Ookla, the global leader in independent broadband testing, has completed a study of all ISPs’ average download speeds in 2011 and found that throughout the year the six fastest ISPs were Comcast, Charter Communications, Cablevision Systems, Time Warner Cable, and Insight Communications. According to the report, Comcast and Charter were found to have an average download speed of 17.19 Megabits per second. Cablevision ranked third at 16.40 Mbps, Cox at fourth at 15.74 Mbps, Time Warner placed fifth at 14.41 Mbps and Insight followed in at sixth at 14.22 Mbps.

Craig Moffett, a senior analyst with Sanford Bernstein, told Multichannel News that cable’s rule over the broadband dominion won’t be ending anytime soon. “As more people are served by higher-speed connections,” said, “more and more applications are evolving to take advantage of them. Customers with lower-speed connections are increasingly being forced to upgrade to higher speed connections… or be left behind.”

In other words, you get movin’ so fast that you can’t slow yourself down.

Verizon was a stand-alone among telco and DSL providers in being the only non-MSO that managed to hold a candle to the cable provider’s broadband speed. Verizon was clocked as having an average download speed of 12.94 Mbps. Other than that, its telco contemporaries and DSL providers, as a comparison, were moving at not-quite-corpse speed. AT&T, for example, averaged a download speed as 4.40 Mbps and Qwest Communications averaged 6.34 Mbps.

Stepping down from a cable modem these days to a telco or DSL provider would probably feel like running into a quicksand trap for many users, especially if the difference is going to be as low as 25% of the download speed you’re used to.

It seems that the high speed dominance of multiple system operators isn’t that big of a secret to Internet users as as Comcast and Time Warner are already the top two worldwide MSOs with 22,360,000 and 12,109,000 subscribers, respectively. Or, alternately, if you’re already tethered to one of these MSOs and were holding out on some impossibly faster ISP out there, well, sorry – you’re not gonna get much faster Internets anytime in the near future.

On their blog today Comcast announced AnyPlay. This service, which will be available to Comcast Xfinity TV subscribers, allows users to stream Comcast’s broadcast content to their tablet over their home wi-fi network. In essence, AnyPlay turns users’ home wi-fi router into another cable box, broadcasting content over the network for tablets to pick up.

The service is initially available only for iPad users via the Xfinity TV app. Comcast says the service will soon be coming to the Motorola Xoom, however, as well as a variety of other devices. AnyPlay is currently available only to customers in the Nashville and Denver markets who have subscribed to the Xfinity HD Triple Play service. Those customers are being given the service for free, and Comcast promises that the service will roll out to more markets in the next few months.

Do you have access to AnyPlay yet? If so, let us know what you think of it in the comments.

[Source: Comcast Blog]

Turns out that Verizon should’ve been taking notes from the AT&T-Mobile deal that the DoJ didn’t think too highly off because too many big moves like that attracts the kind of attention you may not like to attract. The agreement would’ve had Verizon paying $3.6 billion for the wireless spectrum only to resell the cable providers’ mobile service. From a report this morning in Reuters, the smell of the marketing arrangement in the deal is what triggered the DoJ’s keen antitrust smeller.

“My understanding is that it’s the deal that we’re looking at. We’re looking at the proposed deal,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Gina Talamona, who declined to outline any specific concerns the Justice Department had.

“Comcast has decided not to compete and is handing spectrum over to Verizon,” the source said. “They decided to halt the buildout. Instead of us seeing facilities-based competition, it appears that we’re seeing collaboration.”

At this point, I think it’s safe to say that AT&T and now Verizon are wireless hoarders. Verizon appears to be using the same argument that AT&T used in making their case for the T-Mobile acquisition by claiming to need the additional spectrum for their customer service demands. Seeing how well the AT&T-Mobile didn’t turn out, Verizon might want to polish that argument before their day in court.

Today, according to Ars Technica, that agreement has been signed.

The ISPs that have agreed to begin implementing the new set of warnings include big players like AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon.

Here’s how it will work, in brief –

Copyright holders (the industry) will continue to do what they already do, which is scour the interwebs for copyright infringers. When they snatch some IP addresses from a P2P file sharing network, they will report that IP address to the providing ISP.

ISPs will then implement the graduated program that they have just agreed to. it is important to note that ISPs have not agreed to automatically turn over your information to copyright holders. They will still need a court order to do that. This new agreement simply allows for the ISPs to notify you that you have been tagged.

Here is the complete list of the six steps of the graduated response, courtesy of Ars.

First Alert: In response to a notice from a copyright owner, an ISP will send an online alert to a subscriber, such as an email, notifying the subscriber that his/her account may have been misused for content theft, that content theft is illegal and a violation of published policies, and that consequences could result from any such conduct. This first alert will also direct the subscriber to educational resources which will (i) help him/her to check the security of his/her computer and any Wifi network, (ii) provide explanatory steps which will help to avoid content theft in the future and (iii) provide information about the abundant sources of lawful music, film and TV content.

Second Alert: If the alleged activity persists despite the receipt of the first alert, the subscriber may get a second similar alert that will underscore the educational messages, or the ISP may in its discretion proceed to the next alert.

Third Alert: If the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, he/she will receive another alert, much like the initial alerts. However, this alert will provide a conspicuous mechanism (a click-through pop-up notice, landing page, or similar mechanism) asking the subscriber to acknowledge receipt of this alert. This is designed to ensure that the subscriber is aware of the third copyright alert and reminds the subscriber that content theft conducted through their account could lead to consequences under the law and published policies.

Fourth Alert: If the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, the subscriber will receive yet another alert that again requires the subscriber to acknowledge receipt.

Fifth Alert: If the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, the ISP will send yet another alert. At this time, the ISP may take one of several steps, specified in its published policies, reasonably calculated to stop future content theft. These steps, referred to as Mitigation Measures, may include, for example: temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter. ISPs are not obligated to impose any Mitigation Measure which would disable or be reasonably likely to disable the subscribers voice telephone service (including the ability to call 911), e-mail account, or any security or health service (such as home security or medical monitoring). The use of the mitigation measure is waivable by the ISP at this point.

Sixth Alert: Whether or not the ISP has previously waived the Mitigation Measure, if the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, the ISP will send another alert and will implement a Mitigation Measure as described above. As described above, it’s likely that very few subscribers who after having received multiple alerts, will persist (or allow others to persist) in the content theft.

So basically you will receive warnings for the first 4 instances of “illegal file sharing.” Upon being flagged for the 5th time, the ISP may take measures to slow down your downloading or browsing. “May” being the operative word. They don’t have to implement any punishment, but if they do, it’ll be up to them to determine the nature of it.

And like we talked about before, the “education” part of the agreement is front and center. It’s possible that users can only receive full restoration of their service after participating in some sort of educational program about the horrors of file sharing.

There’s no indication that shutting off service completely is any part of the deal, even after 6 strikes.

There are two basic questions that arise from this news. First, will ISPs consistently take the initiative to implement these “mitigation measures,” since it’s all voluntary? And second, will four slaps on the wrist deter flagged P2P sharers before ISPs have to implement the harsher stuff?

Let us know what you think.

Do you think Hulu should be concerned with who purchases the service? Let us know your thoughts.

Yesterday at the Allen & Co. media conference, Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive, Robert Iger, said the owners of Hulu are “committed to selling“. He also predicted the site would sale, but gave no timetable of a possible deal.

At this time there are preliminary discussions taking place with about a dozen potential buyers, according to Reuters. The list of candidates includes Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and some non-U.S. based media companies.

Hulu is jointly owned by Disney, News Corp, Comcast Corp’s NBC Universal and Providence Equity Partners

Even better, it will be available in HD widescreen. Customers will be able to:

• Make and receive Skype video and audio calls, or send instant messages via Skype on a television while watching their favorite TV show at the same time, and accept incoming calls during a TV show with the help of Caller ID.
• Make and receive video and audio calls, or send instant messages via Skype on a compatible mobile phone or tablet.
• Import friends to their address book from their Facebook, Outlook, Gmail and smartphone contact lists, find them on Skype and see when contacts are online and available to talk.

“Our unique relationship with Skype not only will change how our customers interact with their TV, but also will create new and meaningful ways to bring our customers closer to the people they care about,” said Comcast Cable President Neil Smit. “TV has evolved into a social experience, and Comcast and Skype will be delivering a product that personalizes the TV experience even more, and brings friends and family together through the biggest screen in their homes.”

“We are pleased to announce this partnership with Comcast, added Skype CEO Tony Bates. “By combining Comcast’s broad living room reach with Skype’s innovative communications platform and worldwide community of users, we can bring video calling into the heart of the home allowing people to share life’s experiences both big and small.”

The service will be delivered through an adaptor box, a “high quality” video camera, and a special remote control that lets you text on Skype while you control your TV. The person on the other side doesn’t need any of this special equipment.

Customers will also be able to use Comcast’s Xfinity Mobile app to access mobile features and engage in conversations.

Skype says the offering will come in trials at first in the coming months, and then they’ll make additional details available later in the year.

If so, you’re in luck, thanks to a recent post at the Netflix Tech blog. The post details how Netflix Instant performs on the available ISPs in the United States, and the results are revealing. While all of the ISPs listed in Netflix’s graphic clock in at over 1200 kilobytes per second, the difference between the top provider and the lower ones is substantial. Have a look at the graphic — click for a larger size — and see what you think:

As for the methodology used by Netflix to determine the chart, Ken Florance, Director of Content Delivery for Netflix, says:

As you can see, the familiar pattern persists, dividing cable networks on the high end from DSL networks in the lower bitrates. We’re still showing the AT&T and Verizon networks’ performance as an average across their DSL and FTTx (Fiber) offerings. That’s due to a limitation in how we collect data, which we will resolve soon, so you can expect the DSL and Fiber offerings of these ISPs to be represented separately in future updates.

Also of note, we’ve rolled Qwest under CenturyLink following the merger of those companies.

The current performance chart only focuses on the United States, because Canada has yet to resolve the bandwidth cap issue that encompasses the entire country. Furthermore, Florance directly addresses the issue with the following comment:

We’re only publishing U.S. data this time. This data has become less significant for Canada in the wake of Netflix reducing default bitrates in Canada to help our Canadian members who are subject to low bandwidth caps.

While the idea of a capped Internet has been around for a little while, it’s disappointing to see it in such black and white terms. As for these charts, Florance also revealed these will be updated on a quarterly basis, indicating the next chart will be available in August. It will be interesting to see where AT&T stands in relation to its competitors, especially if the T-Mobile merger goes through.

In case you forgot, this announcement comes just a little less than four months since Baker voted to approve the cable giant’s merger with NBC Universal. A little fishy, right? Under her new position, she is barred from lobbying the FCC, but she can still use her connections in Congress in order to benefit Comcast’s cause.

Should this action be acceptable? We’d love to hear your opinion.

Joel Kelsey, who is a political advisor with nonprofit group Free Press, told us that these “revolving door” instances are happening so frequently that they have, essentially, turned into a “valet service.”

“It’s got a lot of people scratching their head because it’s not the only example of a revolving door aspect of FCC staff leaving the Commission to go work for the companies they once regulated, but it certainly is the most blatant example,” he said.

According to him, this is the type of ongoing behavior that has given the American people a bad impression of government. The regulators are supposed to protect the public even if the best interest isn’t in accordance with that of the shareholders and investors.

Although Commissioner Baker claims she acted within the law, Free Press and others believe the ethical issues are much greater. Kelsey said the biggest ethical issue is how and when Comcast went about asking Baker to come on board.

“There’s always the question of, ‘Do I want to go work for this company that offered me a job after I’m done with my time here at the Commission?’ And that is certain to have an affect on the decisions a commissioner makes,” he said.

While Kelsey doesn’t think that Baker’s influence would protect Comcast entirely from regulators, he did say that she could be a “cushion” for them. He and Free Press are asking people to contact Congressman Darrell Issa, who is the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and request an investigation based on a conflict of interest for Baker.

Kelsey also suggests that consumers contact their senators and ask Congress to enforce a pledge that would limit how quickly employees of government agencies could work for the companies that they once regulated.

Do you think this type of pledge is necessary?

The most recent display comes courtesy of the Reel Grrls, a Seattle-based service that teaches empowerment to young women, via the creation of digital media. Their admirable service was the recipient of a Comcast grant to the tune of $18,000, a worthy donation for all involved. That relationship of goodwill was shattered, however, when the news of Meredith Attwell Baker’s acceptance of a Comcast position, a move that many scoffed at, including the Reel Grrls.

The Reel Grrls took to their Twitter account to voice their displeasure over something they perceived as unethical with what amounts to as an awfully benign response, all things considered.

For Twitter, and, well, the Internet in general, that’s about as mild as you can get. Nevertheless, Comcast was apparently offended and as a response, pulled the already-promised funding. The Washington Post expands the story:

Turns out that a Comcast executive in charge of sponsoring the Reel Grrls summer program was reading and wasn’t pleased. Last Friday, Comcast Vice President Steve Kipp wrote Reel Grrls an e-mail with a link to the tweet, saying the cable giant wouldn’t contribute the $18,000 it had promised for the film camp.

“I am frankly shocked that your organization is slamming us on Twitter,” Kipp wrote. The tweet “has put me in an indefensible position with my bosses. I cannot continue to ask them to approve funding for Reel Grrls, knowing that the digital footprint your organization has created about Comcast is a negative one.”

Apparently, if you deal with Comcast, you have to approve of every little business decision they make or they’ll cut you — or your funding. Either/or.

Anyway, due to the subsequent outcry, Comast backtracked, saying it would like to continue its support of the Reel Grrls summer camp, and that Kipp had no authorization to pull the funding, something the Reel Grrls haven’t made a decision about accepting. Their sticking point is being able to express themselves, regardless of any business arrangements. They also made a video as a response to Comcast’s handling of the situation:

We are pleased that the public debate on this issue has caused Comcast to reconsider this decision and hope to continue the discussion about how we can best ensure that corporations do not play a role in stifling free expression or limiting Americans’ access to information

And the Reel Grrls Twitter feed has been an explosion of thanks for all the support they’ve received:

As to be expected, FreePress.org championed the Reel Grrls’ cause, emailing and posting about Comcast’s behavior. If you’d like to support the Reel Grrls and help save their upcoming summer camp, you can do so here.

The initial issue had to do with Comcast customers not being able to access The Pirate Bay, something Comcast naturally got the blame for. After denying any action against TPB, apparently Comcast conducted an investigation of their own, actually assisting the oft-maligned torrent tracker by making sure their service wasn’t filtering any data packages originating from TPB. Comcast members also defended their service on the XFINITY Facebook page, responding directly to accusations of Pirate Bay filtering:

Comcast did not help us fix The Pirate Bay. The problem was GBLX using reverse path filtering. We shut down one of our transits because it was flapping. The result was that all outgoing traffic to GBLX got filtered even though the packets took the same path as before. The Pirate Bay is using different paths for incoming and outgoing traffic to avoid beeing traced. We don’t even know where their servers are. We resolved the issue by activating our other transit again.

GBLX is short for Global Crossing, an international ISP that uses an AT&T-inspired business logo.

So, does Comcast deserve credit for assisting here or will they forever be buried under their history of previous peer-to-peer filtering situations? They know what The Pirate Bay can be used for, but yet, they actively tried to avoid the negative press that comes from ISP filtering, going as far as reaching out to The Pirate Bay developers. How significant is this potential olive branch? Or can it even be constituted as such? It’s a pretty safe bet any illegal file sharers caught while using Comcast’s service would be punished, but the fact Comcast even addressed the situation means they are willing to give users enough rope to hang themselves.

In closing, this is why contextual advertising is and will always be awesome. The following screenshot was taken from a site that has a “Comcast Service Sucks” page, with not much of significance on it. There is, however, a Google-served ad that captures just how much quality the Internet experience truly offers: