I will be first to admit that I use an impressive amount of bandwidth from my internet service provider. Making heavy use of BitTorrent, streaming media, and live communication services is not a great deal of concern to me. I am willing to bet that I suck up the most data streams in my entire town. Does that mean I should be required to pay more than everyone else?

Maybe I should be the first to say yes, but there is no way that it will ever come from my mouth. I am not stupid, and none of my subscribers are either. We know when once you give some companies unregulated powers that they will exploit their customers. That is happening now.

Time Warner Cable, the 2nd largest cable internet provider in the U.S., has been exploring the option of tiered internet pricing schemes. Time Warner has confirmed to Reuters that the company will have bandwidth caps set at 5GB, 10GB, 20GB, and 40GB for the various plans.

I am currently measuring my bandwidth for an article that I will be writing next month on data usage, and I have already been given estimates of 100GB of transfer for the month! I am nearing 3GB of transfer for today alone. Note that this is a medium usage day. That number will go up with the remaining time. People can easily transfer well over a gigabyte in a single day.

How the hell does one respond when he/she has a notification pop up on their desktop stating that this person is out of bandwidth for the month? Pay more or don't use the internet? It is almost impossible for me to understand why people in other countries put up with it. From what I have read on user forums, ISPs in the UK have dropped tiered internet offerings because the people hated it so much.

The web is rapidly expanding with many rich media options. Faster internet speeds and streaming video services will result in heavy usage of bandwidth. Placing a cap on it hurts everyone. Why can't telecommunication and cable companies see this? I will bet that a company like Google, which needs users to surf the web for their AdSense and AdWords programs, is not too pleased with this idea either.

The irony is that ISPs would be glad to provide higher connection speeds with the hope that their users download plenty of data resulting in the payment of fees for exceeding the limit. I am not sure about most people, but if I had 10Mbps service (or higher), the temptation to download movies, streaming video, games, and music left and right would be great within.

ISPs could possibly manipulate the offered speeds in order to influence your usage. Would an ISP dare to juice up your connection nearing the end of the month in the hopes that you go over? If I put myself in charge of running an ISP, it does not sound like a bad plan. It just opens up so many ways for providers to play mind games with people. I do not like the idea one bit.

There are far more concerns with what could happen. Will overage rates be variable or fixed? It would be annoying to pay $1.00 per gigabyte one month, and then pay $1.25 per gigabyte the next month. What if someone else happens to be using my connection legally or illegally? Does this mean we will see large amounts of court cases over internet service charges?

In the future, these things are going to be on the mind of all internet users. It already feels like dealing with a mobile service provider. There are so many hidden fees and catches. The contract has so many ways of squeezing money out of their customers, and keeping them locked in. Unfortunately, this business model works in the United States. Typical consumers are, unfortunately, stupid when it comes to these things. I can only hope that the internet will spread the word of what it might become.

The 700MHz auction has been receiving an amazing amount of coverage in the press lately.  That is warranted because this auction will affect the future of wireless internet and wireless services for all of us.  Some companies have the power to influence all telecommunication, cable, and internet providers.  Unquestionably, the next few weeks will be crucial in determining the path that wireless services travel.

The auction will take place on January 24th, 2008, and 214 total bidders of the 266 initial applicants will be fighting it out for wireless spectrum.  You have the big telecommunication companies, which are going to be bidding hard, but you also have smaller companies that will be bidding on blocks as well.

I am sure that some of you have seen the commercial in which they explain that people are pretty much going to be screwed in February 2009 if you still use an antenna to watch television.  All the news is about the 700Mhz spectrum auction.  That vacated portion of the spectrum is exactly what is being auctioned off.

Many people do not understand the true impact that this auction will have.  Let's say that there is a person who lives in a neighborhood where there is only one provider of internet services, and the ISP is charging very high prices for the services.  This auction might give smaller but able competition the chance to offer the same person those services for cheaper.  It is all about creating competition.

The auction has been split off into five separate blocks.  The A, B, and E blocks will be valuable to smaller companies which will be offering services in regional areas.  The C and D blocks will draw much more of a crowd because these allow a nationwide network, and the likes of Google, Verizon, and AT&T will be pouncing on those.

Essentially, this is an important time in shaping the future of wireless services.  While larger companies like Google could shake up all the telecommunication companies, smaller companies can get their legs in the door to be competitive.  I hope that this brings lower prices and competitiveness to all potential customers.

[Source: Ars Technica]

Clicky, the amazing web analytics package aimed towards bloggers, is releasing a new version of their website.  For well over a year I have been using this package exclusively (with others as backups) for analyzing my traffic on a daily basis.  I am beyond satisfied with what it offers, and the new site is sure to help Clicky compete among the likes of Google Analytics, SiteMeter, and others.

On Clicky's Blog, there was an announcement regarding several new additions to the site.  This upgrade appears to focus heavily on the ability to filter statistics for more specific information.  The only issues in the past was that there were only a limited amount of filters to work with, and the filters took a significant time to load.  I expect these issues to be gone with the new site.

The new site has been announced to be released on January 19th.  If you are managing a blog then Clicky could be a great tool to use for obtaining and maintaining a clear idea of where your traffic comes from, and what your traffic does while being on your site.

A report from comScore has revealed that 2007 holiday shopping has increased 19 percent over 2006. This dramatic increase comes as the appeal of online shopping powers forward. Who can blame people for not wanting to step inside a store? I certainly have no complaints. Anything resulting in the avoidance of Best Buy employees is an easy choice for me.

The study, conducted from November 1st through December 27th of 2007 by comScore, revealed that holiday shoppers were glad to avoid the insanity of shopping at the malls and retail stores nationwide. Online stores like Amazon contributed  most to the 19% increase in spending.

Although this news is far from being a shock, it just goes to show how far online shopping has truly progressed in the last decade. It is difficult to imagine what it will be like ten years from now. Online retailers should be delighted, but also determined to offer even better services and products in 2008.

I estimate that the percent of online holiday shopping will increase to over 23% this year. Online retail stores continue to thrive in a time where a few mouse clicks is all that is needed for purchasing most non-edible goods.

Regardless of it being laziness, true appeal, ease of use, or natural progression that drives these numbers higher, it is a sure bet that the checkout button will be pressed more times than ever in 2008.  One can only wish that shipping costs are reduced, but not likely.

Rare is the occasion that Microsoft does something right, and chances are high that the wrongdoing will continue with the Silverlight technology. Silverlight is Microsoft's answer to Adobe's Flash. The competition between these two proprietary formats is expected to heat up this year. Unfortunately, there are problems with both formats, and this becomes even further apparent when you consider compatibility on alternative operating systems.

Both Flash and Silverlight have very poor support on Linux based systems. Adobe has not released a fully compatible version of Flash for 64-bit processors, and the development team has excuses--reality check, it is actually inexcusable. Silverlight is being ported to alternative operating systems, but the details of this are very sketchy. It is becoming a growing pain for Linux users, and those who wish to take advantage of 64-bit processing are punished.

If Microsoft decides to support Silverlight on alternative operating systems and 64-bit processing, it might become a slight advantage. This is an advantage that Microsoft should be willing to utilize. When one considers the fact that Adobe Flash has plenty of support, developers, and momentum, it means that it will require radical changes to put Silverlight in the spotlight.

Numerous developer forums have revealed that developers are not that interested in Silverlight, and development of new applications would be key to Silverlight's success. It raises more questions for the future of this newcomer in rich media content, but the picture should become clearer later on this year. Support from the open source community, although nearly impossible, could be a great boost for Silverlight.

This upcoming Monday, Google will be filing their application with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to participate in the 700-megahertz spectrum auction.  Google winning this auction could result in huge changes and benefits for technological advancement in the United States.

In the past, Google has promised that the company intended on bidding for the 700-megahertz spectrum.  It appears that the company is living up on that promise with the announcement of their intent to register for bidding on the spectrum with the FCC.

The bidding process is scheduled to begin on the 24th of January, 2008.  Telecommunication giants like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and others are likely to be bidding on the spectrum.  The entire process will take months to sort out after the start of the bidding.

The winning companies of the spectrum are mandated to give consumers the right to use any capable device on their network, and also allow those consumers to use any software they choose to run on those devices.  This is a huge step forward, and the US government should be applauded for taking action to properly expand and improve a technologically backwards America with regards internet services.

A company like Google could create a nationwide wireless network that can compete with existing digital subscriber line and cable internet services.  The telecommunication giants are well aware of this, and those companies are likely to be secretly determined to prevent this from happening by outbidding Google in the upcoming auctions.

It is a general rule that competition is a good thing.  Google winning these auctions could be one of the best possible results for the advancement of internet, wireless, and mobile technologies in the states.  Not only expanding coverage that existing companies fail to offer, but also decreasing the price of internet and mobile services.

[Source: The New York Times]

Update 1: 11-30-2007 @ 10:32 PM

Google made an entry in their blog about their involvement of the 700-MHz spectrum auction.

To understand net neutrality, you simply need to look at this from the side of your typical internet user and an internet service provider (ISP). The consumer wants more bang for their buck. The ISP wants to make more money off their customers. This all of course comes down to the green stuff in the end. Why should you care?

Well, you should care because what happens today, tomorrow, and within the next few months could affect the way all of us surf the internet in the future. Many of you using the internet at this very moment consider it as an important, and sometimes essential tool in your daily life. I consider the internet as an invaluable tool to my work.

A Quick History Lesson:

The 109th Congress was pushed to the edge of their seats in late 2006 as telecommunication companies spent hundreds of thousands to attempt to influence Congress to break up net neutrality. It just goes to show you how far the likes of Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and many others are willing to go to screw over their customers. Fortunately, Congress did not vote in favor of the telecos.

You must realize that although this was a victory for net neutrality, its results are only bittersweet as this battle has only begun. The implications of the next few years are critical in determining if network neutrality will be put in legal effect or discarded.

Very recently there have been reports of Comcast preventing torrent traffic, and Verizon preventing text messages related to pro-abortion discussion. These types of events will continually occur until something is done about it.

What Happens If Net Neutrality Fails?

Imagine if you were surfing the internet as usual, and you decide to visit the YouTube site which you have not visited for a few days. "Beep-beep," a nice little sound-byte plays, and a pop-up from your ISP notifies you of the following:
If you wish to access the YouTube site and its content, you are hereby required to pay a $1.99 subscription fee. This fee covers unlimited data access to the YouTube site and its content for a 24 hour period which starts immediately upon acceptance of this offer.

This charge will automatically be added to your bill and is non-refundable. Certain restrictions apply. For other terms and conditions of the Web Subscription Service beta, please visit our website. Thank you.
Is that just the greatest deal ever? Not really! Granted, that is an extreme example, but this is exactly the type of thing that internet service providers could pull off. No one person can say something like that will not happen as any method which money can be made is a tool which the telecommunication companies will take full advantage of.

What is stopping website owners from being pushed into signing deals that would promote their content to certain customers of a specific ISP, and screwing the customers of other ISPs. Exclusivity deals are already bad for the sports gaming industry, yet it is being done. The idea that Verizon customers can visit YouTube for free, and AT&T customers must pay a few cents per minute to use the site is a possibility.

Essentially, if net neutrality fails the internet service providers would be free to extract insane amounts of money from their customers and possibly from content providers. It is evil, it is wrong, and it needs to be stopped.

What Can You Do?

First, visit SaveTheInternet as that site is dedicated to news about the state of network neutrality, and also helps in providing you with ways to let both Congress and the world know how important this subject is to everyone involved. Next, try voting for a candidate in the upcoming elections who supports the stance that you side on. Finally, you could try leaving any ISP that is attempting to violate the idea of net neutrality.

The result of how net neutrality plays out in the future is up to all of us. If net neutrality fails, we have no one to blame but ourselves for not standing up and taking action. One person taking action is a start, a few hundred taking action is a statement, but a few thousand is an unavoidable demand. It is up to you, the reader, to understand net neutrality, and realize that you can change things.

Final Thoughts:

Unfortunately, we are already seeing the effects of what would happen if net neutrality is successful. Companies like Verizon intend on limiting access for using certain amounts of bandwidth. Further putting limitations on what we can and cannot do. If net neutrality succeeds, the telcos could easily find ways around it. Why these companies are hell-bent on restricting the growth of internet services in the United States is just beyond wrong, and this warrants government action.

The government has taken a few baby steps to get this right, but much more is needed to be done to protect the internet.

Google's $3.1 billion takeover offer for the internet advertising company DoubleClick has come to a deadlock this past Tuesday. Orders to have a more in-depth review of the impacts of this merger show signs of resentment to let Google merge with DoubleClick. To be honest, these events are not bad for the advertising industry in the long term.

The European Commission (EC), which handles anti-trust cases for the European Union, has decided to halt the takeover process as the EC is not fully confident with how the results might turn out. Taking time to properly review this case was a wise decision. Without careful consideration, things could turn out bad for many people.

As great as Google is with their mission statement of "do no evil," they certainly are determined to do some evil here by puting a stranglehold on the advertising sector. It is the cash cow for Google, and if I was the owner of the company, I would likely try to buy up everything I could in the advertising industry as well. That is the way business works unfortunately.

The impacts of Google acquiring DoubleClick could severely harm the entire internet advertising industry. There are many website owners who like varying options on how to generate revenue for their site. If it came down to only one option, that being AdSense, then there would be a severe problem with the way this industry will develop in the future.

Speaking for myself--a website owner--I do not want this deal to go through. The other options available are diminishing, and I am not completely satisfied with Google AdSense. Advertising federations, and also pay-per-click projects like Project Wonderful, Yahoo! Publisher Network, DoubleClick, and maybe Microsoft's own offering in the future need to grow to keep things competitive and fair for all content publishers and advertisers.

[Source: New York Times]

The company that lets you find "it" is now needing to find a way to stop Congress from ruining its business. Proposed legislation, if made law, is threatening to require all sellers of goods to disclose your name, address, and phone number to all potential purchasers. This would be a huge blow to partners who sell products on the eBay site.

In an email sent at 9:27 PM yesterday, eBay sent me a message that warns of legislation that could harm sellers:
Dear [James],

We wanted to let you know about proposed legislation in Congress that could have a negative impact on you and your eBay sales if it passes.

Because of major theft problems, many large retail stores are lobbying Congress to pass a new "stolen goods" law. The proposed legislation would force you to disclose sensitive personal information on the Internet, including your actual name, your business address and your phone number on every listing. There have also been proposals that would require you to register your product source, with those records made available to any retailer or competitor that claims the goods were stolen.

This legislation would also require operators of Internet marketplaces like eBay to investigate sellers for stolen goods whenever big retailers raise questions about the price of merchandise. Given the millions of items listed on eBay each day, many at highly competitive prices, these investigations--and the new criminal liability being imposed on marketplace operators like eBay--would allow big retailers to bring online marketplaces to a grinding halt.

While retail theft is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, this type of legislation is not the solution. It unfairly--and wrongly--targets online marketplaces like eBay and singles out Internet-enabled sellers like you.

Defend your business and your rights. Contact a Member of Congress today and tell them to reject such retailer-biased, "stolen goods" laws.

Make your voice heard now!

Sincerely,
eBay Government Relations
A double-edged sword is what we have here. People who bid on items would have increased security in knowing where their products come from. People who sell products would lose privacy, and to be realistic, who would want to give out their home address to complete strangers simply to sell a used bowling ball?

People who purchase from online marketplaces might think it is a great idea, but in most cases it will simply drive prices up as people who are willing to sell items at a lower cost to you will be discouraged from bothering with the process of selling on these sites. In the end the bigger sellers survive, the smaller sellers suffer, and the retail companies celebrate.

My thoughts on the situation are simple. Punish companies which do not protect and enforce against situations like these. Force online marketplaces to take people more seriously who report stolen items. Crack down on single marketplaces, instead of punishing all online marketplaces. It is not necessary for this to be done now.