New P2P Software Could Lead to ISP Abuse
Computer scientists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have developed software  designed to enable people to share their high-speed wireless  connections without sacrificing security or privacy. Researchers believe the software can improve Internet connectivity in residential areas at no additional cost.

A typical residential user accesses his broadband home connection about 12 to 15 hours per week, figured Haiyun Luo, a professor of computer science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. So, while the Internet connection is always on, most of the time it sits idle. Luo would like to see that idleness put to good use by benefiting other users. He and graduate student Nathanael Thompson may have come up with a way to do it.

"Significantly improved speed and the 'always on' feature of wireless routers have been driving the rapid spread of broadband Internet access in many residential areas," said Luo. "More than 56 percent of homes in the United States already have Internet access, and more than half of those homes are using WiFi  wireless home networks."

Getting a PERM
Luo and Thompson have developed a software framework called PERM (Practical End-host collaborative Residential Multihoming) that intends to allow neighbors to pool their Internet access and, in doing so, improve both performance and resilience.

"PERM exploits the diversity of broadband Internet access in residential areas to improve connectivity in a managed way," Luo said. "Our design requires no support outside the user's wireless router, and is immediately deployable."

By pooling all available Internet connections, neighbors can enhance their Internet connectivity at no additional cost. That is, if neighbors are willing to share.

"PERM represents a paradigm shift in the Internet user community," Luo said. "Until now, most users have been unwilling to share their wireless connections for fear of losing security and privacy. We offer a solution that ensures mutual benefit, security and privacy."

The sharing of Internet connections is open only to registered users who, in exchange for using connections belonging to others, must offer the use of their own. This "peer-to-peer" sharing concept has enormous potential, with millions of possible nodes, Luo said.

ISP Abuse?
The issue with technology like PERM is not about whether it is secure, but whether it is legal, according to Predrag Filipovic, Ph.D., senior analyst, Multimedia and Wireless Networks, at The Diffusion Group. It opens up ISPs to abuse by folks who aren't paying for it, much like someone who uses his neighbor's water hose to water his yard.

"I can see this technology being applied on campus networks. When it comes to a peer-to-peer sharing in residential areas, I think some of the ISPs might have an issue with that because in densely populated neighborhoods instead of getting 50 subscribers they suddenly may only get five," Filipovic told TechNewsWorld. "There is a legal question here."

CPUC commissioner Rachelle Chong, who drafted the plan, said broadband over power lines, or BPL, could become a new competitor to Internet services delivered via telephone, cable and satellites and help reduce prices for consumers.

BPL uses existing utility lines delivering power to neighborhoods to carry broadband signals into homes.

Comcast steals telecom DSL customers
The intensity of competition between cable operators and phone companies went up a notch as Comcast reported a big boost in the number of new subscribers who switched to its cable-broadband service from DSL.

Comcast, the largest U.S. cable television operator, said Thursday when it reported first-quarter 2006 earnings that it increased high-speed broadband subscribers by 437,000. Of these subscribers, about 34 percent came from competitors selling DSL (digital subscriber line) service, compared with about 23 percent of customers a year ago, Steve Burke, chief operating officer of Comcast, said during a conference call with analysts and investors.

"We now get as many customers coming from DSL as we get from AOL narrowband," he said.

Burke suggested that customers are switching to Comcast because they are more interested in high-speed service than in price.

Over the last year, phone companies have slashed prices in an effort to win customers. AT&T dropped the price on its introductory DSL offer to $12.99, and Verizon Communications is offering its 768Kbps service for $17.99. The strategy has worked as phone companies are closing the gap between the total number of DSL subscribers and cable modem subscribers in the country.

Meanwhile, Comcast and other cable companies have held the line on pricing, and instead have increased speeds of their service.

"As the RBOCs (regional Bell operating companies) cut prices we keep focused on speed superiority and reliability," Burke said. "As consumers engage in richer Internet experiences, such as music, games and video, they should place even more value on speed."

The bundle factor
Jim Penhune, an analyst at Strategies Analytics, doesn't think consumers are switching from DSL to cable because of speeds. He believes they are switching because Comcast is able to offer them a triple-play package of services that includes video, voice and high-speed data for about $100 a month. He said that when he surveys broadband users they still report they are more interested in pricing and value than they are in faster speeds.

"I would argue that customers are switching from DSL because Comcast can offer them a low-cost phone service as part of the bundle," he said. "I give the cable companies credit for holding their ground on pricing. But I'm just not sure how compelling the speed argument is for large numbers of consumers."

Comcast also noted that the bundled package was a big factor in attracting new customers. The company added 211,000 new phone customers during the quarter, more than it had signed up for all of 2005. And in regions where Comcast sells phone service, the company added more new high-speed Internet access customers than in other parts of the country where the option to buy a package wasn't available, Burke said.

Residential Wi-Fi sharing made easy
Researchers have developed technology designed to enable neighbors to pool their Wi-Fi Internet access to deliver better performance and exploit bandwidth that would otherwise sit idle.

Haiyun Luo, an assistant professor of computer science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, says that the technology he created with graduate student Nathanael Thompson would encourage people to share their bandwidth without having to worry about security or privacy issues.

The 1MB Practical End-host collaborative Residential Multihoming (PERM) software file can be downloaded here and used now by users who have subscriptions for broadband connections, says Luo, who leads the Systems, Wireless, and Networking Group at the university. The PERM Project site describes the technology as having been implemented on Linux clients and with Linksys wireless routers.

Luo says he plans to discuss the technology, which has been in the works for two years and funded by the school, with ISPs. He says the technology presents "a great opportunity" for them in that more people will be encouraged to subscribe for services if the services are more flexible and perform better.

ISPs have attempted to restrict certain uses of their broadband services, such as by discouraging freeloaders from accessing the 'Net via unsecured Wi-Fi routers, but acknowledge it is difficult for them to actually monitor such abuse.

PERM uses flow-scheduling algorithms to choose the best connection available and gives subscribers priority when it comes to their own Internet connections. The software also alerts subscribers if their connection is being misused.

Tech Giants' Internet Battles
Web titans like Google and Yahoo! are battling some of the smartest lobbyists in the business. And they've just lost a big one on Capitol Hill

A host of tech outfits, from Google to Intel, suffered a setback in a battle over access to the Internet on Apr. 26. At issue is whether telcos like AT&T and cable operators such as Comcast, which maintain the country's vast broadband networks, can favor one provider's Web traffic over another's. A measure that would bar the practice was shot down by a Congressional committee.

In a vote of 34 to 22, the House Committee on Energy & Commerce rejected an amendment to a sweeping telecommunications law, the Communications, Promotion, & Enhancement Act of 2006. The proposal, by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would have given the Federal Communications Commission the power to prohibit discrimination when it comes to sending traffic over the Internet. In effect, the amendment would block the creation of a multilane "information highway," where network operators could give preference to their own content, or ensure speedier delivery to content providers that pay extra fees.

UNNECESSARY REGULATION.  The vote is a defeat for the likes of Google (GOOG ), Intel (INTC ), Yahoo (YHOO ), and eBay (EBAY ), proponents of so-called Net neutrality, which aims to ensure equal and unfettered access to the Net (see BW Online, 3/7/06, "Beware of a Two-Lane Internet"). The victors, of course, are telecom carriers such as AT&T (T ) and Verizon (VZ ) and cable companies like Comcast (CMCSA ) and Time Warner (TWX ).

Measures like Markey's, they say, will create unnecessary regulation and impede the introduction of high-bandwidth services (see BW Online, 3/16/06, "Say No to 'Net Neutrality' Rules").

The larger bill, which passed with a vote of 42 to 12, now heads to the House for a vote in May. The bill, sponsored by Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Tex.) and Bobby Rush (D-Il.), requires telecom and cable operators to let consumers access content, run applications, and use services of their choice.

MANAGING NETWORKS.  It also provides for competition among all network, application, and content providers. But it still leaves scope for operators to limit the development of publicly available bandwidth while dramatically speeding up a "premium" service that gives faster delivery to companies that pay up.

And at least one notable telecom exec, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre, has said publicly that is what he would like Internet companies to do. Providers say that in order to ensure future investment in the Net, they need to be able to manage networks as they see fit and create new revenue streams (see BW Online, 12/15/05, "At Stake: The Net as We Know It").

That worries Net neutrality proponents, who want strictly-worded regulation that would guarantee a level playing field for all companies on the Internet, and give the FCC the power to create rules, rather than just set broader "principles."

COUNTING ON A COMMITTEE.  While the current system will let companies appeal to the FCC on a case-by-case basis, they worry operators could effectively shut down competing services, and drag their heels through an appeals process. "We want to ensure our customers retain their freedom to access the open Internet," says Paul Misener, vice president of global public policy for Amazon.com (AMZN ). This bill and earlier rulings "actually remove the FCC's rulemaking authority in this area by saying it cannot adopt rules concerning net neutrality in the future."

Indeed, the Apr. 26 defeat of the Markey amendment wasn't the first legislative defeat for the Internet companies. A similar version of amendment was also voted down on Apr. 6 in Commerce's subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

Tech companies now pin their hopes on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which they're urging to set in motion competing legislation. On the eve of the Apr. 26 vote, the CEOs of Amazon.com, eBay, Google, Microsoft (MSFT ), Yahoo, IAC/InterActive (IACI ), and Intel (INTC ) (weighing in on the issue for the first time) asked the committee to "enact legislation preventing discrimination against the content and services of those not affiliated with network operators." The letter went on to say, "absent such safeguards, the fundamental paradigm of the Internet will be irreparably altered."

WARDING OFF LOBBYISTS.  The Internet companies also hope they can spark interest in their cause elsewhere in the House of Representatives. The House Judiciary committee may propose its own bill that could be joined with the Barton-Rush bill. "We'll talk to anyone who will listen in both chambers of Congress" says Misener. "I don't view this vote as an unexpected setback -- the clock just ran out on this one."

Pushing such regulation through will be difficult for the Internet companies, says Blair Levin, analyst with Stifel Nicolaus. Consider Supreme Court rulings like the National Cable & Telecommunications Assoc. vs. Brand X in June, 2005, which gave cable operators autonomy in sales of broadband services, and similar allowances by the FCC last summer for telecom operators. "We're in a deregulatory phase right now" says Levin, and with the GOP still showing a strong majority in Congress, there is little willingness to create more rules and regulations.