Crave

It's long been an open secret that many major telecommunications companies, including Internet service providers (ISPs) and cellular data providers, impose specific limits on the volume and type of bandwidth consumed by their customers.

"Open" in the sense that these companies almost universally reserve the right to impose such limits, and occasionally make public statements defending their right to do so. "Secret" because the companies rarely reveal their specific limits, and because it seems like these limits are constantly being rediscovered by people who ought to know better.

It reminds me of people who claim to be shocked by new evidence of pork-barrel politics even though the practice has been common throughout history (though some politicians do refrain).

Two such shocking cases are before us in the news this week.

First, Comcast admitted it uses traffic shaping to reduce the bandwidth demands of peer-to-peer file-sharing applications such as BitTorrent.

Next, Verizon Wireless settled a dispute with the Attorney General of New York state stemming from its use of the word "unlimited" to describe its wireless Internet plans, which were very definitely limited by secret company policies to a total of five gigabytes per month.

In both cases, the primary issue is fairness...and the contradictory definitions of fairness held by customers and their service providers.

For ordinary customers, fairness means being able to use all the bandwidth they're paying for, continuously, forever, with whatever software they like. Providers apparently want to define fairness as satisfying the maximum number of customers while still making a profit.

I have to take the customer's side on the definition, but you can't argue with the business goal. Without profit, there's no business. Some ISPs don't care about profit, of course--chiefly the ones in foreign countries where the Internet has been subsidized by government for political reasons. But here in the US, Internet services have to make a profit, and that means bandwidth supply can never meet bandwidth demand.

On one hand, ISPs could build out their networks to provide the maximum rated bandwidth to all subscribers at once...but that would be extraordinarily expensive, and wasteful because that kind of load would never be seen in the real world. On the other hand, they could promise the lower throughput they truly can guarantee, then deliver more when possible...but that would look terrible as a marketing campaign. Verizon's 5GB limit, for example, works out to about 2 kilobits per second. Can you imagine advertising "2-kilobit high-speed Internet!"? Nope. Supply and demand isn't just a good idea--it's the law.

So ISPs use what's called "statistical multiplexing"--sharing bandwidth among multiple users on the theory that they won't all use it at once. A cable-modem service such as Comcast's might share some 30 megabits/s of bandwidth among dozens to hundreds of subscribers in a single neighborhood.

Although a mere half-dozen users could overload this shared channel, in practice, the natural load-sharing behavior of Internet protocols provides a reasonable experience for all the users online at any given moment.

Except when it doesn't. An active BitTorrent user might have dozens or hundreds of transfers in progress--multiple files, each with multiple partial downloads in progress. Each transfer competes for a share of the channel's total bandwidth, so a handful of BitTorrent users on one cable-modem service could consume the vast majority of the available bandwidth.

This gives us a third definition of fairness, the BitTorrent definition: fairness is being able to take everything you can get without regard to other customers on the same service.

So is it more unfair for Comcast to cut back on BitTorrent traffic, or for BitTorrent users to exploit the Internet's load-sharing behavior? I have to take Comcast's side on this one.

I was writing a reply to a badly-written article and subsequent ignorant comments about the Comcast situation over on Engadget earlier today when I realized this situation creates a market opportunity for some software company. So I figured I'd write this instead of posting the reply there.

To summarize: although I suspect most BitTorrent traffic consists of pirated software, music, TV shows, and movies, there's also some important, legitimate content on BitTorrent--Linux distributions, collections of classic e-books in the public domain, Linux distributions...wait, I mentioned that already. Actually, there probably isn't that much legitimate BitTorrent activity. But however much there is, it deserves to pass unmolested on Comcast and other Internet services.

It's unfortunate that these files are being subjected to Comcast's traffic shaping, but that's what happens when people put legitimate content into a distribution channel designed and optimized to facilitate piracy.

So clearly we need a separate public-access peer-to-peer system. How would it differ from BitTorrent? Well, the content would have to be legitimate, and probably so. That means a central authority and a master list of authorized content.

Of course, this is basically the Joost business plan. Joost is a peer-to-peer file-sharing service for video. It seems to me that either Joost ought to expand the concept to include other kinds of content, or someone else ought to get into the business. It'll have to be ad-supported, I think, because if anyone has to pay for the service they'll probably just keep using BitTorrent instead.

Such a service should also get support from ISPs since it would actually reduce their overall bandwidth load for legitimate file sharing. Peer-to-peer distribution is very efficient--that's why Joost uses it--so the providers could leave this new service unfiltered while BitTorrent gets quite legitimately squeezed out of operation.

No doubt such a plan would be highly unpopular with active BitTorrent users, but if that's the price of keeping ISPs profitable--and honest in their marketing policies-- I think it's a reasonable price to pay.

College football is back, and so is fall television. If you're looking to pick up some free TV shows (legally), the Internet is your friend and is a great place to go for digital versions of TV shows, sans a TV or the need for a VCR or DVR to watch shows when you want to. Note that several of these sites are walking a fine line of what's legal and what's not, which was outlined in yesterday's post about legal suicide for start-ups. We don't condone piracy or encourage it; this guide is for entertainment purposes only.

Free (and paid-for) downloads:

iTunes. iTunes is worth mentioning here because you can often get the first and last episode of any show for free. You can then put it on your iPod, iPhone, or watch it full-screen on your computer. While the iTunes Store is now lacking shows like The Office, because of NBC pulling out of its renewal deal, you can still find shows from ABC, CBS, and Fox--which incidentally is offering free pilots of all of their series, which you can find here (link opens up in iTunes).

Editor's Pick: Kitchen Nightmares--it's like Dinner Impossible, but with more volatility and endive.

Amazon Unbox. While we may not have had the best experience using this service in the past, if you're looking for legal digital copies of NBC's newest shows, you're stuck with Unbox until Hulu launches next month. Like the iTunes Store, you'll find all the big players here, although keep in mind that you can't watch these shows on any portable media players, which makes the $1.99 price tag a little harder to swallow.

Editor's Pick: MythBusters

Joost. There is an absolute ton of content on Joost, including entire seasons of the original Transformers from the 80s. The only catch? You've gotta download and install the client, and get a private beta token, which these days is about as easy to get as it was to get a Gmail invite a few years back.

Click the "read more" link below to continue reading, and find out about free, streaming options. ... Read more

(Credit: Joost (screengrab by Mashable))

The founders of online television start-up Joost, who also count Skype and Kazaa as bullet points on their resumes, have announced that the service now has one million users. Still in beta and technically invite-only (though invitations are now easy to find), Joost was one of the most-talked-about tech products of last year. Originally known by the Bond-worthy codename "The Venice Project," Joost was widely touted as a "YouTube killer" before people really knew what it was--in truth, the service is a slick interface for free, ad-supported video content on-demand. No cat videos there.

Joost co-founder Niklas Zennstrom made the announcement while at a Skype press conference in the Eastern European high-tech hub of Tallinn, Estonia.

The catch is that one million beta testers absolutely doesn't translate to one million active beta testers. I've been playing with Joost since the early days, and I tend to agree with much of the feedback I've heard about the start-up: amazing interface, effective peer-to-peer architecture, but a noticeable lack of worthwhile content. Last I checked, the most worthwhile draws were still National Geographic documentaries, a few CNN talk shows, and Aqua Teen Hunger Force. (I'm in Boston right now. Will I get in trouble for saying that?)

Right now, my beta account lies fallow, and I'm sure at least a handful of the other million users could say the same. But when Joost starts offering an impressive lineup of the stuff that I've been either recording on my DVR or buying from the iTunes Store--right now, for the record, my current must-watch is AMC's Mad Men--then I'll start tuning in again.

The 'Tux car' during a qualifying round.

(Credit: Indianapolis Motor Speedway)

When the pale blue "Linux car," also known as car #77 from Chastain Motorsports, was the first car to crash in the 91st Indianapolis 500 on Sunday, we can imagine hordes of geeks wishing it had been a "Vista car" instead. Imagine the "blue screen of death" jokes that could have resulted!

The Linux car, as you probably know already, was the result of a campaign called Tux 500, jump-started by two enthusiasts named Bob Moore and Ken Starks. They solicited donations from fellow Linux fans in a "community powered Linux marketing program" to make the open-source operating system a household name by putting its logo on a race car. Unfortunately, it's likely going to be remembered as "the car that placed last."

The race fared better for the "Joost car," car #2 from Vision Racing. While we've heard from more than a few beta testers who say Joost's downloadable software has a tendency to crash on occasion, that didn't happen for the Joost-branded car in the Indy 500, which ended up placing seventh. Mashable speculates that the car may have been a result of the deal between the peer-to-peer video start-up and Indy 500 parent organization IndyCar Series. There's an IndyCar branded channel on Joost, which features footage from Sunday's race (tip: use plenty of slow-mo and pausing when Marco Andretti's car bites it) as well as from all Indy 500 races dating back to 1990.

Most well-funded Web 2.0 start-ups spend their extra capital on logo T-shirts, Frisbees, or beer mugs. But if you're the ever-classy Joost, the hush-hush online video start-up, you make a commercial to explain your product. I'm not sure whether this will actually be shown on televisions in one country or another, or if it'll stay on the Web. Ironically, it's being distributed via YouTube, which is certainly going to be one of its foremost rivals.

I think the commercial is a little dull. It could use some Diet Coke and Mentos.

(Adverblog via PSFK)

Sure, the Internet is abuzz with news about the "YouTube killer" that several major media companies just announced yesterday, but let's not forget that other supposed YouTube killer, Joost. The broadband video start-up from the founders of Skype and Kazaa, which announced a major content partnership with Viacom last month, has a new deal that's sure to excite the party animal and nightclubbing crowd.

Joost, which is still in private beta, announced Friday that it's partnering with dance music hub Ministry of Sound's broadband video division, Ministry of Sound TV (MoSTV). When Joost launches to the public (whenever that is), it'll feature two branded MoSTV channels with dance music and lifestyle programming from all over the world. One of the two will feature exclusively music videos--take that, MTV.

Now that Joost will be offering a channel devoted to dance music videos, maybe it'll gain popularity in a new sector as a tech-savvy party tool that you can play in the background of your next soiree. Who knows?

Hey TiVo, Slingbox, AppleTV, and everyone else who's trying to "bridge the content gap" between TV and broadband video--Joost might really pack a powerful punch. The start-up from the founders of Skype and Kazaa has been all over the news recently with new content deals, a Mac beta version, and an agreement in the works with Viacom to distribute programming from such cable mainstays as MTV and Comedy Central.

Last week, it was announced that the previously Windows-only private beta version of Joost would be available for Intel-based Macs. At the same time, Joost released new content from a whole host of partners, including National Geographic documentaries and classic cartoons like Rocky & Bullwinkle. (That one has me really pumped!)

But more importantly, just weeks after asking YouTube to pull any of its copyrighted content, media giant Viacom has opted to license its content to Joost. So when the peer-to-peer video software is launched in full--and there's no date set yet--you'll be able to watch content from MTV, BET, Comedy Central, VH1, Paramount Pictures, and other Viacom-owned brands. Though it doesn't look like there will be any South Park or Colbert Report yet, there will be a smattering of new and old Viacom programming with more rolling out in the future.

There will certainly be more news and updates about Joost as it comes closer to launch: my personal prediction is that we'll be seeing some Internet TV equipment manufacturers trying to strike deals that will bring Joost's interface and content to televisions. But who knows? We'll keep you posted.

Previously: Webware takes Joost for a test run.