudly about Comcast's fee demand, calling it a "clear abuse" of Comcast's market position and an act that "threatens the open Internet."

Yet Level 3 found itself in Comcast's shoes back in 2005. Feeling its peering agreement with fellow Internet backbone Cogent Communications (CCOI) unfairly taxed its network, Level 3 made the exact same argument that Comcast is making today, and even temporarily pulled the plug on its connection to Cogent, cutting off some parts of the Internet for millions of Cogent customers.

Comcast is also playing on both sides of the argument, since it is a competitor to Netflix. It owns several cable channels and is in the process of buying NBC Universal.

Level 3 played up that conflict-of-interest. "With this action, Comcast is preventing competing content from ever being delivered to Comcast's subscribers at all, unless Comcast's unilaterally determined toll is paid," the company said.

Comcast denied that its role as a content provider has anything to do with its decision to charge Level 3 a fee.

'A series of tubes'

To make some sense of this, we can pay tribute to the late Sen. Ted Stevens, who famously called the Internet "a series of tubes." It's not, but it's actually a pretty good analogy.

Picture the Internet as a city. Level 3 operates the massive plumbing pipes under the roadways, but it also runs the mechanism that collects and pushes the water through. Comcast is the company that connects your home plumbing system to those massive water pipes -- but it also makes some of the water.

Kind of complicated, right? So the debate isn't as clean-cut as it would appear.

Even Net neutrality advocates are backing away from the strong language they had initially used in shunning Comcast.

"The Net neutrality argument isn't saying that everything should be free -- someone needs to pay for all the infrastructure that provides that traffic," said Matt Wood, associate director of Media Access Project, an advocacy group that wants regulators to mandate "open Internet" policies.

"Netflix will have to raise its costs, because Level 3 has to raise costs to carry Netflix, and Comcast has to raise its costs to increase its bandwidth," he said. "But ultimately, that means the customers will pay for it."

It's possible that Comcast is singling out Level 3 because it serves content from one of its chief competitors. It's also possible that Level 3 is being duplicitous by changing its argument when it's on the other side of the fence.

But cutting through all the bickering, one harsh reality is becoming clear: Everyone's going to have to pay. Comcast will have to raise its fees and Level 3 will have to pay more for its traffic demands. Those fees will be borne by Netflix and Comcast -- and ultimately, they'll be passed onto you.

Fed up with ICANN, Pirate Bay cofounder floats P2P DNS system

Peter Sunde of Pirate Bay fame has had it with ICANN. Now that the US government is ordering the Internet governance body to remove domain names of copyright infringers from the global DNS, Sunde has sounded a call to arms to create a new Domain Name System to help pirates remain masters of their domain. The new DNS would forego a centralized root—too attractive a target for meddling governments—and use peer-to-peer technology instead.

In recent years, the Pirate Bay has successfully applied this strategy by turning off its widely used BitTorrent tracker. With BitTorrent, users share files directly between them, without the need to store the file on a central server. Hence the term peer-to-peer. However, the coordination of who downloads what from whom was originally still a function performed by a central server. Eventually, the Pirate Bay started to see their tracker that coordinated millions of (mostly) illegal downloads every day as a liability. So they got rid of it, telling people to use a peer-to-peer system to coordinate the downloads, too. This of course rendered useless all old BitTorrent client applications that didn't support the new Dynamic Hash Tables (DHT) mechanism. But the need to download is a strong one, so people upgraded or moved to other trackers that are still in operation.

If executed successfully, the effort to create a peer-to-peer based DNS would be a boon for websites hosting content off-shore that is illegal in countries that have influence over ICANN—most notably, the US. This includes sites that may or may not be considered to facilitate illegal downloading, such as torrent search engines, but also sites that host illegal content themselves. And Wikileaks could conceivably find itself included in the crosshairs of the US government.

There are a number of obstacles standing in the way of P2P DNS. First of all, today Google has a huge array of enormous DNS servers to serve up all the *.google.* domains, while I have an aging Pentium 4 box running DNS and mail for just me. In a new system, people looking for Google may hit my server—as well as the other way around, of course. So I'll have to invest in a bigger server. With a peer-to-peer system, people also have to depend on the kindness of strangers: random people around the Net have to send people in your direction. This is hard to make secure, and it's much slower than the existing DNS.

But the biggest problem of all is the ownership of domain names. In a DHT, information is found through hashes of the desired object. With file sharing, this is a hash over the file to be shared. If two people want to share the same file, you actually want to find them both, and download pieces from both of them—that way, the download goes faster. But with the DNS, things work much better if a domain name only maps to a single destination. On a brainstorm page, some solutions are discussed. One idea is an Internet Relay Chat-like fix, where it's necessary to hold on to a domain name like holding on to a name and operator rights on the distributed chat network.

Today, ICANN and the TLDs decide who gets which domain. The Pirate Bay proposes to replace them with an algorithm, one that would reside in the P2P DNS software. The stakes are high: even a small fraction of the traffic of a popular site, or even just an interesting search term, can be worth a lot of money. It's hard to imagine that with such high stakes there wouldn't be any abuse of such an open system, or at the very least, widely diverging points of view of what's best.

There have been many—be it non-peer-to-peer—alternative/complimentary DNS hierarchies in the past, going back to 1995-1997 with AlterNIC. None of them ever gained mainstream acceptance, even though anyone can easily point their DNS settings towards the alternate nameservers without losing compatibility with the regular DNS.

Friday, November 5, 2010

FBI watching Oracle-SAP trial

IDG News Service - An FBI agent has been in the courtroom each day this week watching the Oracle-SAP trial, suggesting U.S. law enforcement continues to take an interest in the case.

SAP said in 2007, when Oracle filed its civil lawsuit against the company, that the Department of Justice had requested documents related to the matter from SAP and its TomorrowNow subsidiary. SAP said at the time that it would "fully cooperate."

In a court filing in August, SAP said there was an "ongoing investigation" by the DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation into "some facts and circumstances that are involved in this matter."

Oracle originally filed 10 complaints against SAP, including copyright infringement, violation of the federal computer fraud and abuse act, breach of contract and unfair competition. It agreed to pursue only the copyright claim at trial after SAP accepted some liability.

It's not unusual for representatives from the DOJ or the FBI to listen in at civil proceedings to learn more about a case or help them determine if they wish to file criminal charges.

"We have an interest in the case," the FBI agent said in court Thursday. He declined to comment further or provide his name. A spokesman with the FBI office in San Francisco would not confirm or deny it is watching the case.

Kyle Waldinger, an assistant U.S. attorney in San Francisco, was also in court observing the case this week, Bloomberg reported.

SAP spokesman Bill Wohl declined to comment beyond reiterating that his company would cooperate with any requests. A spokeswoman for Oracle declined to comment.

SAP has admitted that its now-closed TomorrowNow subsidiary stole support materials from an Oracle website, and the trial is to determine how much damages SAP should pay.

Charles Phillips, a former Oracle president, testified for Oracle in the case this week, and Oracle Chairman and CEO Larry Ellison is due to take the stand Monday. SAP will begin to present its defense in about 10 days, and the trial is expected to wrap up before the end of the month.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

FCC planning to open white spaces for ’super Wi-Fi’

The FCC plans to vote on rules to govern use of "white spaces" in spectrum between TV stations to enable high-bandwidth wireless broadband.

It’s been years coming, but the Federal Communications Commission appears ready to vote on regulations governing the use of spectrum gaps so they can be used for high-bandwidth mobile services, kind of a “super Wi-Fi.” The regulatory framework would approve the use of devices that operate in spectrum space normally reserved for television—so long as those devices don’t interfere with broadcast television or technologies like wireless microphones, they would be able to offer high-bandwidth wireless services.

A vote could come on September 23.

The regulations up for vote would open up spectrum white spaces for free, unlicensed use in a manner similar to the way frequencies currently being used for short-range Wi-Fi and Bluetooth operate. Wireless equipment makers are particularly keen to move into white spaces because, unlike existing Wi-Fi and Bluetooth services, signals in this spectrum space easily penetrate walls can can travel for miles—just like broadcast television. There’s also the bandwidth to consider: white space technologies should be available to deliver wireless bandwidth in the range of 15 to 20 megabits per second, putting it on par with many wired broadband technologies. Whitespace technologies could be very important for bringing broadband to rural areas and other regions underserved by existing broadband technologies.

To address interference issues, the proposed regulations would have installers required to configure white-space equipment to use frequencies that are unused in a particular area—due to the scattershot and varied availability of broadcast television across the country, there is no single set of whitespace frequencies that can be used uniformly throughout the United States. Alternatively, whitespace devices could configure their frequency use using location-aware technologies: the devices could use, say, GPS coordinates to look up their current location in a central database, then configure their frequencies to match whitespaces in their current location.

The wireless industry has wanted the FCC to mandate that whitespace devices include spectrum-sensing technology that would automatically detect what areas of the spectrum are currently in use in an area and prevent the devices from using those spectrums. The fear is that whitespace devices could interfere with television reception and emergency communications. The FCC has, so far, omitted requirements that whitespace devices include spectrum-sensing gear.

The FCC regulations also aim to set aside at least two channels for use of short-range wireless microphones, which operate in the same frequency bands. Wireless mics are frequently used by music performers, theaters, speakers, officials, and other public presenters.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

The 288,945 Most Popular Websites On The Internet

The 288,945 Most Popular Websites On The Internet

Earlier this year, Alexa sat down and compiled a list of the top 1,000,000 websites in the world. Listing those sites would be good reading, but looking at a picture of the most popular ones is much cooler.

Nmap have run a script that gathered the 288,945 most popular websites from that list, stuck their icon on a page and then scaled the icons according to the popularity of the site.

The results are far from perfect - Alexa is suspect as a traffic counter, and Nmap admit their own collection efforts aren't 100% effective (Amazon, for example, being tiny) - but for the most part, things look pretty good.

While the site linked below lets you search via URL, go see if you can find Kotaku the hard way!

Favicon Chart [Nmap, via Neatorama]

Send an email to the author of this post at plunkett@kotaku.com.

Ring! It's Gmail's new voice feature calling


courtesy of computerworld

Computerworld - Google announced today that it is offering the ability to make phone calls over the Internet via its popular Gmail service.

Unlike Google's nearly two-year-old Gmail voice and video chat feature, which gives users an audio and visual experience online, the new calling feature allows users to dial phone numbers. With this move, Google is competing with Skype, which has long dominated the market for Internet phone service.

"Starting today, you can call any phone right from Gmail," wrote Robin Schriebman, a Google software engineer in a blog post. "We've been testing this feature internally, and have found it to be useful in a lot of situations, ranging from making a quick call to a restaurant to placing a call when you're in an area with bad reception."

Schriebman explained that making a phone call through Gmail works just like using a normal phone. Users can click "Call Phone" at the top of their chat list and enter a number or a contact name. She added that calls to anyone in the U.S. and Canada will be free "at least for the rest of the year." She said "very low rates" have been set for calls to other countries.

So, does Google have the muscle to make Gmail a Skype-killer?

Skype, a seven-year-old service, is used by individuals and companies to make video and voice calls over the Internet. According to Skype, its users made 6.4 billion minutes of calls in the first half of 2010.

While Google may be starting out behind in this race, it has the benefit of its large Gmail user base.

"Skype could get hurt by this," said Dan Olds, an analyst at Gabriel Consulting Group. "Skype has been offering the ability to call land lines and cell phones for years now. But having it integrated into Google's Gmail and, assumedly, their other offerings down the road, is quite an extension for Google."

Olds added that Google, always on the lookout for new revenue streams, is aiming to expand its reach over its customers and to move into complementary markets that will generate more sales.

"Adding voice calls to their existing product set enhances the user experience and keeps people using Google apps longer and more frequently," Olds said. "It also keeps people from using another service like Skype, and it certainly may prompt some defections from Skype. Google definitely has the scale and reach to put a big dent in Skype if Google can deliver on the service side."

The voice calling feature is expected to be rolled out to U.S.-based users over the next few days, according to Google. Users will need to install Google's voice and video plug-in and watch for the "Call Phone" button to appear on their chat list.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Vonage call app uses Facebook, no minutes

Vonage is giving Facebook users a way to call each other for free over iPhones, iPod Touches, iPads and Android devices.

The new Vonage Mobile for Facebook app lets users call their Facebook friends over both cellular and Wi-Fi connections for free. You just find a friend through your Facebook directory on the app and make a call. Both parties need to have the app to complete a call though you can also instant message with friends who have not signed up for the service.

The app doesn't use your cellular minutes but rather uses data. It pushes us further down the road toward Internet calling and upends some notions about calling a specific phone number. Here, you don't call a number, just a Facebook contact and their phone rings just like a normal call.

If you have international friends, this is an easy and cheap way to reach out to them. Skype also allows free calls between users but for most people, they have more friends on Facebook. And this is a community that already exists; you don't have to create a new identity to participate.

Owners of iPads and iPod Touches may also enjoy the app. Those devices don't have traditional phone features but this will help turn them into mobile phones of sorts, provided you have connectivity.

Vonage is looking at rolling out text messages and video calling down the road though those may include a fee. The rollout will also include more phone platforms and possibly more social networks as well.

This article appeared on page D - 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Smashing Pumpkins giving next Album away for Free

via smashingpumpkins.com

(From SmashingPumpkins.com - and I believe written by Billy Corgan)

I'm happy to finally announce the plans for the new Smashing Pumpkins album.

Recording began yesterday, September 15th, 2009 on the new record which will be entitled 'Teargarden by Kaleidyscope'. The album will feature 44 songs, 4 of which are now being recorded. My desire is to release a song at a time beginning around Halloween of this year, with each new release coming shortly after until all 44 are out. Each song will be made available absolutely for free, to anyone anywhere. There will be no strings attached. Free will mean free, which means you won't have to sign up for anything, give an email address, or jump through a hoop. You will be able to go and take the song or songs as you wish, as many times as you wish.

We will however sell highly limited edition EP's (of 4 songs each times 11), and details of how those EP's will be made available are still being worked out. Because the songs themselves will be free, the EP's will be more like collectors items for the discerning fan who will want the art itself, along with the highest possible audio quality available. The EP's will be more like mini-box sets rather than your normal cd single. We may also offer other variations for sale, say for example a digital single with a demo version of a song. The commitment that is most important is the one I'm making to you: that the music of 'Teargarden by Kaleidyscope' will be available for free to everyone. All 44 songs: free for ALL.

When the entire album is finished, it will be compiled into a deluxe box set which will also be made available for sale. Those who have bought the EP's need not worry, as the box set will not be a recompilation of the limited edition pieces.

The story of the album is based on 'The Fool's Journey', as signified in the progress of the Tarot. It is my intention to approach this by breaking down the journey of our life here into four phases as made by these different characters; the Child, the Fool, the Skeptic, and the Mystic.

The music of 'Teargarden by Kaleidyscope' harkens back to the original psychedelic roots of The Smashing Pumpkins: atmospheric, melodic, heavy, and pretty.

I already have 53 songs written for the record, so I am quite confident that I already have much of the material that I would need to undertake such an extensive project. I am very committed to seeing this album through to its completion and very, very excited about the prospect of delivering new Smashing Pumpkins music to you in a unique and exciting way.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Conficker Worm's Fury unleashes on April 1, 2009




The Conficker Worm has been harassing computer network security administrator's for months since it climbed out of the internet underground sometime in 2008. It is about to get a fresh update on April 1, 2009 and security officials are bracing for the impact that the upgrade might have.

Before we get too far you should know what a worm is. Here are some definitions to put it into perspective.

Virus -
a computer program that can copy itself and infect a computer without the permission or knowledge of the owner.

Trojan Horse - a computer program that may be legitimate but has secondary illegitimate objectives. For instance, a computer program that lets you burn DVD's but also opens a backdoor in your computer to let a hacker get in and control the computer of the user.

Worm - a self-replicating computer program. Unlike a virus, it does not need to attach itself to an existing program.

Though they sound similar, they are considerably different. Right now the Conficker worm is tearing through the internet and business computers like the sands of the desert planet Arrakis (Dune). It has infected as many as 10 million business computers with many high profile computers noted such as French Air Force, Royal Navy Warships and Submarines, Sheffield Hospital network, UK Ministry of Defence, and Norwegian Police. It has also infected scores of individual users alike. A simple action such as using a USB drive on an infected computer and then using that same USB drive on another computer will be enough to spread the infection.

The problem with the Conficker Worm is that it is ever evolving, meaning that it gets updates from it's creator(s) periodically so it's always one step ahead of the security "police". For instance, at one point (when the worm was first detected) Microsoft (MS) released a patch to fix the hole the worm was using to wreak havoc. Then shortly after, the worm updated and found a new hole to use to infect systems. What's worst is the worm uses a different site to update out of a list of 50,000. To say the least, security experts are impressed with the Conficker worm's ability to adapt and lead experts on wild goose chases.

What's interesting about this story now, is that the worm has stopped spreading. It is becoming more defensive in nature. Instead of finding ways to infect more computers, the creator(s) are taking measures to ensure that the computers that are infected with the Conficker Worm, stay infected. For instance, an infected computer may not be able to install any anti-virus programs or go to any anti-virus program web sites. It's as if the creator(s) want to protect the worm's install base by removing the worm's ability to replicate itself, which would suggest they believe they already have enough infected computers to accomplish whatever they are planning to do.

Though the worm is believed to have originated in the Ukraine, no one knows for certain. MS is concerned enough about the damages that may ensue (or have been caused), they have put a $250,000 bounty on any information leading to the creator(s) of the worm. I have never heard of a bounty (or such a large one) being put out for the creator(s) of malware. It's interesting to see where this will go.

The bottom line... IT security experts are reluctant to say "the end of the world is at hand", but the worm is set to update on April 1st, 2009, with unknown consequences.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Internet Vigilantism



8 Awesome Cases of internet vigilantism

This is an article from cracked.com discussing true stories of internet vigilantism. Very entertaining read. Some of the stories gathered here are how malicious, bully cops get their due and if your dog decides to relieve himself on a subway, you better clean it up or the shit will hit the... internet.

It's refreshing to see that the internet can be used for good purposes instead of spreading fear and the-sky-is-falling news. You see, the internet is not so bad. There are some good things that happen in this world because of it.