“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]

It’s not the fault of the ISPs, never mind that they are, according to McGuinness, “destroying the recorded music industry” by failing to tackle piracy. Nor is it the fault of Apple (AAPL) and the makers of other digital media players who are wrongly profiting from their “burglary kits.” Nor can it be blamed solely on Silicon Valley and its “entrepreneurial, hippie values,” which in McGuinness’s opinion have bred a deep disregard for the true value of music.

No, it appears there’s no one to blame for this particular cock-up but Universal Music, which mistakenly put the album up for sale earlier this week at getmusic.com.au. It was only available there for a brief period, but there was time enough for fans to buy it legally. Not surprisingly, copies of the record began showing up on torrent indexes a short while later.

An embarrassing turn of events for a band that had gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent exactly this situation from happening. Still, as TechDirt’s Mike Masnick notes, there’s a lesson to be learned here. “At some point, folks in the music industry are going to (finally) recognize a rather simple fact: it just takes one digital copy of a song/movie/whatever to get out there, and it’s everywhere. You can’t stop it. No matter how annoying it is. No matter what laws it violates. It will happen.”

How could a company whose Chief Internet Evangelist, Vint Cerf, once told the Senate Commerce Committee that allowing “broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success,” approach those carriers with a proposal that would seemingly do just that?

There’s a very simple answer to that question: Google is not doing that, and reports suggesting that is are misguided. Yes, Google (GOOG) “has approached major cable and phone companies” with a plan to “place Google servers directly within the network of the service providers.” Yes, this plan would improve content delivery speeds.

And, no, doing so does not violate the concept of network neutrality. If it did, companies like Akamai and Limelight, which also have servers hosted at broadband provider facilities, would long ago have been tarred as anti-Net neutrality villains. Colocating caching servers is a common practice that improves bandwidth usage by bringing data closer to the end user. And while it will certainly make Google’s services faster and more responsive, it won’t do so at the expense of non-Google services. That would be a violation of Net neutrality.

“Some critics have questioned whether improving Web performance through edge caching–temporary storage of frequently accessed data on servers that are located close to end users–violates the concept of network neutrality,” Richard Whitt, Google’s Washington telecom and media counsel explains. “As I said last summer, this myth–which unfortunately underlies a confused story in Monday’s Wall Street Journal–is based on a misunderstanding of the way in which the open Internet works…. All of Google’s colocation agreements with ISPs–which we’ve done through projects called OpenEdge and Google Global Cache–are non-exclusive, meaning any other entity could employ similar arrangements. Also, none of them require (or encourage) that Google traffic be treated with higher priority than other traffic.”

So Google is not negotiating exclusive deals for privileged access. It is not proposing “a fast lane for its own content.” It is not seeking to prioritize its traffic in violation of the Net neutrality principles it espouses. Frankly, this story has little to do with Net neutrality at all. “Network neutrality is about the routing of packets,” Tech Liberation Front’s Tim Lee explained earlier this year when Akamai was accused of violating Net neutrality. “A network is neutral if it faithfully transmits information from one end of the network to the other and doesn’t discriminate among packets based on their contents. Neutrality is, in other words, about the behavior of the routers that move packets around the network. It has nothing to do with the behavior of servers at the edges of the network because they don’t route anyone’s packets.”

Denied Internet access by Global Crossing and Hurricane Electric, bot-hosting network McColo is clearly having trouble spewing out spam and malware. There has been a 41 percent drop in spam volume since the Washington Post story broke.

Sadly, it’s certain to rise again, once McColo finds some new upstream providers.
(Thanks to reader Dave Barnes for the tip.)

There is damning evidence that this activity has been going on there for way too long, and plenty of people in the security community have gone out of their way to raise awareness about this network, but nobody seems to care.”

– Paul Ferguson, a threat researcher with computer security firm Trend Micro

According to security experts, Web-hosting outfit McColo is responsible for enabling the broadcast of more than 75 percent of all spam globally. Its client list is a rogues gallery of bad-guy syndicates involved in everything from botnets to counterfeit pharmaceuticals and kiddie porn. So how is it that MoColo’s ISPs, Hurricane Electric and Global Crossing, were unaware of that until notified by a Washington Post reporter?

I’m not sure there’s a good answer to that question, though it would certainly be interesting to hear one. Almost as interesting as hearing the two ISPs explain away their network traffic from known criminal botnets Mega-D, Srizbi, Pushdo, Rustock and Warezov, all of which have their master servers hosted at McColo.

“We shut them down,” Benny Ng, director of marketing for Hurricane Electric, told the Post. “We looked into it a bit, saw the size and scope of the problem you were reporting and said ‘Holy cow!’ Within the hour we had terminated all of our connections to them.”

“Holy cow?” More like, “Holy cow, someone finally noticed we’re the preferred ISP of a massive criminal syndicate! What do we do?!?”

“ISPs can’t take the ‘I see nothing, I hear nothing’ approach to this content,” said Mark Rasch, a former cyber crime prosecutor for the Justice Department. “It’s a little bit like a landlord who owns a building and sees people coming in and out of the apartment complex constantly at all hours and not suspecting their may be drug activity going on. There are certain things that raise red flags, such as the nature, volume, source and destination of the Internet traffic, that can and should raise red flags. And to have so many third parties looking at the volume and content from this Internet provider saying ‘This is outrageous,’ clearly the people doing the hosting should know that as well.”

In the future, “heavy users” of Comcast’s broadband service may face not just a periodic slowing–sorry, deprioritizing–of their service, but a capping of that service as well. Broadband Reports brings word today that Comcast plans to implement a 250GB broadband cap come October. “The intent appears to be to go after the people who consistently download far more than the typical user, without hurting those who may have a really big month infrequently,” a source familiar with the plan told BroadBand Reports. Indeed it does. Certainly, 250GB is quite a bit higher than the 5-40 GB caps being considered by some other providers. Still, it’s not exactly the “unlimited” service Comcast has sometimes touted in its marketing materials.

So what happens should one hit Comcast’s cap or exceed it? Comcast (CMCSA) says first-time transgressions will be addressed with an “excessive use” call from Comcast’s Customer Security Assurance group. But hit the cap twice in six months and you’ll be looking for a new ISP. “If a customer surpasses 250 GBs and is one of the top users of the service for a second time within a six-month time frame, his or her service will be subject to termination for one year,” Comcast explains in its Excessive Use FAQ. “After the one-year period expires, the customer may resume service by subscribing to a service plan appropriate to his or her needs.”

Assuming he or she is still willing to give Comcast his or her business.

And just how does the FCC propose to do this?

By asking Comcast to change its ways.

Rather than sanctioning the company, the FCC will require Comcast (CMCSA) to stop interfering with Internet traffic on its network, explain to the Commission how it has blocked such traffic in the past and publicly disclose how it plans to manage its network in the future. “We would tell Comcast that they have to stop engaging in that practice,” Martin said earlier this month. “They have to disclose to the commission where they are engaging in that practice.”

The proposal will be put to a final vote Aug. 1. If it’s approved it could set a precedent that will undoubtedly inspire other Internet service providers to rethink their “traffic management” practices as Comcast has.

There, Internet service providers, and we’re talking all of them, have agreed to block access not just to sites and newsgroups alleged to contain child pornography, but to those alleged to feature materials promoting terrorism or racial hatred as well.

“We can no longer tolerate the sexual exploitation of children in the form of child pornography,” Interior Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said in a speech today. “We have come to an agreement: access to child pornography sites will be blocked in France. Other democracies have done it. France could wait no longer.” And then, pledging her support for the “fundamental liberty that is Internet access,” she added: “This is not a question of creating a Big Brother on the Internet.”

Well, not yet anyway.

Prodded into action by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Verizon (VZ), Sprint (S) and Time Warner Cable (TWX) have agreed to block Web sites identified by Cuomo as ones that disseminate child pornography. They’ve also agreed to restrict access nationwide to most, and in the case of Time Warner Cable all, of Usenet’s discussion groups, most of which are not repositories of illegal material. To repeat, Time Warner will now block all of USENET.

“It’s going to make a significant difference,” Cuomo said of the agreement. “It’s like the issue of drugs. You can attack the users or the suppliers. This is turning off the faucet. Does it solve the problem? No. But is it a major step forward? Yes. And it’s ongoing. No one is saying you’re supposed to be the policemen on the Internet, but there has to be a paradigm where you cooperate with law enforcement, or if you have notice of a potentially criminal act, we deem you responsible to an extent. This literally threatens our children, and there can be no higher priority than keeping our children safe.”

Of course. A noble effort, this curtailing of access to child pornography. It would just be unfortunate if it became the first step in widespread Internet censorship.

At the Music Matters confab in Hong Kong, McGuinness slagged broadband Internet service providers, accusing them of aiding and abetting music piracy while CD sales and royalty payments to musicians plunge. “The recorded music industry is in a crisis, and there is crucial help available but not being provided by companies who should be providing that help–not just because it is morally right, but because it is in their commercial interest,” said McGuinness, adding that Internet service providers have been “turning their heads” away from the music industry’s troubles. “One way or another, ISPs and mobile operators are the business partners of the future for the recorded-music business. But they are going to have to share the money in a way that reflects what music is doing for their business. The music business once had to bear the accusation that it was full of dinosaurs who looked back to an old business model rather than embracing a new one,” McGuinness said. “Today, though, it is the music business that is charting the way to the future. If there are dinosaurs around today, I think they are the Internet free-thinkers of the past who believe that copyright is the great obstacle to progress, that the distributors of content should enjoy profits without responsibilities and that the creators and producers of music should simply subordinate their rights to the rights of everyone else.”

By Internet free-thinkers, McGuinness presumably means those crazy longhairs in Silicon Valley whom he accused of destroying the recorded music industry in another keynote address back in January. “Embedded deep down in the brilliance of those entrepreneurial, hippy values seems to be a disregard for the true value of music,” he said at the time. “I suggest we shift the focus of moral pressure away from the individual P2P file thief and on to the multibillion dollar industries that benefit from these countless tiny crimes: the ISPs [internet service providers] the telcos [telecom companies], the device-makers. … We must shame them into wanting to help us. Their snouts have been at our trough feeding free for too long.”

Out of the car, longhair …