Vuze Blog

Net Neutrality: Vuze Joins 24 Leading Companies

Today, Vuze co-signed a letter to the FCC supporting an open Internet with a group of 24 internet CEOs and founders, including Amazon, Craigslist, Digg, eBay, Facebook, Flickr, Google, IAC, LinkedIn, Skype, Tivo, Twitter, YouTube, and Zynga.

Back in 2007-08, Vuze was an early advocate for the net neutrality movement when we took Comcast to task for unfairly discriminating against p2p traffic.  The FCC agreed with us, and vowed to prevent cable companies and ISPs from unfairly discriminating against internet traffic in the future.  Since then, we’ve continued to consistently encourage the FCC to actively guard net neutrality.

As a small start-up, this government advocacy takes up valuable time, resources, and executive bandwidth.  However, the Vuze team firmly believes that the net neutrality cause is well worth our efforts.  There is an inherent conflict of interest in network providers (cable companies / ISPs) providing content services while arguing that they should be allowed to prioritize some content types over others.  The Comcast debacle proved the danger of not remaining vigilant, and since then, other cable operators have gone down a similarly dangerous path.

At the end of the day, Vuze simply wants a level playing field.  This is why we continue to advocate net neutrality, and why we were pleased to sign today’s letter, reinforcing the idea that:

An open Internet fuels a competitive and efficient marketplace, where consumers make the ultimate choices about which products succeed and which fail. This allows businesses of all sizes, from the smallest startup to larger corporations, to compete, yielding maximum economic growth and opportunity.

Read more here, here, here, and here.

Gilles

Tags: comcast, fcc, net neutrality, vuze

Vuze Advises FCC On National Broadband Plan

Big Ideas Workshop at the FCC

TV Everywhere is like oil companies saying “Oh you can have all the electric cars you want, as long as you still spend $250/month on gas.”

Last week, Vuze was asked to participate in an FCC workshop focused on Internet TV and its implications for national broadband policy.  The workshop was organized by Jon Peha, the FCC’s Chief Technologist, and aimed to inform the FCC as it charts the course on the National Broadband Plan.  It was great to be back at the FCC again, after our very productive conversation last year surrounding the Comcast throttling issue.

Vuze CEO Gilles BianRosa and FCC Chief Technologist Jon Peha

A few themes emerged from the workshop that I found particularly compelling.

First, within the broadband video ecosystem, we discussed how troubling it is that both the delivery system and the content are dominated by very large incumbents that prefer to operate without meaningful competition. If you think about it, the “TV Everywhere” concept under development by the cable operators is an attempt to ensure that consumers will still pay their TV cable bill, even if they don’t need it anymore. It’s like oil companies saying “Oh you can have all the electric cars you want, as long as you still spend $250/month on gas.”

Second, and very related, online video content should be separate from the network pipes it rides on. There is an inherent conflict of interest in network providers (cable companies / ISPs) providing content services, especially when they’re also arguing that they should be allowed to prioritize some content types over others.

And third, we continued to be your advocate in arguing for the ability to move your content around and watch it anywhere, anytime you want (PC, Mac, Mobile, TV), unencumbered by format incompatibilities and DRM handcuffs. Let’s face it, you already have this benefit through DVDs and MP3s. Why should the broadband video experience be any different?

At the end of the day, as an entrepreneur, I find it really bothering that cable companies are using their two-pronged monopoly (on TV content access and internet access) to arm-twist their way into broadband video, and trying to prevent innovative, more consumer-friendly concepts to emerge. Think about what e-commerce would be today if it had been left to WalMart to invent, instead of Amazon or Ebay…

You can read more in my opening statement posted here and you can view a webcast here.

Gilles

Tags: fcc, vuze

Believe in the Future

“I’m a guy who doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet.  Period.”

- Michael Lynton, CEO Sony Pictures Entertainment

Over the weekend, I caught up on the news and came across this quote from the CEO of Sony Pictures.  It reminded me of an old quote from a Hollywood leader in a bygone era:

“Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?”

- Harry Warner, President of Warner Brothers (1927)

After getting over my initial disbelief and amusement, I came to realize that it’s tempting to be pessimistic about this new medium.  Media’s early forays onto the Internet showed great promise on the dream of delivering content to consumers  anytime and anywhere.  To date, however, we’ve only delivered on part of the promise.  We’ve built the technologies for distributing media over the Internet, but the industry has only begun to solve the business model side of how we productively monetize this distribution.

As a result, Sony and others find themselves navigating through a formidable set of challenges:

• The Internet has enabled widespread piracy
• The economics of video on demand haven’t emerged (yet) as a viable replacement for the industry’s DVD business
• The music industry’s business model has been disrupted by the “unbundling” of songs (good for users, challenging for the industry)
• Segments of the younger generation are watching less and less TV, and spending more and more time online and playing video games.

Like every other distribution platform before it (radio, TV, VHS, e-commerce), online media distribution is being adopted by users much faster than by content owners and advertisers, thereby leading to a short-term net destruction in value.

So, if you’re a studio executive, how do you begin to navigate these turbulent waters?  One thing is for sure — ignoring the sea change going on around us is not an option.  Cowering in fear at the thought of translating “analog dollars into digital dimes” will have only one effect — converting these dimes into pennies.  Rather, we believe content owners ought to adopt the burning platform paradigm.  Recognize that content distribution will be heavily disrupted anyway, and that the worst strategy is to move too slowly. Instead, experiment like your business is at stake:

• Understand the need to re-think and evolve Hollywood’s traditional licensing windows (ad-supported versus purchase or rental)
• Understand the user experience that end consumers desire (HD versus SD, streaming versus download, PC viewing versus devices)
• Evaluate the real trade-offs that DRM introduces
• Understand WHY people are free-riding content today, since these same people also spend more money than the average Internet users on non-digital platforms (more on this later).

Technological disruption can be brutal and uncomfortable for a CEO in the media industry navigating turbulent waters.  However, nothing good can emerge from a focus on short-term pain rather than long-term gain.  The key is to focus on what’s important to the end consumer, and what this consumer would be willing to pay for what’s important to them.

Consumers are changing.  Let’s change with them, and identify business models that embrace this change.

None of us want to end up with a quote like this to our name:

“While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially I consider it to be an impossibility…a development of which we need waste little time dreaming.”

- Lee DeForest, a pioneer in the development of radio (1926)

Gilles

Cox Cable Delaying Traffic: Comcast Revisited?

Like many of you, we’re watching with growing concern recent announcements by Cox Cable that they’ll be taking steps to classify different types of Internet traffic as  “time-sensitive” and “non-time-sensitive,” and may “delay” certain traffic deemed to be “non-time-sensitive.”   Squarely on the list of “non-time-sensitive” (read “second-class citizen”) is all traffic using peer-to-peer protocols.  That includes all bittorrent applications, including your Vuze application.   We take that personally, and think you should too.

Cox outlined their plans at a very high level in their recently published Congestion Management Policy.   The complete list of low priority uses includes:

• File Access (bulk transfers of data such as FTP)
• Network Storage (bulk transfers of data for storage)
• P2P (peer-to-peer protocols)
• Software Updates (managed updates such as operating system updates)
• Usenet (newsgroup related).

That means if you’re engaged in any of these apparently “second-class” activities and the network gets bogged down, you may see your connection slow — even though you’re paying the same price as everyone else for access. Cox’s announcement also notes that the low-priority list may change or expand in the future.  Of course, the one of these that hits home for us (and you) is “peer-to-peer.”

Here’s what concerns us.  While Cox may consider our content and business to be unimportant or of lower priority, all of the content we deliver through the Vuze HD Network is delivered using our bittorrent-protocol-based technology.    That means that when you’re downloading Vuze content using Vuze, whether its a PBS documentary, the latest episode of “Pink” or some great user published content, it will automatically be classified as “non-time-sensitive,” and thus may be subject to delay at Cox’s sole discretion.  Suffice it to say, our 10 million users who access over a petabyte of Vuze HD Network content every month care about “delay” of their content.

This is all both odd and troubling.  On the list of “time-sensitive” activities entitled to higher priority is “streaming video and audio.”  Apparently, Cox doesn’t know or perhaps doesn’t care that we offer a progressive download (“virtual streaming”) option for much of our content.   Like other streaming experiences, you push “Play” and within seconds the content begins playing for the user.  That’s the experience our users expect.  So it would appear that under the new Cox regime YouTube and Hulu (and of course Cox services) are high priority, while Vuze’s similar services are relegated to the back of the bus.

Granted, Cox’s new classification system does not appear to mean that content will be automatically “delayed,” but it’s unclear what the criterion will be for making the determinations of the nature and extent of any delay.  Nor is it clear what the actual impact will be on the Vuze user experience or others who enjoy the benefits of peer-to-peer technologies.  This greatly concerns us.  There’s no doubt that Cox would minimize such potential impact, but we are loath to trust the judgments of a network operator about what does or does not hurt our business, particularly when they too are in the content business.

It also remains to be seen whether Cox’s plan and actions fully comply with the standards enunciated in the FCC’s recent order against Comcast.  Some of you will recall that Vuze became involved last year in a similar controversy with Comcast.  In that case, Comcast was accused of improperly interfering with Internet traffic through the use of false reset packets, also known as the “man in the middle” technique.  Several consumer groups filed complaints at the FCC against Comcast, and Vuze filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting the FCC to promulgate a set of clear rules that would govern “reasonable network management.”  Vuze even testified at the FCC’s first field hearing at Harvard University.

The FCC eventually came down hard on Comcast, finding that their use of false resent packets was an “unreasonable” network management technique and a violation of Federal law and policy.  In the Comcast case, the FCC found that Comcast’s interference with peer-to-peer protocols appeared to contravene the federal policy of “promot[ing] the continued development of the Internet” because that interference impedes consumers from “run[ning] applications . . . of their choice, … including the video programming made available by vendors like Vuze.”  [Comcast Order, p. 25]

It remains to be seen whether Cox’s techniques will withstand FCC scrutiny, particularly under a new FCC Chairman to be appointed by President Obama, a known supporter of net neutrality.

Not surprisingly, FreePress.net, one of the original complainants against Comcast, was quick to express concern over the Cox announcement:

As a general rule, we’re concerned about any cable or phone company picking winners and losers online. These kinds of practices cut against the fundamental neutrality of the open Internet. We urge the FCC to subject this practice to close scrutiny and call on Cox to provide its customers with more technical details about exactly what it’s doing.”

We join Free Press and others in calling for close scrutiny by the FCC of Cox’s activities affecting peer-to-peer traffic.  In the meantime, we will also be taking steps to monitor instances of actual interference with the delivery of our programming.  Fortunately, this task just got a bit easier thanks to the efforts of Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist, Vint Cerf, and Google who, working with MLab, recently made available online tools for measuring interference with bittorrent traffic.  We encourage all of you to use them and speak out about any irregularities.

Thanks for helping to keep Vuze and the Internet open and free.

Jay Monahan

General Counsel

The next step towards an open and free Internet

FCC Chairman, Kevin Martin’s conclusion last week that Comcast had been improperly blocking bittorrent traffic was, for us, a major milestone in what has been an exciting journey that began in November of last year.

We had known for some time that ISPs were throttling bittorrent traffic, and we realized that our vantage point on the industry put us in a unique position to stand up for what’s right. So we decided we had to take action. We filed a petition with the FCC asking them to put in place clear rules on the issue of ISP network management practices.

Since then we have testified at an FCC hearing at Harvard, attended a second hearing at Stanford, joined with our community to monitor traffic throttling practices, and published our findings. All along the way, we have been overwhelmed by the support we have received from our community of users, from their comments in forums to their participation in collecting data with our plug-in.

So, we were thrilled to learn of Chairman Martin’s conclusion and to hear that he agreed with our cry of “foul!”. We were particularly pleased that Chairman Martin asked Comcast to be transparent with consumers about their past practices and future plans for network management. From the outset we have said that, to be fully effective, rules must be accompanied by a requirement for transparency into what ISPs are actually doing.

The Chairman’s statements do not yet represent the view of the full Commission. However, we hope the other four Commissioners have the courage to follow Chairman Martin’s lead and adopt a decisive order condemning the use of the “man in the middle” technique and other similar network management tactics. And while we await the Commission’s decision, we will continue to push for the rules we believe are required to create an open and free Internet that will benefit consumers everywhere.

Jay and the Vuze Team

Reflections on the Comcast-BitTorrent “Detente”

I read the news this week of an arrangement between Comcast and BitTorrent, Inc. (called a “non-deal” by some) with great interest. My initial reaction was “Great, Comcast has finally seen the light. Cooperation is a good thing.” Then I took a moment to put it all in perspective and reflect back on our original objectives when we filed our Petition for Rulemaking with the FCC in November 2007. Here are my thoughts.

First, let’s call a spade a spade here. Comcast got caught with its hand squarely in the cookie jar. It publicly denied it was engaging in questionable “traffic shaping” practices, but was doing so all along. It was only after a news organization investigation confirmed its activities that Comcast came clean. For years, Comcast engaged in definitional gymnastics by denying that it was blocking “particular companies or applications,” but all the while it was engaging in “man-in-the-middle” attacks intended to interfere with seeding activities of all bit-torrent protocol based applications, like Vuze.

Comcast eventually testified at the FCC’s hearing at Harvard, along with Vuze and directly acknowledged its tactics. However, Comcast took the debate to another level, stating that there are no FCC rules that limit what Comcast can do in “managing” traffic over its network, and the FCC has no authority to make any. Simultaneously, Comcast was amending its User Agreement to make crystal clear that they can do pretty much whatever they want in the name of network management. Not surprisingly, there are now two class action lawsuits pending against Comcast by Comcast users.

Then, Chairman Martin decided that further hearings were required, this time to be held at Stanford. It’s not clear whether the Chairman wanted to gather more information or whether he was troubled by the fact that Comcast paid “seat-fillers” to stand in line and take seats at the hearing (and in some cases sleep during the proceedings). The speaker line-up for the Stanford hearings remains in flux, but Comcast certainly does not want to be on the hot seat again.

Next comes the announcement of “cooperation” between Comcast and BitTorrent, Inc., the company. Is this announcement a clever PR campaign or does it hold the prospect of real cooperation and benefits to the industry and consumers? It is probably a bit of both, but let’s be clear about what it is not.

First, it is not a detente between Comcast and the bit-torrent world. While BitTorrent, Inc’s founder, Bram Cohen, created the original open source bit-torrent protocol, for which he should be commended, many companies have improved on it since, including significantly Vuze. The fact that the protocol is called “bit-torrent” is increasingly a matter of legacy, not invention. In any event, scores of companies, including Vuze, have built their own free-standing applications based upon the protocol. BitTorrent Inc. itself represents only a fraction of the bit-torrent-based applications being used today, and has no control over the many millions of bit-torrent based applications on desktop computers around the world. I have little doubt that Comcast wanted its announcement to be perceived as a sort of universal resolution of its differences with the bit-torrent world, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Second, no matter what value there is in cooperating with Comcast, Comcast is but one company. They control only their own actions. There are over a dozen Internet network operators in America, both cable companies and telephone companies, many of whom are believed to be engaging in their own “traffic shaping” (i.e. throttling) practices. Comcast’s actions do nothing to create transparency as to what those companies are doing, much less to place any restrictions on their actions. Whose cookie jars do they have their hands in? Remember, it is Comcast that told us that there are no laws governing network management practices, and the FCC cannot make any.

In the hopes of shedding some light on the nationwide practices of network operators, Vuze has created and distributed a software “plug-in” which is intended to monitor network interference and report back to Vuze. If we are able to gather some meaningful data, we will surely share it with the world. What this debate needs is facts, not more press announcements.

This brings me full circle. When we filed our petition for rulemaking with the FCC in November, 2007, we stated that both regulation and meaningful industry cooperation are necessary to protect consumer rights and foster innovation. We still believe that. Whether you believe that Comcast’s cozying up to BitTorrent, Inc. arises out of genuine enlightenment or is just a publicity stunt, in my view it changes nothing in terms of our original Petition.

Network operators already have demonstrated their willingness to engage in mischief that harms consumers. For years they said that market forces will solve all ills and that network management restrictions were a “solution in search of a problem.” Both turned out to be untrue. We are at a point where non-binding policy statements and assurances of good faith are no longer sufficient. Innovative companies like Vuze rely critically on the pipes controlled by network operators to deliver their service to consumers. It is unreasonable to expect companies like Vuze to compete in a world where there are no clear, enforceable rules to keep bad behavior in check. There is even greater cause for concern when the company that controls the pipes also is your competitor, as is Comcast with its own video offerings.

The FCC should adopt enforceable rules that protect all consumers against improper throttling tactics that threaten the ability to consume rich media. Ultimately, only the rule of law will compel network operators to stay on the straight and narrow. While we give the benefit of the doubt to Comcast and BitTorrent, Inc. that their cooperation may hold promise, we will continue to urge the FCC to move forward with our Petition with all due dispatch.

Jay Monahan
General Counsel
Vuze

Back to Vuze

Help Us Gather Data on Internet Traffic Throttling!

Is your Internet Service Provider interfering with your Internet traffic? There is an important debate going on regarding this very issue. Vuze has taken a stand on behalf of our users by asking the Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules that would protect consumers against unfair bandwidth throttling practices and require ISPs to tell all of us exactly what they are doing. The FCC held a public hearing at Harvard last month, and is still considering our request, but a growing number of groups and individuals are weighing in with their own concerns. The FCC is holding a second hearing on this topic at Stanford University on April 17th.

We at Vuze decided there was something important you can do to help elevate the debate. We created a simple software “plug-in” that works with your Vuze application to gather information about potential interference with your Internet traffic. Specifically, this small piece of software monitors your network connections and every ten minutes measures the number of interrupted connections (called “reset tcp connections”) and then displays the results to you. By selecting the “share results” check-box you can also share these results with our central server, which will enable us to then aggregate the results and compare them across ISPs. We encourage you to share your results with us!

Be assured that sharing this data with us does not involve disclosure of any of your personally identifiable information. We will aggregate the data and may talk about it or disclose it publicly, but no data about any specific user will be disclosed as part of this effort. The plug-in will have a negligible impact on your network usage.

If you are interested in participating in this research you need only download the plug-in from Sourceforge.net (which also helps us distribute the whole Vuze application)

It’s very easy and takes only a moment. Right now the plug-in only works on PCs, not Macs, but we are actively working on future versions. Vuze and Azureus users from all countries are welcome to participate. Alternatively, you can install the plug-in using the “Plug-In Wizard” built into our application. We also put a video on our site that shows you how to use the Plug-In Wizard. Finally, for those who are interested, we are working on a more advanced version of the plug-in. When it becomes available, we’ll let you know.

Thanks for helping with this important research. We hope that contributing more complete factual data to the traffic throttling debate will lead to a better Internet for everyone.

For more information about our FCC Petition, check out the live testimony of Vuze CEO Gilles BianRosa speaking before the FCC, our Internet Future Hub Page and Internet Future Channel.

Oh, and one more thing. If you want to discuss the plug-in, the FCC or traffic throttling, go to our forums and express yourself!

Thanks.

Jay Monahan
General Counsel
Vuze

Tomorrow’s Internet

Today, the Future of the Internet was an omnipresent topic at the FCC Hearings on Network Management and P2P throttling, at the Harvard Law School, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

I thought the FCC showed leadership, by organizing high-profile hearings, just 3 months after Vuze and various consumer groups filed petitions and complaints. Policy-makers, academics, network operators, and pioneer companies like Vuze got to offer their perspectives on what basic principles should guide the Evolution of the Internet.

Well, here’s my view of the world, based on today’s discussion. The Internet needs:
1) Uncompromised Openness,
2) Transparent, Undiscriminating Network Management Rules,
3) Oh, and err, bigger pipes.

There was overwhelming support for an Open Internet, like we know it today, and overwhelming concern around Comcast’s and other ISPs tinkering behind the scenes, attempting to block or slow certain protocols and applications, particularly P2P-based services like Vuze. Innovation created the Internet. Innovation evolves the Internet. For startups like Vuze and others, innovation means inventing new ways to consume an ever-richer menu of the digital content that people demand. If the Internet isn’t an open, level playing field, we just can’t effectively compete. As a 50 person company, located above a Chinese restaurant in Palo Alto (the old Facebook office!), we don’t have the resources that large corporations have, and yet it should be obvious by now that Internet startups innovate faster and better than incumbent, inventing and building services that consumers love.

Want us to keep it up? Keep it Open.

Everyone, including us, agreed today that reasonable network management is appropriate. It benefits all of us, companies and consumers alike. What we can’t tolerate is network management with no boundaries. Now, let’s define “reasonable”; it means transparent, undiscriminating, not anti-competitive. We simply cannot rely on bare assurances of good faith from Network Operators. In essence, Comcast said today “Don’t worry, we’ll take care of Vuze and others just fine”. Maybe, maybe not. Application providers like Vuze need specific disclosures on how network management practices are affecting their service, so that they can remain in control of the experience that consumers will ultimately hold us accountable for. Obviously, consumers also need clarity on what to expect from their Internet service provider, like “Nutrition Facts” for internet access.

Finally, selectively blocking certain types of protocols, like P2P is unacceptable. It unfairly (and unnecessarily) puts innovative services that people demand at a disadvantage. In a world where ISPs also use their own pipes to deliver their own content, these things could be a pretty big deal.

ISPs should stop complaining that consumers want more bandwidth, since that’s what they sell. That should be wonderful news for them, right? Network Operators (at least some) need to increase the capacity of their networks. There is no way around it. We see overwhelming demand for high-resolution (HD anyone?) video content that is, yes, bandwidth-intensive. Many people during the hearing referred to the US as a “third world country” when it comes to its Internet infrastructure. While that’s bit of an overstatement (not to mention insensitive, since poor countries have other priorities than broadband Internet), it’s definitely true that Old Europe and parts of Asia have done a much better job at investing into fast, P2P-friendly network infrastructures that do a better job meeting consumer demand for rich media services.

Overall, today could very well be a defining moment for the Internet, given the stakes. That will depend on the emergence of some pointed regulation, and on more cooperation between network operators and innovative service providers like Vuze. We’re happy to play our part.

Gilles.