“The majority of all internet traffic is file sharing, which is why nothing other than the new IPRED law can explain this major drop in traffic,” Anti-piracy Agency lawyer Henrik Pontén told Metro. “This sends a very strong signal that the legislation works.” Christian Engstrom, vice chairman of the Pirate Party, a group seeking copyright law reform, agreed, but said the decline is likely to be only temporary. Once the public realizes that the odds of being busted for file-sharing are low, Internet traffic will return to normal levels again. “Today, there is a very drastic reduction in internet traffic,” Engstrom told The BBC. “But experience from other countries suggests that while file-sharing drops on the day a law is passed, it starts climbing again. One of the reasons is that it takes people a few weeks to figure out how to change their security settings so that can share files anonymously. We estimate there are two million file-sharing [computers] in Sweden, so even if they prosecuted a 1,000 people to make an example of them, for an individual user it is still a very small risk.”

[Image credit: Chart courtesy Royal Pingdom]

Now, Perrelli’s CV is impressive. He was counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration. But his cozy relationship with the RIAA makes his appointment a bit of an eyebrow-raiser. And the entertainment industry’s $7,669,442 in contributions to the Obama campaign certainly doesn’t help matters.

Writes News.com’s Declan McCullagh: “During [Perrelli's] confirmation hearing, it will be instructive to see if senators ask whether his zealous anti-file sharing advocacy can make him an objective civil servant–especially when these same politicians want the Justice Department to sue peer-to-peer pirates at taxpayer’s expense. (Then again, if that proposal becomes law, Perrelli’s surely the right man for the job.) It will also be instructive to see if this week’s news prompts some of the RIAA’s longtime adversaries to moderate their enthusiasm for Obama’s technology policies.”

Still, it sounds promising. With downlink speeds in the 2-4Mbps range, Xohm is about twice as fast as current cellular broadband networks. Sprint’s service plans include a $25 monthly home subscription, a $30 “on-the-go” plan and a $10 day-pass program. All three require a PC card or modem and a subscriber agreement permitting Xohm to “use various tools and techniques designed to limit the bandwidth available for certain bandwidth-intensive applications or protocols, such as file sharing.”

So much for that “open network” promise. Well, at least Xohm is up and running, right? Sprint Nextel (S) first announced plans to deploy a nationwide WiMax network in August 2006.

We filed this appeal in order to protect our legal rights and to challenge the basis on which the Commission found that Comcast violated federal policy in the absence of pre-existing legally enforceable standards or rules. We continue to recognize that the Commission has jurisdiction over Internet service providers and may regulate them in appropriate circumstances and in accordance with appropriate procedures. However, we are compelled to appeal because we strongly believe that, in this particular case, the Commission’s action was legally inappropriate and its findings were not justified by the record.”

As legally inappropriate and unjustifiable as Comcast (CMCSA) might find it, the cable company will abide by the FCC’s order during the appeal. And it will forge ahead with plans to develop more net neutrality-friendly network management techniques by the end of the year. Said Cohen, “We will follow through on our longstanding commitment to transition to protocol-agnostic network congestion management practices by the end of this year. We also remain committed to bringing our customers a superior Internet experience.”

Superior Internet experience until you hit that 250GB broadband cap, that is.

And 80% would pay for a legal subscription-based music service that would allow them to discover, swap and recommend music.

Which, if true, illustrates the great disparity between the consumer and industry views of digital music. Because according to the Hertfordshire study, consumers–at least those in this particular age group–view digital music on the Internet as a sort of giant mixed tape to be explored and shared. They don’t have much of an emotional connection with it: “Respondents seem to attach a hierarchy of value to different formats of music, with streaming-on-demand the least valuable (though still valued); ownership of digital files somewhere in the middle; and ownership of the original physical CD the most valuable.”

The recording industry, of course, has failed to recognize that hierarchy. When, and if, it does, the study notes, it may finally succeed in monetizing that mixed-tape ethos that’s befuddled it for so long. “Survey responses suggest that respondents would continue to purchase CDs and go to gigs, even if they subscribed to a legitimate peer-to-peer file-sharing service,” the survey adds. “Fans want to support or pay tribute to their favorite artists and ownership of a digital music file does not necessarily do justice to their sense of devotion.”

This morning the company, which once terrorized the music industry with free peer-to-peer file sharing, launched what it claims is the world’s largest MP3 store. An OS-agnostic shop, Napster’s new storefront offers more than 6 million tracks encoded at 256Kbps and priced at 99 cents apiece. The tracks are free of digital rights management protections and playable on virtually any device–including the iPhone and iPod.

With 6 million songs, Napster (NAPS) has the largest DRM-free catalog of any online retailer. Its selection is about three times the size of Amazon’s (AMZN), and while Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes also boasts a catalog of over 6 million songs, only a fraction of those are offered free of copy restrictions.

But really, does that even matter? Because as compelling as Napster’s new MP3 store might be, it doesn’t have nearly the reach or mindshare of iTunes–which, at last check, was among the most ubiquitous pieces of software around. And how do you compete with ubiquity? Certainly not by failing to support Apple’s Safari browser, that’s for sure.

This morning, Apple’s U.S. iTunes Store began offering six HBO series: “The Wire,” “Flight of the Conchords,” “Sex and the City,” “The Sopranos,” “Rome” and “Deadwood.” The first three are priced at iTunes’ standard rate of $1.99 per episode. The second three are $2.99 each, marking the first time Apple has allowed variable pricing for TV shows in the U.S.

Quite a coup for HBO (TWX), especially given some of the other concessions it was able to win from Apple: HBO programs won’t be offered for purchase on iTunes until they hit the DVD window, and new episodes of series won’t be available until months after their TV premiere.

Back in February the cable company claimed it was perfectly reasonable for it to throttle or degrade the performance of peer-to-peer file-sharing services on its broadband network. But when Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin suggested the agency was mulling action against it, Comcast had a moment of clarity. In March, it said it would work with BitTorrent to develop P2P-friendly network capacity-management techniques. And today it announced plans for an industry-wide effort to create a “P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.”

The document–which is to be created with the help of other Internet service providers, P2P companies and content providers–would specify how ISPs should manage P2P applications running on their networks and how consumers should use them. Said Tony Werner, Comcast Cable’s Chief Technology Officer, “By having this framework in place, we will help P2P companies, ISPs and content owners find common ground to support consumers who want to use P2P applications to deliver legal content.”

And by announcing its plans to create this framework right before the FCC hearing on its P2P-throttling techniques to be held at Stanford (in Palo Alto, Calif.) Thursday, Comcast is hoping the agency won’t take action against it for violating its Net neutrality rules.

At the time, Napster had some 20 million users worldwide and was essentially the de-facto file-sharing standard. Had the RIAA labels agreed to the alliance, they might have turned peer-to-peer distribution into a new and powerful business model, one with low distribution and marketing costs and a fast developing user base. But they didn’t. They chose another route.

Big mistake. Along came Gnutella. And increased broadband penetration and cheaper storage. Along came Kazaa. And then came BitTorrent. And, well, look at the industry now.

Given such history, it’s difficult to look at the recording industry’s plan to have a monthly fee added to consumers’ internet-service bills and not shake your head in wonderment.

Portfolio.com reports that Edgar Bronfman Jr.’s Warner Music Group (TWX) has indeed hired veteran industry consultant Jim Griffin (no relation to Peter, right?) to quarterback a plan under which consumers pay an Internet-access surcharge of $5 a month for the collective right to freely share music. Those fees would be pooled and divvied up among artists and their labels.

“Ideally, music will feel free,” says Griffin. “Even if you pay a flat fee for it, at the moment you use it there are no financial considerations. It’s already been paid for.”

Ah- charge everyone for all music. So it is Monetization Without Representation. OK. But what gives the music industry the right to tax all broadband users because it suspects some of them might illegally share its content? And if the music industry deserves that right, then doesn’t the film industry deserve it as well? And the publishing industry? And any other industry that might benefit from such a tax?

As David Barrett, engineering manager for peer-to-peer networks at Web content-delivery giant Akamai (AKAM), notes Griffin’s plan is problematic. And desperate.

Said Barrett:, “It’s too late to charge people for what they’re already getting for free. This is just taxation of a basic, universal service that already exists, for the benefit a distant power that actively harasses the people being taxed without offering them any meaningful representation.”

It’s a Comcastic day for BitTorrent. This morning the cable provider, under fire for degrading the performance of the peer-to-peer file-sharing service on its broadband network, announced plans to develop better ways to manage peer-to-peer traffic. To that end, Comcast (CMCSA) will work with BitTorrent to develop a network capacity-management technique that is protocol agnostic.

Said Tony Werner, Comcast’s chief technology officer, “This new architecture would enable many new and emerging applications and will be based upon an open, nondiscriminatory framework that could interface with or support multiple technologies. We believe that P2P technology has matured as an enabler for legal content distribution, so we need to have an architecture that can support it with techniques that work over all networks.”

Of course you do. You just didn’t realize it until FCC Chairman Kevin Martin pointed it out, right?

Anyway, like most such corporately altruistic pledges, this one has the potential to do more good than bad–or more bad than good. “… We must recognize that these are two commercial entities whose goals are, in the end, to make sure that their networks and technologies are as profitable as possible,” writes Public Knowledge’s Jef Pearlman. “One can conceive of a world where an ISP and an application developer band together to make a proprietary system in which sanctioned application data gets preferred treatment, the ISP gets greater control of the application running on your computer, and both companies are happy in the exact situation we want to prevent. Time will tell what this partnership actually means.”