Net neutrality, as it's often called, is the principle that all content transmitted over a cable or a phone company's network be treated equally and without preference. cialis free offer Last year, several consumer groups and Internet companies banded together to lobby Congress to pass a law to protect this principle. But those attempts failed.

Now Net neutrality is back in the political spotlight after a string of potential abuses have come to light. Last month, the Associated Press reported that it had carried out experiments across the country proving that Comcast prevented some users from uploading content to peer-to-peer networks including BitTorrent. Comcast disputed the results.

Over the summer, during a Webcast of the Lollapalooza concert in Chicago, AT&T bleeped portions of the Pearl Jam song "Daughter," in which singer Eddie Vedder altered lyrics to include anti-Bush sentiments. Other bands had also been censored on AT&T's Webcasts, including the John Butler Trio and Flaming Lips. AT&T admitted that these remarks had been deleted, but the company said these were mistakes made by an overzealous contractor hired to monitor the performances for obscene language.

Cell phone companies have also been accused of limiting access to their networks. In September, Verizon Wireless denied a request from an abortion rights group to use its mobile network for a new text-messaging campaign. After The New York Times wrote an article about the denial, Verizon changed its mind.

The Net neutrality issue has even crept into the 2008 presidential race with Sen. Barack Obama publicly saying earlier this week that the issue would rank high on his list of priorities in the first year of his administration. Obama added he would make Net neutrality support among appointed Federal Communications Commissioners a priority.

"The broadband market is really at an inflection point," said Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia University Law School and a supporter of Net neutrality legislation. "And it's important to establish laws now because it will essentially set the ground rules for how the market will play out in the future."

Some supporters of Net neutrality claim that a 2005 Supreme Court decision that changed the regulatory environment for DSL and cable modem service gave too much freedom and control to the Internet service providers.

In the Brand X case the court refused to recognize cable modem service as a "telecommunications" service. Instead, it classified it as an "information" service. This ruling meant that cable operators were not bound to a requirement in the telecommunications service regulation that forced phone companies to provide open access to competitors on their networks. To keep cable and phone companies on equal footing, the FCC changed the classification of DSL service to also be an information service.

Net neutrality supporters say that this change in regulation gives cable operators and phone companies too much control over what applications and content travel across their networks. Large phone companies and cable operators, however, say that no new laws or regulations are needed to explicitly grant protection for Net neutrality. Instead, they believe that a free market is the best protection against abuse. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin agrees that no new regulation is needed.

But Net neutrality supporters point to these recent incidents as evidence that something needs to be done. The most glaring accusation of abuse is Comcast, which critics say is filtering and blocking BitTorrent peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic. Sites that use the protocol have been targeted by the movie industry to stop the illegal distribution of copyrighted video. But there are also many legal uses of BitTorrent.

The problem for broadband operators is the protocol eats up huge amounts of bandwidth. To keep their networks moving smoothly, operators have installed equipment from companies such as Sandvine and Ellacoya that inspects packets to identify the type of application being used. Based on policies established by the provider, the traffic can be blocked or limited.

Earlier this year, bloggers noted that BitTorrent sessions appeared to be targeted and blocked by Comcast's service. Comcast repeatedly denied these claims. The Associated Press did its own test and reported last month that several Comcast broadband connections using BitTorrent had been slowed or blocked.

The SavetheInternet.com coalition, along with professors from Yale, Harvard, and Stanford law schools, have filed a complaint and petition with the FCC against Comcast asking the agency to take immediate action to stop Comcast's practices.

Comcast still denies claims that it is blocking any traffic. "Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise," David L. Cohen, executive vice president for Comcast, said in a statement. "We engage in reasonable network management to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience, and we do so consistently with FCC policy."

A Comcast representative said when it detects congestion in the network due to peer-to-peer traffic such as BitTorrent, it slows down that traffic in the network to make room for other kinds of traffic like Web surfing. The management mechanism is only used for the BitTorrent or other peer-to-peer traffic that is causing the congestion.

But in its filings, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition contends that the way in which Comcast manages its network deceives consumers and also violates the open-access principles outlined by the FCC.

Specifically, the group claims that Comcast is using a technique called "spoofing" to slow down or block the BitTorrent traffic. The way it works is that after a BitTorrent session has been established, Comcast interrupts the session like an operator interrupting a phone call who informs both parties that the connection has been disconnected. But instead of breaking into the connection as Comcast, the company pretends to be a customer participating in the BitTorrent session who is simply ending the session.

Net neutrality supporters say neither Comcast nor any other service provider should selectively limit any particular type of traffic. "No one is suggesting that there is no room for bandwidth management," Wu said. "But right now the operators can pick and choose the applications they want on their networks."

Simple quality-of-service networking technologies that limit the amount of bandwidth that each individual user gets could be the answer to this problem, say experts. But Wu believes the issue is not really about bandwidth management. It's about who controls the Internet.

"The whole Net neutrality issue is really about a power struggle," he said. "It all comes down to a scenario where the phone companies and cable operators want to call all the shots about which applications enter the market. And while that may be good for them, I'd argue it's very bad for the country."

Q:
Can you please go over what Web site certificates are? I'm having a little trouble understanding their purpose. Thanks for all your help!

A:

Wow, you guys come up with some really great questions! I have to tell you, the Q&A section of the newsletter is my favorite, because often times, the questions that are asked are ones that can help everyone. They're not just about one person's computer or about one specific problem someone is having. No, you all ask questions about very broad topics and that's perfect for this part of WorldStart's newsletter. We want to help as many people as we can and I truly believe we're doing that by answering the questions you ask. And today's topic is no exception. You asked about Web site certificates and that's exactly what you're going to learn all about today!

First of all, if a certain company or organization wants their Web site to use encryption and be secure, they must obtain a site (or host) certificate. If they don't, they will not be registered as a secure Web site. So, how do you tell if a site is secure or not? Well, we've gone over this before, but let's cover it one more time, just to be sure we're all on the same page. There are two things you can check on to find out if a site is secure or not. The first is a little yellow padlock in the bottom right corner of your Web browser. The padlock should be closed (locked) as well. The second is how the Web site's URL reads. On a secure site, the very beginning part will always be "https," rather than just "http." That extra "s" makes all the difference when it comes to security.

So, if you're visiting a site and you see either of those things, the site will have a certificate. You can view the certificate by double clicking the yellow padlock. Once you do that, a certificate dialogue box will pop up and you can read all about it. It will tell you the purpose of the certificate, who it's issued to, who it was issued by and when it expires. (If the site you're on just uses the "https" method, just double click in the area where the padlock usually sits. Doing that will bring up the same certificate box for you). For example, when you purchase something from WorldStart's software store, the checkout page is secure. If you double click the padlock on that page, you will be able to see our certificate.

Another way you can view a site's certificate is through your browser's menu options. In Internet Explorer, go to File, Properties and then click on the Certificates button. The same dialogue box will then come up for you. In Firefox, go to Tools, Page Info and then click on the Security tab. You can then click on the View button to see that site's certificate. That may be an easier way for you to access the certificate information.

Site certificates are mainly put in place to protect users from malicious attacks and identity theft. For instance, if we here at WorldStart didn't have a certificate on our checkout page, hackers could get in and steal your credit card number and any other information they wanted from you. That goes for any Web site that sells products or asks you for any personal information. It's very important to check the sites you visit to see if they're secure or not. If you don't, you could be putting yourself at risk for big trouble. All you have to do is glance toward the top or bottom of your browser to make sure it's protected. I mean, what's a few seconds when it comes to your safety?!

If a Web site has a certificate, that means they have registered their site and everything has been approved. There are two things that have to be done before a site is approved. The certificate authority has to make sure the Web address given matches the address on the certificate and they have to sign the certificate so that it can be recognized as a trusted authority. You can look for both of those things when you look at a site's certificate as well. So, I'm sure you're probably wondering how much you can really trust a site's certificate, right? Well, the trust you have for a site really depends on how much trust you have for the company you're dealing with, but if all the information matches up and the date on the certificate is valid, everything should be just fine. The only other way to be sure is to call the company yourself and check on their site regulations. It's your call!

Now, there may be times when you run into a certificate error. That could be caused by various things, such as the names on the certificates not matching up or if the certificate has expired. If an error occurs, you will always have the opportunity to look over the certificate and you can then either accept it for good, accept it for that particular visit only or you can choose not to accept it at all. From there, you can choose whether or not to trust the site. If you do, you can go about your business, but if you don't, you should refrain from submitting any personal information. Along with checking on a site's certificate, you should also read their Privacy Policy. Keeping yourself safe is the most important thing and you should do whatever it takes to stay that way.

So, now that you know all about Web site certificates, you may want to go and check on some of your favorite sites. Are they cialis effectiveness secure? Check it out!

October 28th, 2007

This hasn’t been a kind week to me when it comes to DSL service from AT&T as I’ve already gone through AT&T DSL setup hell earlier this week.  On Saturday when I set up a few extra things for my mother’s home, I ran some DSL speed tests (during non busy hours at a nearby test server at 19ms away) on the 768 kbps $15/month basic DSL service.  To my disappointment, the “broadband” connection performed at roughly 318 kbps.

This made me wonder if I should have her upgrade to the $20/month service which promises up to double the download performance.  Since my mother’s neighbor has the $20/month DSL service which supposedly gets up to 1536 mbps, I went over to his house to run the same speed test.  To my surprise, he got an average of about 310 kbps which is even slower than my mother’s connection even though he’s been paying $5/month more for quite some time.  Now as you can imagine this didn’t sit very well with either one of us so we both called AT&T tech support to see what’s going on.  I was told by AT&T that the basic $15/month service has a speed range of 224 to 768 kbps.  My mother’s neighbor was told that he should expect anywhere between 300 to 1536 kbps for his $20/month service.

Note: If you’re a DSL customer (or any broadband customer), it’s a good idea to run a speed test here at DSLReports.com and see how much throughput you’re actually getting for your money.

When I look at AT&T’s website and their advertising, only the higher throughput number is quoted with the “up to” phrase which means they’re technically covered legally though it’s quite deceptive in reality.  I have the same $20/month service at home and I’m getting around 1200 kbps service which is still significantly short of the 1536 kbps advertising and I’ve been told there is no higher speed DSL service because I’m situated too far from the DSL CO (Central Office).  But when I think about my Mother’s neighbor essentially paying $5 more for zero extra service, I have to wonder how many other AT&T customers get the same raw deal.  Ethically speaking, AT&T shouldn’t even offer the $20 service to customers who they know won’t get more than 768 kbps of performance.

I would have published this blog post last night except the DSL service here at my mother’s house has been down as of 1:00 AM (turns out I can’t use the line splitter/filter anymore for some reason.  Turns out that there’s noise in our outside box that they have to fix.).  On Thursday when my mother tried to set up her friend’s AT&T DSL account in the middle of the day and was speaking to the tech support person, she was told that she had to wait because the DSL service was down.  Outages seem to be a regular occurrence with AT&T/SBC and they seem to bounce their services anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour on a regular basis with zero explanation.  Earlier this year the service was out all night and I was told it wasn’t an outage because it was a scheduled maintenance and that somehow also excused them from notifying their customers.

The Comcast service where I lived – while more expensive at $35/month – had always been a lot more reliable and substantially faster at around 5 mbps and they don’t make you do this PPPoE nonsense.  Unfortunately I live in one of these backward housing complexes where the Senior citizens negotiated bundled basic analog cable and they locked out Comcast in our complex so AT&T is essentially the only game in town.  While AT&T DSL is one of the cheapest broadband services around, it’s also one of the crappiest.

Update – If getting no better service for paying extra money wasn’t bad enough, it turned out that my mother’s neighbor was actually switched from $15/month service to $20/month service automatically without his permission during his contract period.  At the time he figured it was no big deal so “1.5 mbps” service didn’t sound like a bad deal for an extra $5/month.  Yesterday when he found out he was being ripped off, he called AT&T and asked for an explanation and was told that the service is actually rated from 300 kbps up to 1536 kbps.  Since he was only getting 310 kbps which was essentially the same as my mother’s so-called 768 kbps service, he asked to be reverted back to the $15/month basic DSL plan.  To his surprise he was told by AT&T’s agent that he couldn’t do that and the $15/month service is only for new customers.  He had to demand to speak to a supervisor before he was allowed to revert to $15/month service.

Furthermore, my mother’s neighbor was sent a letter by AT&T telling him that his initial contract was up cialis dosages and that he would continue to get the same rate if he stayed on with AT&T.  But when the time came, his bill went up to $30/month for the same “1.5 mbps” 310 kbps service and he had to call AT&T to get them to follow through with their promise.  I have no problem believing his story because the same thing essentially happened to me and I had to call to get my price adjusted as well.  If we had not looked at our phone bills, we would have continued paying the higher rate.

Piling on the complaints, my mother told me that she was contacted this month the day by an AT&T salesperson to sign up for DSL the day after she already signed up for basic DSL service online.  When she told the salesperson she had already signed up online for basic DSL service, the salesperson told her that there was no basic DSL service any more and she needed to sign up for the more expensive $20/month service.  When she explained again that she had already successfully signed up for the basic service, the salesperson finally gave it up.