Internet Education

Broadband Nutrition Labels Create More Transparency For Consumers

walt.grayson — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:49:43 +0000

Broadband Nutrition Labels Create More Transparency For Consumers

walt.grayson Wed, 03/27/2024 - 10:49

Written by Dane Jasper
March 27, 2024 | 2 min read

Most Internet Service Providers have long preyed on consumers by presenting confusing rates and product bundles. So, when the FCC announced requirements to present clear, standardized product information for consumers to make the best, informed decision, we unequivocally supported. Unlike many of ��۴�ý’s competitors who fought against this ruling for years, we strongly believe this to be a huge win for consumers.

This new guideline requires providers to present a clear, standardized ‘broadband nutrition label’ at the point of sale. These labels outline all monthly charges and fees, latency, speeds, and insight into network management practices and privacy policies for each carrier. Much as you would evaluate the calorie count on your morning muffin, you can now evaluate internet providers on an equal playing field without an exhaustive amount of research. This means more transparency for consumers into what their bills will be and more pressure on industry giants to do better.

��۴�ý offers the fastest speed available to your location for one low price, no matter where you are. For us, it was an easy adjustment: our products are already simple and our pricing is straightforward. Because of that, we’re launching our broadband labels early for you to review.

While it may take old cable and telephone companies some time to get used to, we believe this new guideline will force competition to finally disclose the true cost of service, show the limitations of usage caps, and set clearer expectations for consumers. The idea of transparency that is embodied by the simple to understand label is awesome, and we're excited to further illustrate that ��۴�ý is the fastest, most affordable internet available.

Category

Internet Education

What is Fiber Internet?

walt.grayson — Tue, 25 Oct 2022 19:00:00 +0000

What is Fiber Internet?

walt.grayson Tue, 10/25/2022 - 12:00

Written by ��۴�ý Team

October 25, 2022 | 3 min read

Fiber-optic internet, often known as just “fiber”, is exactly what it sounds like: small glass strands less than the size of a human hair which transmit data using light and stretch across cities, states, and countries to transmit information. These fiber cables can be hung from utility poles or buried underground and are eventually connected directly to your home or business to deliver internet at lightning-fast speeds.

Did you say light?

Yes, yes we did.

When you break fiber-optic internet down to the bare bones of what it is, fiber internet is data being transmitted to your home by light. Not copper wiring or airwaves; light. Now of course, this is no easy feat.

The light travels the fiber-optic strands mentioned earlier, bouncing off the glass at an extremely shallow angle of less than 42 degrees. It then reflects back in a similar way to how light interacts with a mirror or a prism. This allows the light to ricochet its way straight to your devices.

That’s short of how Fiber brings the internet to your home. But what about the rest of it? There’s more than just glass in those cables.

Okay but how does Fiber-optic Internet work?

Each fiber-optic cable is made of two parts, the Core, and the Cladding. The Core makes up the glass strands we’ve been speaking about (The ones smaller than a human hair). While the Cladding is a wrapping or covering for each strand, typically made of thicker plastic or glass.

The Core and the Cladding together create an effect necessary to Fiber-optic Internet called internal reflection. This is the process we spoke of earlier by which the light is able to move through the fiber cabling without being dispersed or lost.

These effects together are how the glass is able to bend. It is also the process that slows down the beam of light through fiber optic glass cables transmitting your internet data.

And all of this creates the astounding speeds that Fiber internet can reach.

How much faster can Fiber really be?

For reference, these days internet speeds are typically measured in how many bits of data are traveling through your connection per second. Think of Internet speeds the same way you think of your car speedometer, except significantly faster.

Mbps (Megabits per second) refers to millions of bits per second. Most copper-wired Internet connections register in the Megabits when conducting an Internet speed test.

Gbps (Gigabits per second), on the other hand, refers to billions of bits per second. For reference, a single Gigabit is 1000 times faster than 1 Megabit!

So, while the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) used to consider 25 Megabits per second to be a strong Internet connection, Fiber-Optic Internet can now reach speeds of up to 1, 5, or even 10 Gigabits per second, limited only by the equipment in your home today.

As our needs for connectivity grow, faster speeds will continue to be critical. At ��۴�ý, we offer up to 10 Gigabits symmetrical home internet connection (the fastest in America). And to quickly do that math for you, that equates to 10,000 Megabits.

But what kind of internet did I have before?

Before fiber, most traditional internet was strung together by copper wiring, as opposed to glass cabling. And while copper may sound like the stronger material, the wires that DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) and cable internet use were originally made to transmit mainly voice and audio, and only later upgraded to transmit video as well. There are limitations on the amount of data they can handle.

It must be stated that both DSL and cable have improved their Internet connections over the years, so comparison can at times be difficult when you’re looking at different Internet plans.

If fiber is so good, why isn’t it everywhere?

Fiber-optic internet is the best connection you can bring to your home today. However, infrastructure and construction costs are often the major hurdles ISPs (Internet Service Providers) face when trying to deploy Fiber networks. And with little to no competition historically, what’s their incentive?

Thankfully, because of an increase in competition, city-wide Fiber installations are more prevalent now, such as ��۴�ý’s work with Santa Rosa, Oakland, and countless other cities. ISPs create partnerships with city officials and work through the planning and costs of integrating Fiber-optic cables into already existing Internet infrastructure.

Conclusion

Fiber-optic internet is our future. While this recent progress is promising for America, we’re decades behind more progressive countries in adopting this critical technology. We need more ISPs to step up for consumers, and ��۴�ý has always been up for that challenge. ��۴�ý will always be dedicated to building fiber networks as quickly as possible bringing faster, more affordable connectivity to as many people as we can using the best technology available.

Category

Internet Education

Net Neutrality is Just a Symptom

walt.grayson — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:00:00 +0000

Net Neutrality is Just a Symptom

walt.grayson Wed, 11/12/2014 - 12:00

Written by Dane Jasper
November 12, 2014 | 2 min read

There are a number of threats to the Internet as a system for innovation, commerce and education today. They include net neutrality, the price of Internet access in America, performance, rural availability and privacy.

But none of these are the root issue, they’re just symptoms.

The root cause of all of these symptoms is a disease: a lack of competition for consumer Internet access.

Lets call it like it is: in most of America, we’ve got a broadband duopoly at best. And it’s simple economic theory and best-practice capitalism that in an unregulated near-monopoly, you will see manifestations of policies, practices and behaviors that are not always customer friendly.

If we accept that high speed Internet access is essential for modern life, the fact that we need a set of controls that assure that an entrenched operator won’t use their captive audience in an unreasonable way shouldn’t come as a surprise.

But policies on neutrality can only fix one symptom of America’s ailment. They won’t help with the issues like price, speed, rural access or privacy practices.

The real cure is an outbreak of competitive Internet access.

But in 2004, the FCC took steps to limit competition, turning away from key provisions of the 1996 Telecom Act. They set aside unbundling requirements which serve as a key bridge for competitive carriers. By circumventing Congress this way, the Bush-appointed Chairman of the FCC was able to turn back a competitive tide, creating an intentional duopoly on Internet access in the US.

The in FCC’s Triennial Review Remand Order of 2004, they wrote:

In our Triennial Review Order, we recognized the marketplace realities of robust broadband competition and increasing competition from intermodal sources, and thus eliminated most unbundling requirements for broadband architectures serving the mass market

(“Robust broadband competition?” Really??)

While neutrality is the topic of the day, the real fix is to reinvigorate competitive Internet access in America. Competitive access in Europe supported by legislation similar to The 1996 Act has resulted in lower costs for consumers and far more choices in Europe. What Michael Powell decided to do hasn’t worked out as well for Americans.

Today’s FCC should return to the roots of the Telecom Act, and reinforce the unbundling requirements, assuring that they are again technology neutral. This will create an investment ladder to facilities for competitive carriers, opening access to build out and serve areas that are beyond our reach today.

I call on the FCC to reconsider the decisions of that past era, and to take steps to reintroduce UNE-L (unbunded network element: loop) requirements, including access to available dark fiber, which is a critical backhaul component for competitive carriers. Copper unbundling is only fully viable when the middle mile fiber isn’t missing from the equation.

ps: Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell is now a lobbyist for the National Cable & Telecom Association. The Cable-company members of that association are the “robust” competition from “intermodal” (that’s cable) sources referenced above, and also provided a nice soft landing for a former FCC Chairman. How often does a regulator get the chance to create a monopoly, then go work for it? Too often.

Category

Internet Education

What is a Static IP?

walt.grayson — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:00:00 +0000

What is a Static IP?

walt.grayson Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:00

Written by Dane Jasper
December 13, 2011 | 3 min read

You have probably heard people talk about IP addresses, and perhaps you nod your head knowingly, or say “uh-hu” when us techie folks mention them, hoping we will quickly move on to a more interesting topic soon. But there’s a lot to talk about: static IPs. Dynamic IPs. IPv6. IPv4. (What the heck happened to IPv5? Anyone?) We can even talk about running out of IPs!

To explain it simply, traffic on the Internet is routed using numbers, much like a telephone number. These Internet Protocol (IP) numbers give information about where the packet of information should be sent next. Much like (415)xxx-xxxx tells a phone switch in New York City to hand the call toward the San Francisco Bay Area, on the Internet a packet going to 50.x.x.x is destined for someone at ��۴�ý.net.

As with a phone number, the next numbers defines the destination more closely; (415)563-xxxx routes the call toward central San Francisco. And, with an IP address, 50.0.1.x tell ��۴�ý.net to send the traffic toward a specific city, toward the customer.

The last segment of the telephone number and of the IP address further identify the individual destination within the local serving area – a specific destination computer in the case of the IP address; a phone that is triggered to ring in the telephone example.

Now – static IPs. A dynamic IP is temporary – it’s given to you to use for a brief period of time, but it’s subject to change. As such, you cannot practically use it for much beyond consumption online, activities where you “make” the call (click for some content), not where your own system is “called”. It’s a bit like borrowing a friend’s cell phone to make a call – you could initiate a call, but there’s no way for someone elsewhere to know the number to reach you at without some prearrangement.

A static IP gives you your very own number on the Internet, an unchanging address which you can refer to. This isn’t particularly interesting for most day to day activities online, but there are some specific situations where a static IP is essential.

One simple example is a home webcam. Want to check up on your pet while your away, or keep an eye on the street outside your home while you are at work? (Wondering if the package delivery man really does drop-kick your packages off the truck at the end of the driveway?) An inexpensive networked camera, configured behind your static IP address can make this this possible.

You might also use a static IP to configure some basic home automation, allowing you to check on your thermostat or turn off an appliance. Or, access a home PC using the built-in Remote Desktop service – there is no need to pay monthly for a service like “GoToMyPC” (which is basically just a $10 per month workaround for people who don’t have a static IP.) You might run a game server, and invite your friends to play head to head. Finally, an employer might require that you utilize a static IP as an additional layer of security for remote access by a connected worker at home.

And, with just one static IP, you can use “port forwarding”, which allows multiple devices inside the home, all accessible by specific addresses that you select and configure. Want to learn more, or have questions? Visit our Forums!

If you’re a non-technical user of the Internet and the idea of these sorts of things makes you want to go outside and pull weeds in the garden, forget I brought it up. But, if you want to do some fun Internet-connected projects, a static IP is a key component. Now you know!

Category

Internet Education

America’s Intentional Broadband Duopoly

walt.grayson — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 19:00:00 +0000

America’s Intentional Broadband Duopoly

walt.grayson Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:00

Written by Dane Jasper
September 2, 2011 | 4 min read

Michael Powell

When was the last time someone offered to sell you Broadband over Power Line (BPL)?

BPL was one of the FCC’s five “modes” of competitive access, and the FCC traded this flawed concept of “intermodal” competition for true open market competition.

In 1996, Congress passed The Telecom Act, a major update to the previous 1934 telecommunications law. The updated Act set out to foster true competition in local communication services, and, by extension, broadband. And, it almost worked.

The Act separated services – voice, data, etc – from the physical infrastructure they ran over (copper wires) and allowed competitors uniform access to the cabling to deliver these services. The incumbent sold access to the copper lines, at a profit, to multiple competitors who deployed the equipment connected to the ends. This recognition of the copper lines themselves as a natural monopoly, while services over them were competitive, was the key to the goal of vibrant and open competitive access.

This innovative Act spurred the widespread deployment of DSL services, and a tumultuous period of competitive over-construction and subsequent bankruptcies. These failures don’t condem the concept of competition, but were an over-exuberance of investment ahead of demand. Startup telcos also suffered during the dot-com crash in 2001; as funding dried up, large cash consumption rates caught up with reserves for many of these companies.

In the late 1990’s, most other developed nations followed the U.S. example in separating structure from services. They have stayed the course, and in Europe and Asia today competitive access has driven up broadband speeds, at lower costs.

But, in global broadband rankings, the U.S. isn’t even in the top ten! This is because despite Congress’s expressed intention of creating competition with The Act, the FCC decided that five competitors was enough. And, three of them were non-starters.

With the appointment of FCC Chairman Michael Powell, and lobbying by incumbents, a new theory was born: Intermodal competition was better than true open competition. The modes: Cable, Telco, Power Line, Satellite and Wireless. Each, an effective state-created monopoly. This was done under the banner of the free market, a topsy-turvy way to look at the elimination of actual competition.

With the shift away from the 1996 Act’s open competition model toward this constrained intermodal goal, the FCC began to make a series of decisions to clear the decks of meaningful competition, freeing Cable to spar with Telco, with Broadband over Power Line and Wireless. Satellite would bring up the rear for those unlucky enough to live in a region not worth investing in by the designated modal monopoly.

To create these modal monopolies, the FCC began to foreclose meaningful competition. First, they set aside access to available idle incumbent fiber optic lines for competitors, meaning the the suburbs, which are served by fiber-fed digital loop carriers and remote terminals, were out of reach. In their Triennial Review Remand Order of 2004, the FCC wrote:

In our Triennial Review Order, we recognized the marketplace realities of robust broadband competition and increasing competition from intermodal sources, and thus eliminated most unbundling requirements for broadband architectures serving the mass market

Robust broadband competition? Really?

Then, in the Brand X decision, they ruled that Cable would not be required to allow competitors to lease their lines either. The FCC did this by reclassifying broadband Internet access as an “information service”, rather than a “telecommunications service”. As a result, common carriage rules could be set aside, allowing for an incumbent Cable monopoly. This decision was challenged all the way to the supreme court, who ruled in 2005 that the FCC had the jurisdiction to make this decision.

To close out Powell’s near-complete dismantling of competitive services in the U.S., the FCC took up the issue of ISPs resale of DSL using the incumbent’s equipment, also known as wholesale “bitstream” access. If Cable is an information service under Brand X, why shouldn’t Telco have the same “regulatory relief”? The result: the FCC granted forbearance (in other words, declined to enforce its rules) from the common carriage requirements for telco DSL services.

As for robust intermodal competition, the fact is that BPL hasn’t worked. And Wireless is slow and expensive. And of course satellite, with its round-trip to outer space and back really isn’t a contender.

So, much of the U.S. has ended up with exactly what the FCC intended: intermodal competition, an effective duopoly. The predictable result: the U.S. is no longer a broadband leader.

There are pockets of competitive offerings. Most businesses can choose telephone and Internet service from a competitive company. And, in metropolitan regions, there may also be competitive choices like ��۴�ý.net’s Fusion service, or Covad ADSL2+.

For those in the suburbs, competitive prospects are pretty dim. That was the intention.

Category

Internet Education

5 Ways Internet Companies Abuse Your Privacy

walt.grayson — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:00:00 +0000

5 Ways Internet Companies Abuse Your Privacy

walt.grayson Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:00

Written by Dane Jasper

August 11, 2011 | 4 min read

Recently several internet service providers (ISPs) have been caught improperly redirecting end-user traffic in order to generate affiliate payments, using a system from Paxfire. A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paxfire and one of the ISPs.

This is a serious allegation, but it is (only) the tip of the iceberg. I’m not sure if everyone understands the levels of sneakiness that service providers can engage in. So, while I’m no expert (as we are an ISP who doesn’t do these things), but as a broad overview, here is my quick guide to the five levels of ISP evil, and the various “opportunities to monetize customers” that we’ve passed on:

5: Improper NXDOMAIN handling, also known as “Domain Helper” applications. When a customer attempts to visit an invalid site, instead of returning the RFC standard “no such domain” response, the servers provide a search result which includes sponsored links. Sometimes the results are not well matched to the mis-typed domain, and they promote ads instead with broad commercial appeal like insurance, which will generate a high payout if the customer clicks. Extra evil points for making it difficult to opt out of this, requiring opt-out via a cookie or browser setting rather than providing “clean” DNS servers. (Paxfire’s system is positioned as a search/helper application, but these systems can be easily converted, even without the ISP’s awareness, to an affiliate pumping system.) Evil score: 2 evil points, somewhat evil, but now every major access provider provides helpful results for address typos.

A diagram showing how Phorm’s “Webwise” system creates copies of its tracking cookie in each domain the end-user visits, based on the report published by Richard Clayton. Wikipedia.

4: Clickstream Tracking. An ISP is in the unique position as the point of traffic origination, creating the opportunity for very in-depth analysis of Internet usage behavior. Tracking the user’s Clickstream, the site to site to site movement as they browse using a set of tools like Phorm allows service providers to create cash out of information about private use of the Internet. Clickstream data buyers are generally ad targetting; if you visited Ford.com and looked at F-250 trucks, then CNN.com, it might make sense to place ads for large Chevy trucks on the CNN page rather than an ad for fabric softener. Absent this prior knowledge that you were a potential truck buyer, the ads might be for something of less interest to you, and thus less likely to be clicked, to “monetize”. Over time, analysis of the complete Clickstream can provide lots of insight to advertisers. Extra evil points for selling the Clickstream data without telling customers. Evil score: 5. What you do online is private!

3: Ad Swapping. Transparently proxy all web traffic, and when ad banners are in transit, perform real-time swaps of the ads for other ads for which the ISP is getting a cut of the revenue. Legitimate advertiser ads are sometimes fetched so that no one notices the decline in impressions. The pitch to ISPs from companies like NebuAd sometimes included claims of “partnerships” with content sites to better target ads. Extra evil points for ISPs who provide demographic data to the firm running the ad-swapping system. Evil score: 6.

Our reply: “No, not interested, thanks. -Dane” Email reply to Mark Lewyn, President, Paxfire Inc., Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:35 PM

2: Affiliate Program Pumping. As alleged in the Paxfire scheme, ISPs or their accomplices take incomplete or incorrect domain entries into the URL bar and direct them to an intermediate page, which redirects transparently to a URL which includes an affiliate tag. So, a consumer types “amazon”, and rather than returning an NXDOMAIN, or even a search result, the ISP DNS server directs them to an IP address which does a content reload toward a URL of the form amazon.com/affiliate-id=XYZ. Purchases made subsequently are compensated as if it was legitimate traffic from an affiliate. Evil score: 8, with a bonus point for poisoning the affiliate ecosystem.

1: Rolling Over. In an attempt to avoid costs or under pressure from government or content creators, ISPs have handed over customer information, and even subjected customer traffic to broad snooping. Allegations range from service providers simply quietly handing over customer info to law firms with improperly filed lawsuits and incorrectly served supoenas, to the physical wire-tapping of major fiber optic lines. We’ve got your back. Evil score: 10. Potential for human rights violation.

Category

Internet Education

Help Us Protect Your Privacy Online

walt.grayson — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 19:00:00 +0000

Help Us Protect Your Privacy Online

walt.grayson Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:00

Written by Dane Jasper

August 1, 2011 | 3 min read

Credit: Int'l Herald Tribune

A panel of the U.S. House of Representatives has just moved forward legislation that would force ISPs to retain logs about your online activities for one full year. I urge you to write to your representatives in hopes of preserving your right to privacy online.

Today we retain most IP allocation logs for just two weeks; we don’t need them beyond that period, so they are deleted. Storing logs longer presents an attractive nuisance, and would potentially make our customers the target of invasions of privacy. Any lawyer could simply file a Doe lawsuit, draft up a subpoena and request a customer’s identity. It’s far too easy.

Do the wheels of justice – or investigation – move too slowly, and should data be retained for a long time to allow for legitimate investigation? No, there are already tools in place that law enforcement can easily use to ask ISPs to preserve log information of real online criminals. The 1996 Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act allows law enforcement to require an ISP to keep data for 90 days upon law enforcement request, giving time for a legitimate search warrant to be reviewed by a judge and issued. But, keeping data on every online user for a full year presents far too much potential for abuse.

CNET writes that “It represents ‘a data bank of every digital act by every American’ that would ‘let us find out where every single American visited Web sites,’ said Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, who led Democratic opposition to the bill.” (Note that ��۴�ý.net does not track your actual use of the Internet, so there are no logs of browsing history. Our concern is about IP allocation logs. -DJ)

Lofgren said the data retention requirements are easily avoided because they only apply to ‘commercial’ providers. Criminals would simply go to libraries or Starbucks coffeehouses and use the Web anonymously, she said, while law-abiding Americans would have their activities recorded.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation sums it up well, and provides a tool to allow you to speak out against this legislation: “The US House of Representatives is currently considering H.R. 1981, a bill that would order all online service providers to keep new logs about our online activities, logs to help the government identify the web sites we visit and the content we post online. This sweeping new ‘mandatory data retention’ proposal treats every Internet user like a potential criminal and represents a clear and present danger to the online free speech and privacy rights of millions of innocent Americans.”

I urge you to contact your Representative today and ask them to oppose this dangerous bill.

Category

Internet Education

Why U.S. Broadband is So Slow

walt.grayson — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 20:00:00 +0000

Why U.S. Broadband is So Slow

walt.grayson Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:00

Written by Dane Jasper

March 5, 2011 | 4 min read

Cheap, Ultrafast Broadband? At Least Hong Kong Has It. By Randall Stross.

Today The New York Times wrote about Gigabit fiber broadband in Hong Kong, which is available there for only $26 per month. The article includes mention of ��۴�ý, and the Google Fiber project.

In the article, author Randall Stross wrote,

“In the United States, we don’t have anything close to that. But we could. And we should.”

Here is why we don’t:

In 1996, the US Congress kicked off the broadband revolution when it passed the Telecom Act. The 1996 Act created a level playing field for competitive carriers, and brought about widespread deployment of DSL and other broadband technologies.

Then in 2003 and 2004, the then Republican led FCC reversed course, removing shared access to essential fiber infrastructure for competitive carriers and codifying instead a policy of exclusive use and “multi-modal competition”.

This concreted our unique US duopoly: cable versus telco, the two broadband choices that most Americans have today.

In exchange for a truly competitive market, the US received promises of widespread deployment. And, to some degree this has worked. Unfettered by significant competition or price pressure, broadband in at least in its most basic form can now be delivered to most homes in America, albeit at a comparatively high cost to the consumer.

What was given up in exchange for this far-reaching but mediocre pablum was true competition and innovation.

Elsewhere in the world, regulatory bodies followed the lead of the US Congress and separated essential copper and fiber infrastructure from the services and providers who used them, and the result has been amazing. In Asia and Europe, Gigabit services are becoming common, and the price paid by consumers per megabit is a tiny fraction of what we pay here at home.

I won’t deny the innovation that has occurred in the telco/cable duopoly. They’ve got TV, Internet and telephone bundles designed to serve up prime time network shows in over-saturated HD glory, with comparatively middling Internet speeds, all offered with teaser rates and terms that would baffle an economics professor. The clear value of the bundle is to baffle, and pity the consumer who wants to shed a component. At least during the intro periods, it’s often cheaper to take the whole package than just a component or two.

For cable companies, the entrenched interest in the television entertainment portion creates a clear conflict: why should they offer an uncapped broadband connection that can deliver enough video entertainment to allow consumers to cut the TV cord? And if you do drop the TV, up goes the price for even this slow and capped Internet connection, so you pay more either way. And now that telcos have gotten into the television business too, their interest in slowing the pace of increasing broadband speed is aligned as well.

This has yielded a competitive truce in America.

In a slow tide, back and forth, cable delivers a slightly better product, then telco slightly better again, all at the highest possible cost. It is iterative, not innovative, and Americans deserve more. After all, we invented the Internet, right?

��۴�ý can reach nearly half of the homes and businesses in the Bay Area today with our Fusion Broadband + Phone service. Fusion offers the latest ADSL2+ broadband, with speeds of up to 20Mbps per line (with two line bonding available if you want to double your speed!), plus home land line voice with unlimited calling, all for $39.95/mo. for one line, or $69.95 for two.

Fusion is innovative technology and innovative pricing.

This is possible because the skeleton of the 1996 Act, copper lines, are still available as a shared resource for all competitive carriers. But the reach of copper is limited to just a couple miles. (You can see if Fusion reaches your location here.) This limited reach creates islands of competition around the old telephone exchanges.

For the rest of you, a bit over half of the households in the Bay Area who are located too far from the shared telephone offices, I am afraid you are out of luck for now. We must build new fiber all the way to your home, passing by along the way the idle fiber infrastructure that the FCC set aside nearly a decade ago.

Category

Internet Education

WTH is OTT?

walt.grayson — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:00:00 +0000

WTH is OTT?

walt.grayson Fri, 04/23/2010 - 12:00

Written by Dane Jasper
April 23, 2010 | 6 min read

A coworker recently hassled me for my use of acronyms without explanation. It’s something that I try not to do, but the various acronyms of our industry boil down large concepts into just a few letters, so sometimes it’s unavoidable.

This posting is intended to address the big topic behind the small acronym “OTT”.

OTT is video content delivered “over the top” of Internet access, without association with the Internet access provider themselves.

Examples of OTT video include online services like Netflix On Demand, Hulu, MLB.TV. The OTT video label can be extended to any video content, so I suppose YouTube might count, but generally OTT refers to episode or feature length content, positioned as an alternative to conventional television.

OTT video is the anathema of those who offer subscription television, and it’s one of the core items that drives the debate around network neutrality and usage and speed caps.

Most service providers have created “triple play” bundles of Internet, telephone and television, and each of these three revenue streams make up an important part of the total revenue stream for these operators. For the video portion, the national average household spending for television is nearly $75 (source: Centris, 2009 data.) OTT video threatens this, which is particularly painful for system operators because the video component is generally the most expensive of the three components of the triple play.

If your broadband provider is also selling you TV, their concern is that if they provide you with “too much” broadband, that OTT video will flourish and you will stop buying expensive TV in favor of a less expensive broadband only service.

There is an inherent conflict of interest here, and it is clear that industry wide, OTT video influences the choices by providers to limit speed and cap consumption. This is particularly obvious for cable providers, who have the most video customer and revenue to lose.

The debate about network neutrality is quite clear in the dialog about OTT: why would a provider who sells you TV want to give you enough bandwidth to replace that TV service? This is particularly interesting in light of recent decisions by the Supreme Court, which found that the FCC does not have the authority to censure a major cable provider for tampering with their customers Internet traffic, in this case Bittorrent, which is presumed to be mostly television and movie downloads.

So, all of that aside, is OTT ready for prime time?

The biggest issue in OTT video seems to be delivery to the sofa rather than the desktop. It is getting much easier today, with multiple solutions to address this problem. A few of of the key enablers:

Faster Wi-Fi. 802.11N appears to finally deliver enough bandwidth for HD content streaming to the living room without cables.

Netflix on demand can now be viewed on a growing list of devices, some of which you might already have connected to your own TV. Samsung Bluray players, the XBox 360, Playstation II, and even the Wii will stream Netflix today.

Dedicated hardware solutions like the Apple TV, Roku, Popcorn Hour, and the new Boxee from Dlink all promise more powerful and easier access to OTT content. Most TVs today also offer a VGA connection for easy hook-up to a laptop, so buying a couple cables (video and audio) to connect your laptop to your television can be a low cost way to get started.

Finally, TVs are becoming far more connected themselves, which in the long run may eliminate the need for an external box. Samsung, LG and Sony all have connected television products today in various states of usefulness.

What about content? Can I watch my shows?

Maybe.

Today there are more and more OTT video offerings, and more mainstream content. For movies and many television shows, there is good availability from Netflix and iTunes (Apple TV). Sports are becoming available, for example the subscription offerings from MLB.tv.

Hulu is worth some discussion because it provides some great current television content, but it’s tough to view on your television. In my household there are five different devices that will stream Netflix (no kidding!), but only the laptop will play Hulu. This is because Hulu content is licensed for PC playback only, so they are restrictive. This means that one OTT hardware solution won’t let you view all content – you may need to seek out different solutions for different types of content.

Boxee may solve some of these problems – it behaves just like a web browser, and Hulu today can be viewed on Boxee, but that seems to be a constant game of cat and mouse, with Hulu shutting out Boxee playback and Boxee making changes to allow playback again. End-users are the pawns in this game, and it can be frustrating.

As a result of all of this confusion, I think that most users first experience with OTT will probably be Netflix, but once viewers get a taste for content on demand without a $75 cable bill, I suspect that more and more of us will jump through the hoops required for a relatively complete OTT video viewing experience.

Finally, OTT video isn’t always free. There are free services like Hulu, though they announced today that the most recent five episodes of shows will be free, but full access to all archived shows will cost $9.95 monthly. MLB.tv is $19.95 a month. Apple’s iTunes store for Apple TV offers shows ala carte for $2 to $3. You can also buy tv and movies from Amazon as downloadable content.

There is also lots of free content, and solutions like the Roku and Boxee make it easier to find it. You can also play most content that you download to your PC, plus videos you make yourself, because these hardware boxes will play back a multitude of video file types.

Some interfaces to OTT video are also bringing a social component, allowing you to connect with friends, recommend and rate shows and share comments. This may turn television viewing into a much more engaged activity. (Today the theme seems to be watching live TV while fondling a smartphone and reading and writing tweets with others watching the same show live. Tweets fly during live shows; “Can you believe that outfit! #oscars”. OTT with a social component may make this more useful and interesting.)

So in summary – what’s the “do it all” viewing solution? Today there is not one standalone set top box that will view all content. The upcoming Boxee hardware from D-Link may come close, but meanwhile you’d need at least two or three devices in order to access all the OTT content that is available. A laptop with a video and audio cable is a great start though if you aren’t sure what solution will be a fit for you.

I’ll predict that in five to ten years, subscription television as it is today will be suffering, and content providers will move wholeheartedly to OTT. The Internet has disrupted industries from retail to travel, and the only barrier to it doing the same to television has been bandwidth.

Category

Internet Education

How to Not Get Hacked by a Phishing Attack

walt.grayson — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:00:00 +0000

How to Not Get Hacked by a Phishing Attack

walt.grayson Wed, 11/05/2008 - 12:00

Written by Dane Jasper

November 5, 2008 | 4 min read

We are seeing more reports from customers about “phishing” emails. These are attempts to steal personal information by misleading you into replying with sensitive personal or banking data.

One type of message claims to be from ��۴�ý itself, and says something along the lines of:

> We are currently carrying-out a maintenance process to your sonic.net
> account to fight against SPAM MAILS,to complete this process and if
> you are the rightful owner of this account you required to reply with
> below information of your email
>
> User Name here:()
> Password here()

I love it. Well written stuff, “you required to reply”! Another example:

> We are currently upgrading our data base and e-mail
> account center. We are canceling unused web mail email
> account to create more space for new accounts.
>
> To prevent your account from closing you will have to update
> it below to know it’s status as a currently used account.
>
> CONFIRM YOUR EMAIL IDENTITY BELOW
> Email Username :
> Email Password :
> Date of Birth :

It’s funny in a way, they say “to create more space”, like “it’s getting crowded over here on the Internet, sorry, we’ve got to delete you to make more room in the tubes!”

Another message attempts to create credibility via a signature line, “COMFIRMATION CODE: ��۴�ý.net-/93-1A388-480 Technical Support Team. Another, “��۴�ý Support/Maintainance Team TSR. I am not sure what a “Team TSR” is, but if we meet them, I can assure you the real ��۴�ý.net staff will beat them soundly at a game of Street Fighter.

The point is, there is an urgent call to action that is totally contrived, but which is intended to get people to react.

They are simply trying to fool customers into providing sensitive information. When these phishing emails arrive, we react and block them, and we block the reply address so any responses customers might send do not make it back to the phish’s sender, but it’s an ongoing and reactive process.

Please, don’t be fooled. ��۴�ý will never ask for your password. We will not ever email and ask for it, and we will not call you and ask for it. (BTW, when these type of things are done over the phone, it’s called “social engineering”, as opposed to email, where it’s called “phishing”. Either way, think before you respond!)

The senders are hoping to gain access to your email box. They would presumably then use this to attempt to gain access to online banking and other sensitive resources. Always use a strong password for your email, and never give it to anyone under any circumstances.

Phishing is a growing problem on the internet, with criminals engaging in all sorts of ruses in an attempt to steal personal and banking information. The Department of Justice advises email users to “stop, look and call” if they receive a suspicious email.

Stop: Resist the urge to immediately respond to a suspicious email – and to provide the information requested – despite urgent or exaggerated claims.
Look: Read the text of the email several times and ask yourself why the information requested would really be needed.
Call: Telephone the organization identified, using a number that you know to be legitimate.

If you have been “phished”, and believe that you have provided sensitive information about yourself through a phishing scam, you should:

Contact the business or financial institution affected.
Contact the three major credit bureaus and request that a fraud alert be placed on your credit report. The credit bureaus and phone numbers are: Equifax, 1-800-525-6285; Experian, 1-888-397-3742; and TransUnion, 1-800-680-7289.
File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission at www.ftc.gov or 1-877-382-4357.

Consumers should never provide their personal information in response to an unsolicited telephone call, fax, letter, email or Internet advertisement. Don’t get hooked by fraudulent phishing attempts!

To learn more about phishing, see the Wikipedia phishing page.

Category

Internet Education