4. Australia’s national content filter
Back in October it was revealed that the tidy sum of $125.8 million AUD would treat Australia to the first internet content filter for a democratic first-world nation. Under the terms of the plan, Australian residents would be forced onto a nationally mandated blacklist that filters illegal content at the ISP level. Users would be further given the choice to opt into an “unsuitable content” filter that filters pornographic and hitherto undefined “sensitive” material.
Fast-forward to November 11 where an executive of iiNet, Australia’s largest ISP, elected to opt into the program only to demonstrate how terrible an idea it is. Describing the filter as “ridiculous,” iiNet exec Michael Malone had nothing but bad things to say about the national filter.
Malone said that that government has forced his hand into using future test statistics to prove his point. “They’re not listening to the experts, they’re not listening to the industry, they’re not listening to consumers, so perhaps some hard numbers will actually help,” he said.
Malone also pulled no punches about the Aussie Communications Minister after a senate questioning session did little to shed light on how the program might work. “This is the worst Communications Minister we’ve had in the 15 years since the [internet] industry has existed,” he said.
It is expected that the filters will significantly impact network speeds, be easy to bypass, and do little to remedy the issues the filters are supposed to address. Meanwhile, Australian ISPs Optus and Telstra have been slow to demonstrate any concern for implementing the filters.
Our take: While Australian citizens are free to get their fap on by opting out of the pr0n filter, pirated content is set to be a permanent no-no. All jokes about an Imperial penal colony aside, the frightening implications of a government deciding what constitutes illegality and pornography speaks for itself.
3. Comcast Torrent throttling
In late 2007 it was discovered that Comcast was actively employing a technology that caused established links between BitTorrent and Gnutella peers to transparently reset. The clandestine technology caused Comcast customers to unwittingly send forged reset packets to established peers which would effectively end the connection as though the link had been naturally interrupted.
No, your traffic is just delayed! That's okay, right? Right? ...Guys?
Statements released throughout 2008 did little to lower the hackles of consumers, consumer rights activists and lawmakers who were all incensed by Comcast’s audacity. In early January of 2008, the issue began to take legal form as the FCC called a hearing on network neutrality to order. It certainly didn’t help Comcast’s case or image when they filled the room with paid fanboys loyal to their cause.
By July of 2008, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin had had enough of Comcast’s shenanigans and vowed to end the Philadelphia’s ISP use of the forged reset packets. At the conclusion of Martin’s crusade, new life was breathed into net neutrality with the bi-partisan signing of a new enforcement order.
The new order legally obliged Comcast to cease and desist in further traffic manipulation and forced them to disclose the methods they used to manipulate internet traffic. While not a law, it was a relieving precedent in the ongoing war over net neutrality.
During the hearing, Martin likened the manipulation of web traffic to the manipulation of traditional mail.
“Would you be OK with the post office opening your mail, deciding they didn’t want to bother delivering it, and hiding that fact by sending it back to you stamped ‘address unknown – return to sender?’” he said.
“Or if they opened letters mailed to you, decided that because the mail truck is full sometimes, letters to you could wait, and then hid both that they read your letters and delayed them?” he continued.
This decision sent a clear warning to other US ISPs considering illegitimate manipulation of American — and to a lesser extent, global — web traffic. Hands off.
While Comcast and other US ISPs are back to managing the pulse of traffic on their corners of the information superhighway, they take a protocol-agnostic approach which narrows bandwidth of a high-use user until congestion is relieved.
Our take: Comcast is one of the slimiest ISPs out there. Between poor service and management fascinated with smoke and mirrors explanations, it’s no wonder Comcast’s customer satisfaction is at an all-time low.
2. Microsoft’s unrequited love for Yahoo!
We’ve covered the Microsoft/Yahoo! story in great detail over the last year, simply because we’re fascinated by Jerry Yang’s quixotic arrogance for the future of his company. At a time when Yahoo! stock was trading for $19 and change, Microsoft swept in to offer a stunning $31 per share for complete control of the company. While Yahoo! shareholders were seeing gold with a 61% premium attached to the value of their stock, Yang was only interested in retaining the company he founded.
While analysts were excited about the possibilities, Yang forced Yahoo! to reject the impressive offer by citing Yahoo!’s “global brand, large worldwide audience, significant recent investments in advertising platforms and future growth prospects, free cash flow and earnings potential,” and “substantial unconsolidated investments” as reasons why Microsoft’s proposal “substantially” undervalued Yahoo!.
YHOO, Dutch for "how not to run a company."
As the months dragged on, Yang’s thirst for cash grew as an increased offer for $33 per share was rebuffed in favor of a demand for $37 each. When the value of Yahoo! stock rapidly tanked, Yang had a change of heart with a pathetically late July 17 request to talk about that $33 deal again.
Though Microsoft briefly postured for an aggressive takeover during this time, the Redmond software company eventually washed their hands of the ordeal and abandoned the project in early August.
Our take: Our Jerry Yang is a dick meta tag is all the opinion we would ever need.
Articles RSS