The Inquisitr » iinet

Australian Censorship Minister advocates illegal taping of Internet Accounts

Duncan Riley — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:58:41 +0000

Controversial Australian Minister for Censorship Stephen Conroy is back in the news after mocking a company for not breaking the law.

Conroy, speaking at the CommsDay Summit in Sydney Tuesday, mocked ISP iiNet over its defense in court that it didn’t know what its users were downloading. As we’ve reported previously, iiNet is being sued by big media over alleged illegal downloading by its customers.

From ITNews.com.au:

In what was at times a heated morning at the CommsDay Summit in Sydney, Conroy told an overflowing room that the idea that iiNet “have no idea if any customers are illegally downloading music” on their network is a “stunning defence”.

“The capacity to be able to ignore what your customers are doing on your network is being fought out in the Courts but I thought the defence of ‘we have no idea what anyone is downloading over our network’ was a classic,” Conroy said.

There’s one rather problem with Conroy’s mockery: it’s illegal to spy on users in Australia without a court order under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. If iiNet had been spying on what its users were downloading, they would be breaking Australian law.

Stilgherrian rightly points out that even if they were illegally spying on customers, how could iiNet tell whether a particular data stream is an “illegal” copy or not? “A music file looks just the same whether it’s being used legally under the terms of its license or under fair dealing, or not. Does Senator Conroy imagine illegally-made copies are stamped “pirate” or something?”

Court case could force one strike and you’re out on downloaders in Australia

Duncan Riley — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:46:07 +0000

The copyright case against Australia’s second largest ISP iiNet went to court today with an interesting twist: the entertainment industry wants iiNet to disconnect customers accused of illegal downloading as soon as they are notified.

The action against iiNet was filed in the Australian Federal Court by Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Disney and the Seven Network. The studios claim iiNet in effect “authorized” customers’ copyright infringement by failing to disconnect them when notified of the infringements by the movie studios.

iiNet told the court that they were was not required to act on a “mere allegation of copyright infringement” and that the case was “like suing the electricity company for things people do with their electricity”.

Asher Moses in the Sydney Morning Herald notes “if iiNet loses, all ISPs could be forced to disconnect customers identified by the movie studios as illegal downloaders.” Not three strikes and you’re out as is the case in France, or as recently proposed in New Zealand, but one accusation and you’re gone. Australia is starting to look more and more like China and Iran every day.

Australian ISP iiNet sued over customer copyright infringement

Duncan Riley — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:44:12 +0000

Australia’s second largest ISP iiNet has been sued by the film and television industry over copyright infringement by its customers.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the companies are seeking a ruling that iiNet infringed copyright by failing to stop users from engaging in illegal file sharing over BitTorrent. They are seeking an order to force iiNet to prevent its customers from engaging in copyright infringement over its network. An industry spokesman said that damages would be sought.

Mark White, iiNet’s chief operating officer, said the company did not support piracy but it could not disconnect customers just because the movie industry claimed they engaged in illegal downloading.

In an interesting angle, the Herald reported Peter Coroneos, chief executive of the Internet Industry Association saying that the case may involve use of safe harbor provisions under the Australian-US Free Trade Agreement

“This is a very important test case for the internet industry in Australia. It will test the effect of the safe harbour provisions that were introduced with the US free trade agreement, which provides immunity for ISPs in certain circumstances such as transmission, hosting, caching and referencing activities.”

Disclosure: I am an iiNet customer.

Everyone needs to calm down about Internet Caps

Duncan Riley — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:10:30 +0000

Comcast’s decision to implement a 250gb data cap on users continues to drive a ton of angst among American early adopters who believe the sky is falling. The latest round comes from Roku, makers of the Netflix box, who claim that they aren’t afraid of caps, but with others saying how much it will hurt their business.

There is a case in terms of limiting future growth in online content delivery; as we switch away from heritage media, the more content we consume online, the more data we use. But that time isn’t now, at least for the vast majority of users, because even with streaming content, most will never hit the 250gb cap. There are some exceptions, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

Living with a cap

The above shot is from my iiNet toolbox showing my volume usage from August 28, the starting day for the monthly calculation of my use cap, which is currently 65GB peak (noon-2am) and 65GB off-peak (2am-noon). 11 full days into the month, I’ve used 10gb peak, just over 2gb off peak, and 3gb in the free zone.

Now perhaps I haven’t downloaded a lot this month, so these figures may not be completely typical, but they are close enough, and my biggest month so far totaled 50gb. Consider the usage scenario: we rarely watch broadcast television, and on a typical night will stream one to two television programs. Other times we might rent a movie or stream some podcasts via our Apple TV, and if you note the freezone figure for the 6th, we purchased 300 on iTunes (it wasn’t available for rent) and watched it, resulting in a 1.5gb figure for that day. I’m also in front of a computer at home all day, and I regularly download content, and at least three times a week I’m playing online Poker as well, so there is a gaming component. Notably these figures include uploads as well, although it’s not clear whether the Comcast cap counts uploads. Our house has more internet enabled devices than people: three computers in regular use, Apple TV, two iPhones, and a Chumby used day in, day out.

Lets presume the average Roku box user watches one video every night. At 30 days in a month x 1.5gb per video, total use will be 45gb for the month. Lets presume that Netflix isn’t as efficient as iTunes in movie delivery, and each movie is 3gb. Lets presume you’re an addict, and you watch two movies every day. Still only 180gb in a heavy use, high bandwidth scenario, with 70gb to spare.

Comcast states that only 0.1% of their users use in excess of 250gb a month, so 99.9% of users will never have an issue, and that includes many early adopters and those working in the tech/ web space. I could try harder to use more bandwidth, but never being offline is all I can manage, at least for now.

Market Forces

Lets presume that with the rise of digital content delivery, usage rates increase, and more people get closer to the cap, or exceed it. Demand usually results in supply, and presuming that 250gb is the end of the matter ignores alternative ISP’s or distribution deals.

In Australia, as you’ll note in the image above, ISP’s do deals with content providers so that downloads aren’t counted towards a cap. In my case, the iiNet Freezone includes content from iTunes, and a number of other services. iiNet even offers a variety of internet radio stations for free, so when I wake up to the sound of 977 The 80’s Channel on my Chumby of a morning, it’s via a local iiNet stream of the station that doesn’t count towards my cap.

Providers such as Apple, Netflix and others will cut deals in the United States in the same way they have in Australia, both as a marketing tool and as a way to overcome any cap fears that may slow usage rates and consumer uptake. ISP’s like these deals as well, as offering unmetered content from large players is a selling point.

The Exceptions

There are of course some that will lose out under these caps: extreme high end users, large families or group homes, heavy BitTorrent users, and addicted online game players. Some have a reasonable case to complain, but others, for example those who use a residential connection to run a business where many people use that connection every day, or even use the connection as a web server (remarkably some people still do) need to accept up to the fact that if they want unlimited bandwidth, they should pay for it. Comcast business plans are not currently capped, so there are alternatives, even if they do cost more.

Conclusion

I don’t like caps, and having been on the wrong end of usage before and having my connection shaped, I’d consider switching to an unlimited plan tomorrow if I had the choice. Caps do have the potential of constraining growth in digital media delivery in the future, replacing a free market with one of deals and artificial supply constraints. And yet, for the negatives, the sky isn’t falling, it’s not the end of the world, and most Comcast users will never notice the introduction of a cap. It’s not unreasonable that people pay more relative to the amount of data they consume, and that heavy users should not be subsidized by light users. The market will respond, the drive towards more efficient delivery of digital content will increase, and we’ll still be streaming and downloading content tomorrow and into the future.

The Sky is Falling: Comcastic Caps

Duncan Riley — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:28:15 +0000

Starting October 1, Comcast users in the United States will have a 250GB per month data cap on their accounts, and will charge for excess usage.

Let me say upfront on a less serious note: You’ve got caps! Welcome to my world, one where I pay a small fortune for my 130GB a month on one of the largest cap plans available in Australia. Most people suffer on less than 15GB.

From a user viewpoint, I understand where Om and MG are coming from. Caps may limit online innovation by restricting the free market for unlimited content, particularly as we move to HD video that is seriously bandwidth intensive, and that’s not a positive thing.

And yet, bandwidth does cost money. We accept when we sign up for hosting that most providers cap the data our sites can use, and charge us more as we consume more, because they themselves are paying for data on a measured basis, not an unlimited one. The economics for an ISP are the same: they have to pay for data throughput, so the more you use, the more the wholesale cost of providing that data increases. It is not unreasonable to suggest economically that those who use more data pay more for it. Why should the person using 2GB a month subsidize the person using 2TB a month when we know that the higher use costs more to provide.

How many individual users would really use 250GB a month? It’s not 100% clear, but it would appear that (unlike with my account in Australia) uploads won’t be counted towards the 250GB a month, so even BitTorrent users who tend to leach a lot in terms of uploads, or even people live streaming 24/7 won’t be affected.

I looked at my usage figures for July 2007, a month I was home the entire time, and I just scrapped over 40GB for the month, although I have had some months closer to 50GB. This in a house with three times more internet connected devices than people, where I download a fair bit, I stream HD on my Apple TV, and even my alarm clock streams internet radio when it wakes me up in the morning. Of course this figure is creeping up, and will continue to do so, but as someone who is in front of a computer every day at home, I’m yet to go close to 100GB, let alone 250GB a month.

There’s also the presumption that capped plans will stifle areas like HD streaming, but it ignores the fact that these limits will simply create innovation in compression, so that the bandwidth required to deliver a HD movie is less tomorrow as watching a video online is significantly more efficient today compared to 4 years ago or further. You’ll also likely see distribution deals in place between content providers and ISPs that will create exemptions to the cap, for example anything I download now from iTunes isn’t counted in my iiNet cap. It’s not great level playing field innovation, but now caps are in, on Comcast at least, providers will be thinking about these very things today.

Comcast’s decision to impose caps is the end of the free honeymoon for internet users artificially brought about by an excess in bandwidth following the first internet crash. As we use more and more bandwidth, more pipes are required to meet demand, and somebody has to pay for it.