AT&T wants to control the Internet, by controlling the flow of information using a technique called “paid prioritization”. Check out TopLineISV.com, SynapticHosting.com, SynapticCompute.com and/or SynapticStorage.com to find out what you can do about it..
Other sites: SynapticCloud.com and SynapticCloudComputing.com
Now that the FCC has passed their rather skimpy net neutrality rules, the future looks more expensive for online companies. It’s only been a few hours since the FCC Order was passed and already reports confirming the worst fears of net neutrality proponents seem to be at play.
It seems that despite rattling their drums for fairness and neutrality, Google and Verizon are already talking about possibly taking advantage of the incredibly interpretive, loophole ridden rules. Rumors have surfaced in none other than the New York Times that Google is reaching an agreement with Verizon about allowing it to charge website owners higher fees for delivering content faster to users.
This is precisely what net neutrality proponents feared would happen if wireless internet service network providers, like Verizon, were not forced to follow the same rules as wired providers, which they were not.
In a move that many believe would give them an unfair advantage and lead to the development of two different kinds of internet environments, Verizon was quick to jump on the benefits of being a wireless provider.
What this means for end users is that you will have fast access to only the websites willing or able to pay the extra fees to Verizon if they are dependent on their coverage in a certain geographic area. In addition, Verizon would be able to push its own products to wireless users more than its competitors—who would have to pay a premium for the same access speed.
This greatly impacts competition and innovation online. Some could even make the claim that it does precisely the opposite of what those against net neutrality rules for the wireless internet claimed they were protecting: the principles of the free market. If wireless providers can give preferential treatment to their own products and partners, and if innovators who are resource poor cannot pay their faster connection fees, then how is the strength of a company determined by the quality of their product?
In the internet age, how many seconds it takes to wait for a company’s site to load proportionally affects its bottom line profitability. To say otherwise is semantics.
We’ve heard time and time again: trust the market, consumers will decide who gains and who loses. But how is that possible in an unfair playing field where those who control access get to decide who gains—not consumer preference?
In fact, the mechanics of the online market combined with the unlevel playing field on wireless internet will only serve to limit consumer choices by stifling start-ups, and as a consequence of continuously blocking competitors. How will the next ‘Google’ take off in this environment if it doesn’t have the same deep pockets to make its way to consumers? This rumor does not bode well for online companies spending lots of money on marketing and advertising to get a foothold against industry giants.
And, since the poor and minorities are disproportionally served by wireless service providers, will the cultural divide end up even larger as different online experiences—which are as real and indelible as our non virtual lives—split down social lines and affect the culture? Will some people know about the next best way to find coupons or connect with their friends while others are stuck knowing about only the choices they are allowed on their wireless internet provider networks?
Google and Verizon have both currently issued statements denying any agreement between them and reaffirming their commitment to online neutrality, but it would not be the first time they are in hot water for allegedly throwing their heavy weight around to stifle competitors, especially in Google’s case.
If two different types of internet experiences develop as a result of the FCC Order as predicted, it will be accompanied by a sea change in the SEO and marketing strategies needed to compensate for a tougher marketplace for the majority of smaller online businesses.
Article source: http://blog.optimum7.com/duran/internet-usage/net-neutrality-rules-does-not-prohibit-google-verizon-agreement.html
Article source: http://netneutrality.ws/2012/01/27/net-neutrality-rules-does-not-prohibit-google-verizon-agreement/
Since the recent success of Comcast’s appeal of the FCC’s enforcement of Net Neutrality, the Internet has been buzzing with opinions surrounding the ruling. While the court cases and policy debates are far from over, this was the first big decision on Net Neutrality in the US, enforcing an ISP’s authority to filter and throttle traffic on it’s network. Here’s a brief primer on the issue:
Further Reading:
BusinessWeek.com - Comcast Wins in Case on FCC Net Neutrality Powers (Update6)
Wired.com - Appeals Court Throttles FCC’s Net Neutrality Authority
What is Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality is the concept that the internet should operate as a “dumb network” and as a result treat all traffic equally. It’s “dumb” in the sense that the network is unaware of the traffic it is carrying. The FCC’s own definition of Net Neutrality states that consumers should have access to the connection of their choice, using the services and applications of their choice, on their devices of choice, in a market place where there is competition among providers.
The debate focuses on the control of regulation. Should network owners be allowed to self-regulate, or should the government regulate both private and public network infrastructure to ensure that all traffic is treated equally?
Furthermore, should ISPs have the right to use Deep Packet Inspection, or DPI to look at the content of information on their network? This has all kinds of implications, from discrimination of services and traffic, to the replacement and targeting of advertisements found on websites.
Keep in mind the influence of money in this debate, as both sides of the issue have deep pockets. Amazon.com, eBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook, Skype and Yahoo all benefit from unfettered access to the networks of Time-Warner, Comcast, ATT, and other broadband providers. While this will ultimately effect consumers, the battle is being waged via lobbyists.
Further Reading:
Wikipedia.org – Network Neutrality
Wired.com – Net Neutrality Debate Is Secretly All About Internet Television, Net Pioneers Say
Pro-Neutrality
Advocates of the FCC’s regulations argue that allowing Time-Warner, Comcast, ATT and Verizon to regulate themselves would result in the reservation of large chunks of bandwidth for service provided by those companies, allowing them to levy a toll to anyone wanting to deliver high-performance competing services. The concern is that the small companies and innovators in the market would be unable to compete, and therefore consumers would be at the mercy of the ISP, and have access only to the services the ISPs would be willing to offer them.
Examples include charging consumers access to higher bandwidth services like YouTube, or charging companies like Google a premium for priority service on the network. Whether or not ISPs would charge for tiered service is yet to be seen, but the argument is that they would have the opportunity to do so in the future.
Further Reading:
News.Yahoo.com – Net neutrality faces serious setbacks
SaveTheInternet.com
WeAreTheWeb.org
Anti-Neutrality
Opponents of Net Neutrality often cite that ISPs own their networks–that they aren’t publicly-owned networks, as many previously assumed. The ISPs’ investment in broadband infrastructure has helped push the Internet to where it is today, and some argue that if they aren’t allowed to collect a return on this investment and invest further, then network speeds and innovation in network technologies could come to a grinding halt. The ISPs state that they would become overwhelmed by the growing amount of video, voice, peer to peer and other media rich traffic that would be allowed to flow freely over their networks.
The internet is not currently “neutral”. ISPs already filter spam, and regularly blacklist computers that violate their Terms of Service. Most people view this as a good thing, and the opponents of net neutrality argue that self-regulation has worked so far, and that the market will find the right balance over time if allowed to continue in this way.
Further Reading:
PcWorld.com - Net Neutrality Foes: What If The ‘Bad Guys’ Are Right?
ZeroPaid.com -Verizon CEO: “We Will Find Pirates, Throttle Them, and Charge Extra”
DontRegulate.org
Moving Forward
The complexities of the issue extend beyond the simplification above and, moving forward, the FCC may make a move to either gain the necessary authority, reclassify broadband service under its jurisdiction, or for lobby Congress to pass some sort of Net Neutrality legislation. Either way, changes are coming. Let us know where you think things are headed, and how you think the Net Neutrality debate will impact you.
Further Reading:
Barron’s Tech Trader Daily – Will FCC Choose “The Nuclear Option” In Net Neutrality Fight?
Article source: https://www.odesk.com/blog/2010/04/the-net-neutrality-debate/
Article source: http://netneutrality.ws/2012/01/27/the-net-neutrality-debate/
Since the recent success of Comcast’s appeal of the FCC’s enforcement of Net Neutrality, the Internet has been buzzing with opinions surrounding the ruling. While the court cases and policy debates are far from over, this was the first big decision on Net Neutrality in the US, enforcing an ISP’s authority to filter and throttle traffic on it’s network. Here’s a brief primer on the issue:
Further Reading:
BusinessWeek.com - Comcast Wins in Case on FCC Net Neutrality Powers (Update6)
Wired.com - Appeals Court Throttles FCC’s Net Neutrality Authority
What is Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality is the concept that the internet should operate as a “dumb network” and as a result treat all traffic equally. It’s “dumb” in the sense that the network is unaware of the traffic it is carrying. The FCC’s own definition of Net Neutrality states that consumers should have access to the connection of their choice, using the services and applications of their choice, on their devices of choice, in a market place where there is competition among providers.
The debate focuses on the control of regulation. Should network owners be allowed to self-regulate, or should the government regulate both private and public network infrastructure to ensure that all traffic is treated equally?
Furthermore, should ISPs have the right to use Deep Packet Inspection, or DPI to look at the content of information on their network? This has all kinds of implications, from discrimination of services and traffic, to the replacement and targeting of advertisements found on websites.
Keep in mind the influence of money in this debate, as both sides of the issue have deep pockets. Amazon.com, eBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook, Skype and Yahoo all benefit from unfettered access to the networks of Time-Warner, Comcast, ATT, and other broadband providers. While this will ultimately effect consumers, the battle is being waged via lobbyists.
Further Reading:
Wikipedia.org – Network Neutrality
Wired.com – Net Neutrality Debate Is Secretly All About Internet Television, Net Pioneers Say
Pro-Neutrality
Advocates of the FCC’s regulations argue that allowing Time-Warner, Comcast, ATT and Verizon to regulate themselves would result in the reservation of large chunks of bandwidth for service provided by those companies, allowing them to levy a toll to anyone wanting to deliver high-performance competing services. The concern is that the small companies and innovators in the market would be unable to compete, and therefore consumers would be at the mercy of the ISP, and have access only to the services the ISPs would be willing to offer them.
Examples include charging consumers access to higher bandwidth services like YouTube, or charging companies like Google a premium for priority service on the network. Whether or not ISPs would charge for tiered service is yet to be seen, but the argument is that they would have the opportunity to do so in the future.
Further Reading:
News.Yahoo.com – Net neutrality faces serious setbacks
SaveTheInternet.com
WeAreTheWeb.org
Anti-Neutrality
Opponents of Net Neutrality often cite that ISPs own their networks–that they aren’t publicly-owned networks, as many previously assumed. The ISPs’ investment in broadband infrastructure has helped push the Internet to where it is today, and some argue that if they aren’t allowed to collect a return on this investment and invest further, then network speeds and innovation in network technologies could come to a grinding halt. The ISPs state that they would become overwhelmed by the growing amount of video, voice, peer to peer and other media rich traffic that would be allowed to flow freely over their networks.
The internet is not currently “neutral”. ISPs already filter spam, and regularly blacklist computers that violate their Terms of Service. Most people view this as a good thing, and the opponents of net neutrality argue that self-regulation has worked so far, and that the market will find the right balance over time if allowed to continue in this way.
Further Reading:
PcWorld.com - Net Neutrality Foes: What If The ‘Bad Guys’ Are Right?
ZeroPaid.com -Verizon CEO: “We Will Find Pirates, Throttle Them, and Charge Extra”
DontRegulate.org
Moving Forward
The complexities of the issue extend beyond the simplification above and, moving forward, the FCC may make a move to either gain the necessary authority, reclassify broadband service under its jurisdiction, or for lobby Congress to pass some sort of Net Neutrality legislation. Either way, changes are coming. Let us know where you think things are headed, and how you think the Net Neutrality debate will impact you.
Further Reading:
Barron’s Tech Trader Daily – Will FCC Choose “The Nuclear Option” In Net Neutrality Fight?
Article source: https://www.odesk.com/blog/2010/04/the-net-neutrality-debate/
ATT outduels Verizon in iPhone: ATT handily beat Verizon in the battle for iPhone customers last quarter, but … http://t.co/UBoWZUQR
Article source: http://www.twitter.yogeshmalik.com/att-outduels-verizon-in-iphon-2/
Article source: http://netneutrality.ws/2012/01/26/att-outduels-verizon-in-iphon-automatic-twitter-archive-from/
Now that the FCC has passed their rather skimpy net neutrality rules, the future looks more expensive for online companies. It’s only been a few hours since the FCC Order was passed and already reports confirming the worst fears of net neutrality proponents seem to be at play.
It seems that despite rattling their drums for fairness and neutrality, Google and Verizon are already talking about possibly taking advantage of the incredibly interpretive, loophole ridden rules. Rumors have surfaced in none other than the New York Times that Google is reaching an agreement with Verizon about allowing it to charge website owners higher fees for delivering content faster to users.
This is precisely what net neutrality proponents feared would happen if wireless internet service network providers, like Verizon, were not forced to follow the same rules as wired providers, which they were not.
In a move that many believe would give them an unfair advantage and lead to the development of two different kinds of internet environments, Verizon was quick to jump on the benefits of being a wireless provider.
What this means for end users is that you will have fast access to only the websites willing or able to pay the extra fees to Verizon if they are dependent on their coverage in a certain geographic area. In addition, Verizon would be able to push its own products to wireless users more than its competitors—who would have to pay a premium for the same access speed.
This greatly impacts competition and innovation online. Some could even make the claim that it does precisely the opposite of what those against net neutrality rules for the wireless internet claimed they were protecting: the principles of the free market. If wireless providers can give preferential treatment to their own products and partners, and if innovators who are resource poor cannot pay their faster connection fees, then how is the strength of a company determined by the quality of their product?
In the internet age, how many seconds it takes to wait for a company’s site to load proportionally affects its bottom line profitability. To say otherwise is semantics.
We’ve heard time and time again: trust the market, consumers will decide who gains and who loses. But how is that possible in an unfair playing field where those who control access get to decide who gains—not consumer preference?
In fact, the mechanics of the online market combined with the unlevel playing field on wireless internet will only serve to limit consumer choices by stifling start-ups, and as a consequence of continuously blocking competitors. How will the next ‘Google’ take off in this environment if it doesn’t have the same deep pockets to make its way to consumers? This rumor does not bode well for online companies spending lots of money on marketing and advertising to get a foothold against industry giants.
And, since the poor and minorities are disproportionally served by wireless service providers, will the cultural divide end up even larger as different online experiences—which are as real and indelible as our non virtual lives—split down social lines and affect the culture? Will some people know about the next best way to find coupons or connect with their friends while others are stuck knowing about only the choices they are allowed on their wireless internet provider networks?
Google and Verizon have both currently issued statements denying any agreement between them and reaffirming their commitment to online neutrality, but it would not be the first time they are in hot water for allegedly throwing their heavy weight around to stifle competitors, especially in Google’s case.
If two different types of internet experiences develop as a result of the FCC Order as predicted, it will be accompanied by a sea change in the SEO and marketing strategies needed to compensate for a tougher marketplace for the majority of smaller online businesses.
Article source: http://blog.optimum7.com/duran/internet-usage/net-neutrality-rules-does-not-prohibit-google-verizon-agreement.html
A Ministerial Roundtable on Net Neutrality had been scheduled for 24th January (ie yesterday) with Internet Minister Ed Vaizey and the major fixed and mobile operators due to attend. EV is expecting industry to produce a voluntary code of practice in respect of Net Neutrality. In the run up to the meeting and following individual discussions with some of the intended participants the Minister has apparently been unhappy with progress. The Round Table has been postponed until 28th March to allow time for further industry discussion.
Net Neutrality is a very emotional subject. By and large in my view it is something that has been creating more noise than the issue has perhaps merited but I can understand people’s concerns. The issue of transparency is in particular an important one – if an operator has policies in place that affect its users then the users need to know. Such policies should also not be buried in the fine print of lengthy, seldom read sets of terms and conditions.
The one market sector that the “powers that be” have seemed to take a particularly lenient approach in respect of this in the past has been mobile. My view has been that provided mobile operators aren’t particularly blocking specific services (eg VoIP) then if these services don’t perform well because of congestion caused by capacity constraints then so be it. I also think it is ok to offer premium services that don’t have congestion or capacity constraints.
The work leading up to the Ministerial Round Table has however uncovered some interesting dirt. The Internet Telephony Service Providers Association has long protested that Mobile Network Operators are blocking VoIP. ITSPA has now published a paper that goes into some detail regarding the MNOs practices in this respect.
In most cases MNOs are not transparent about their policies towards VoIP over mobile data1. A typical customer of a typical MNO would not be aware, when purchasing a plan via the MNO website, whether VoIP was allowed or blocked (Vodafone are an exception, providing very clear information).
Some information is wrong or misleading. More generally customers would need to be well informed (for example understanding that they should search ‘Traffic Management’) in order to discover the policy of most MNOs towards VoIP. Market forces cannot be assumed to work if the market is not properly informed.
MNOs serving the majority of the market (Vodafone, T-Mobile and Orange) either prohibit VoIP in their terms and conditions and / or charge a premium for using it and/or actively block it. This is likely to discourage innovation and investment in services that use VoIP over mobile data. I can’t see that that there is a technical justification for this prohibition – VoIP is not bandwidth hungry like video.
The Ed Vaizey initiative seems timely and industry should be seen to be toeing the line here. I’m not confident that this will be the case, especially when it comes to MNOs. If you are an individual end user it is hard enough to choose a tariff let alone wade through the complexities of the Ts and Cs.
This whole discussion deems doubly important as we now approach the 4G spectrum auctions. This is an opportunity for Ofcom to ensure that Net Neutrality and transparency is built natively into the new services as they are rolled out. I’m not arguing for favouritism for VoIP here but I am saying that legitimate services should not be discriminated against, regardless of the pricing point and level of service.
Let’s hope Ed Vaizey gets what he is after on 28th March. If I can track down any drafts of the code of practice I will.
1 a legitimate question would be why you would want to make a call VoIP over what is quite an expensive mobile data transport medium. That is really neither here nor there as far as this debate goes and costs will in any case plummet over the next few years.
The Internet Telephony Services Providers’ Association (ITSPA), a trade body that represents UK based network operators, has released a new review that slams three of the country’s five Mobile Network Operators (MNO) for using Terms and Conditions (TC’s) that “prohibit the use of VoIP and other streaming services in a substantial number of their tariffs“.
ITSPA’s review – ‘VoIP and Mobile Network Operators‘ – highlights Vodafone , T-Mobile and Orange as being the worst offenders. However the group was still able to make successful over-the-top VoIP (e.g. Google Voice, Skype) calls on almost all UK networks, once the right package was found, with the exception of T-Mobile.
ITSPA Review Statement
“In most cases MNOs are not transparent about their policies towards VoIP over mobile data. A typical customer of a typical MNO would not be aware, when purchasing a plan via the MNO website, whether VoIP was allowed or blocked. (Vodafone are an exception, providing very clear information.) Some information is wrong or misleading.
More generally customers would need to be well informed (for example understanding that they should search ‘Traffic Management’) in order to discover the policy of most MNOs towards VoIP. Market forces cannot be assumed to work if the market is not properly informed.”
The review further concluded that it was “reasonable” for customers buying Mobile Broadband / Smartphone data bundles to “expect to be able to use them for low speed (“, at least unless they are “clearly excluded” at point of sale.
In reality many mobile operators are keen to defend their lucrative voice calls and as a result Skype is often seen as a rival. On the other hand.. Skype isn’t a data hog like video streaming but it can still gobble up capacity over longer periods of use.
The issue, which was picked up by Timico’s CTO Trefor Davies, slips rather neatly into the tricky debate around Net Neutrality (the principal of treating all internet traffic as equal) and whether or not the UK / EU governments need to impose tougher regulation to ensure non-discrimination.
In relation to that the UK government’s Communications Minister, Ed Vaizey, has just had to reschedule this week’s Net Neutrality Roundtable meeting with ISPs and MNOs for 28th March 2012. Apparently operators were expected to produce a related Voluntary Code of Practice at the meeting but it’s not quite ready yet (example).
Article source: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2012/01/26/ed-vaizey-reschedules-net-neutrality-meet-as-itspa-slams-mobile-voip-blocks.html
ATT outduels Verizon in iPhone: ATT handily beat Verizon in the battle for iPhone customers last quarter, but … http://t.co/UBoWZUQR
Article source: http://www.twitter.yogeshmalik.com/att-outduels-verizon-in-iphon-2/
The 2012 State of the Union Address ought to address the Mistakes of the Union when it comes to over-regulation of competitive free enterprise.
It also ought to forswear divisive attacks on job creators, like the dig at CEO salaries at the very top of the White House State of the Union page.
Speaking of over-regulation, almost exactly a year ago, President Obama issued an executive order to streamline federal regulations by a fraction of a percent.
Then, the President’s much hyped September jobs speech to a joint congressional session somehow failed to propose reining in the National Labor Relations Board’s dictates over manufacturing plant siting; nor did it stress fast-tracking private energy infrastructure building and access to safe, efficient extraction. Nor did it scale down various Environmental Protection Agency “maximum technology” standards for utilities, cement plants and industrial boilers (like those in hospitals and factories).
The president isn’t likely to propose rollbacks of the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, for which the issuing agencies have missed most deadlines.
Basically, the President cannot be expected to pledge to roll back government in any way whatsoever tonight, a stance that helps account for the state of our union. Even the easy targets like the Federal Communications Commission’s Internet “net neutrality” regulations, opposed in bipartisan fashion and never authorized by Congress, are safe.
At least the administration says it won’t regulate farm dust or something.
The January 24, 2012 State of the Union Address will highlight manufacturing—but not in the ways that involve stepping out of manufacturers’ way. There’ll be something about fairness and equality, and about rewarding hard work–but in ways that involve spending and redistribution rather than fostering the conditions of liberty so all may pursue them.
Incredibly, Obama is expected to talk about domestic energy efficiency; words fail me on that one, except “Keystone,” and “Solyndra.”
The titanic federal budget the President will emphasize is only, as my colleague and CEI general counsel Sam Kazman expressed it, the tip of the costberg.
Most costly government activity is “off budget,” and involves regulation, regulation, and more regulation. Of everything—health, safety, environment, energy, infrastructure, retirement, finance; virtually all economic affairs.
Regulatory activity remains at the same high level as before last year’s executive order calling for relief.
For starters, the Federal Register just ended 2011 at a record-high 82,351 pages, compared to 2010’s 81,405. That’ll come down a bit due to corrections, but not much.
The new, obscure but important, Unified Agenda of federal regulations was due in October 2011, but alas, only became available January 20.
The Unified Agenda is our snapshot of the federal regulatory pipeline, detailing proposed and final rules on which federal agencies expect to act, plus rules recently completed.
At the end of 2008, the (pre-Obama) total number of regulations in the pipeline stood at 4,004 rules.
Clearly, President George W. Bush liked to regulate too. But Obama’s past two years were 4,225 and 4,128, respectively, as if “modifying,” “streamling,” and “repeal” of regulation mean to add rather than subtract.
The more ominous “economically significant” rules in the pipeline, those expected to cost at least $100 million annually (but sometimes to save that much), are up 18 percent since 2008, from 180 to 212. At least that’s better than last year’s 224, and the president would likely point to that as a success.
But the problem with that interpretation is that, since I’ve been compiling the annual Ten Thousand Commandments report, until 2008, economically significant rules never exceeded 159.
Of the 212 in play, the ones recently completed or in final-rule phase are at 100, compared to 110 last year. So I suppose that’s somehow a “success,” too.
How about rules impacting small business, the oft-noted engines of job creation? Those stood at 753 in the pre-Obama, Fall 2008 Unified Agenda; now, they’re at 822, nine percent higher during one of the worst economic environments the country has weathered.
The EPA, already noted as a regulatory funhouse, has 318 rules in the Agenda pipeline. That’s at least down from 330, but some of those rules are extremely costly. Of the 318 rules anticipated by the EPA, 18 are considered “economically significant.” (These regulatory costs, of course, are off-budget amounts that that come on top of the EPA’s annual appropriation from taxpayers of around $9 billion.)
What of EPA’s rules impacting small business? Those have been “reduced” from 86 up to 93 during the three-year period. Rules affecting small business now account for 26 percent of EPA’s Agenda entries. And of these 93 rules impacting small business, 14 are designated as “economically significant.”
I’m not yet able to wrap my head around streamlining regulations by expanding them, but give me time.
Today, roughly 21 percent of all rules impact small business. As for the thousands of federal rules that don’t qualify as economically significant, no one really knows how much they truly cost, since they’re not measured.
If rules aren’t measured, Congress should at least have to approve them before they’re binding, a variation of what the House-passed REINS Act would do for all economically significant rules (“REINS” stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny).
Speaking of the State of the Union’s fairness theme, regulatory burdens shouldn’t shift to those least able to bear them, nor should they be hidden from the public as they are now.
The programs and spending to be announced by President Obama this evening have alternatives that involve removing barriers and allowing economic expansion.
Four years after the Bailouts to Nowhere began, the President and Congress must “liberate to stimulate
That done, I believe we at last could say, “The State of the Union is strong,” and mean it.
Article source: http://cei.org/op-eds-articles/president-obamas-state-union-hyper-regulated
Article source: http://netneutrality.ws/2012/01/25/president-obamas-state-of-the-union-hyper-regulated/
Article source: http://netneutrality.ws/2012/01/25/president-obamas-state-of-the-union-hyper/
Article source: http://netneutrality.ws/2012/01/26/president-obamas-state-of-the-union-hyper-net-neutrality/