Inside Net Neutrality: Is Your ISP Filtering Content?
643132
What happens if, instead of a pipeline for your content needs, your ISP instead acts as a filter?
359349
A 165-page report issued yesterday by the US Federal Trade Commission examines the arguments surrounding the issue of whether to enforce "net neutrality" provisions - which would essentially mean equal access among consumers to all Internet content regardless of provider or service class - before coming to almost zero conclusions regarding a possible course of action.
306334
Jupiter lights the way Efforts to get the net neutrality bandwagon rolling in the UK continue, with new predictions that ISPs are set to charge content providers for faster loading.â¦
199447
The US is considering forcing ISPs to keep data so what can they learn from the European model?
19911
Our internal roundup networking news on the Internet goes public.
243097
Despite our best efforts to unearth tech-inclined voters, Net neutrality doesn't ring a bell with most residents we interviewed in the Granite State.
110421
Is Microsoft-served ads slowing down Web sites? Plus, what is Ask erasing, and what are the others keeping? And a 'Knight Rider' comeback and more.
225671
Justice Department sides with AT&amp;T, Verizon The US Department of Justice is badmouthing net neutrality.â¦
729413
Forget Internet2. The National LambdaRail is the most ambitious network research project going. But can it save the optical networking industry?
712145
AT&#38;T has said it is testing filtering technology that will look for copyrighted material. But should the company be acting as Internet cop?
636754
Which search engines are adequately disclosing their paid placement and paid inclusion practices? Which ones are failing to do so?  A new report offers some surprising insights.
384834
(InfoWorld) - Hundreds of groups and individual Internet users sounded off to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC)Â on net neutrality in comments filed Monday, the deadline for responding to the agency's inquiry into the proposed regulation. Individual Internet users, trade groups, and advocacy organizations filed about 670 comments about net neutrality rules with the FCC Monday. Individuals and organizations have submitted nearly 29,000 comments on net neutrality since the FCC opened its inquiry in late March. Net neutrality advocates want the FCC or the U.S. Congress to prohibit large broadband providers like AT&TÂ and Comcast from blocking or slowing Web content from competitors. Many of the comments Monday came from individual Internet users who asked the FCC to protect them against new fees that they fear broadband providers could charge Web content providers. "Keep the corporations off our rights," wrote Internet user Jack McFarley of Washington state in an e-mail that was part form letter. "Net neutrality is essential to free speech, equal opportunity, and economic innovation in America." Bonnie Bennett of California seemed to take a more individual approach in her e-mail to the FCC. "Free, unlimited access to the Internet is the modern-day version of how to educate the citizenry of a well-functioning democracy," she wrote. "Big companies and global corporations care a lot about profits and stockholders but not much about educating citizens." A technology director of a school in Mississippi said net neutrality rules would protect his students' ability to access the information they need. "The importance of the Internet is increasing each month," wrote David Scovic. "Many small innovative Web sites that are vital to our teaching would be affected by a no vote [on net neutrality rules]." Net neutrality advocates have argued that such rules are needed after decisions by the FCC and the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 allowed broadband providers to stop sharing their networks with competing Internet service providers. The debate over net neutrality heated up after Ed Whitacre, former CEO at AT&T, complained in BusinessWeek in late 2005 about potential competition from Internet companies, saying he wasn't going to let them "use my pipes free." In March, the FCC launched an inquiry to examine net neutrality proposals, looking at whether broadband providers charge different prices for different speeds and how consumers are affected by the ways broadband providers manage their networks. Hands Off the Internet, an advocacy group representing AT&T, Alcatel-Lucent, the American Conservative Union and other organizations, said in its filing that net neutrality advocates haven't shown the need for new regulations. Broadband providers aren't blocking competing content, the group said. "There is no current or anticipated content discrimination or service degradation justifying new regulations by the commission," wrote Christopher Wolf, cochairman of Hands Off the Internet. "Moreover, regulation could well thwart Internet growth and make consumer access unfairly expensive." The Computer & Communications Industry Association, a trade group representing Microsoft, Google, and other tech vendors, said a net neutrality rule is needed because there's little competition among broadband providers. Broadband providers "insult the commission's expertise by summarily proclaiming the broadband access market competitive without any specific evidence of competition," the group said.
102119
Two key sponsors of legislation that would effectively codify the meaning of "net neutrality" asked the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee to hold public hearings into the motivations of Comcast and other broadband service providers in filtering certain categories of traffic.
494604
Ring, Ring. Someone answer the computer. Voice-over-Internet Protocol got a boost today as The Federal Communications Commission ruled that providers of the service are exempt from some major state regulations
219672
(InfoWorld) - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC)Â should resist calls to impose net neutrality regulations on broadband providers because such rules could hurt the Internet, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)Â said Thursday. The DOJ, in a brief filed with the FCC, said net neutrality rules could "inefficiently skew investment, delay innovation, and diminish consumer welfare." Rules that would prohibit broadband providers from giving priority to their own Internet traffic and prohibit them from blocking or slowing competitors' traffic could also prevent providers from charging fees for priority service, the DOJ said. This could, in turn, cause fees to increase to all broadband users, the DOJ said. "Free market competition, unfettered by unnecessary governmental regulatory restraints, is the best way to foster innovation and development of the Internet," the DOJ said. Net neutrality rules could also discourage broadband providers from investing in new, high-speed services and keep providers from managing their networks efficiently, the DOJ said. The DOJ's comments were in response toÂ an FCC inquiry, launched in March, about whether there's a need for net neutrality regulations. Individuals and organizations have filed more than 27,800 comments in the net-neutrality inquiry, many of them from people who want the FCC to impose net-neutrality rules. Some Internet-based companies and consumer groups have argued that net-neutrality rules are needed after the FCC and U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 did away with regulations that required incumbent broadband providers to share their networks with competing providers. Several telecom executives have complained that Internet companies are not adequately paying network owners for using their pipes. Public Knowledge, a consumer-rights group and net-neutrality advocate, said the DOJ doesn't seem to recognize that most U.S. consumers have few choices for broadband providers. "It is at odds with reality for a Justice Department that approved the largest telecommunications merger in history with a mere press release to now claim that market forces and antitrust enforcement will be able to protect the free and open Internet," Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge's president, said. "A more vigorous antitrust analysis would have recognized there is a market failure and would have resulted in conditions on the AT&T takeover of BellSouth that would have benefited consumers and Internet companies." The DOJ has failed to recognize that net neutrality would protect consumers and Internet companies from discrimination, she added. "Perhaps the DOJ does not recall that there is very little in the way of market forces to protect consumers," Sohn said. The DOJ, however, said there's little evidence of the need for net-neutrality rules, with only a "few isolated examples" of broadband providers blocking Web content from competitors. "Proponents of 'net neutrality' regulation have failed to show that a sufficient case exists for imposing the sorts of broad marketplace restrictions that have been proposed," the DOJ filing said. In recent years, the DOJ has proposed its own regulations for the Internet. In mid-2006, the DOJ floated a proposal that would require ISPs to retain the Web histories of their users for two years as a way to aid law enforcement investigations. That proposal met resistance from ISPs.
735819
Single Packet Authorization fills the gaps in port knocking.
509744
Letter: Setting the record straight on network location awareness and Vista Group Policy.