One of the key parts of the IDN system renders all those fears about our precious dot coms being invaded by shady, foreign characters for naught, because only country-specific domain names, those with two letter designations such as .cn or .ae, are affected by the approval. There are also some very specific restrictions on which languages can be used:

ICANN has set some language restrictions for IDNs: they must be in an official language of a country or territory and have legal status or at minimum "serve as a language of administration."

While that means we won't see Sindarin domain names anytime soon, the application process for IDNs will begin mid-November and documentation is being flung out to developers now. I look forward to seeing the changes internationalized domain names can bring to the internet, but in the end, everything will hinge on those developers supporting them. [Network World via Slashdot]

The Interface Message Processor was The Original Router. Two of these machines connected in October 29 1969: One was at the laboratory of Dr. Kleinrock—who established the mathematical theory of packet networks, which made the internet possible—at the University of California-Los Angeles. The other was in the laboratory of Douglas Engelbart at the Stanford Research Institute. Engelbart, who later became famous as the creator of the mouse, was working on online collaboration and human interfaces for Darpa during that time.

That day, the first internet backbone—then known as ARPANET—was born with the exchange of the first data packets. Before, only a few meaningless bits were exchanged. Two months later, a four-node backbone was completed. Today, forty years later, there are 1,668,870,408 users.

Oh, and right now, 5% of the packets are getting lost in North America. [Wikipedia via Daily Mail]

The Guardian has put together a fantastic year-by year slideshow, including video clips and factoids, about how the Internet we know and adore came to be. Check it out and be sure to share your favorite parts. Mine is in 1971 in the form of the first computer virus, the Creeper. That and the fact that there's some disagreement about which day should actually be celebrated as the Internet's birthday.

But before you run off to explore history, how about a nice and loud "Happy Birthday!" for our darling? [Guardian]

To make things easier, OnlineCourses has put together a list of 100 open tech courses and broken them down into 10 categories: Computer Science and Engineering, Computer Security, Programming, The Web, Software, Information Technology, Communication Technology, Technology in Education, Tech Math and Technology and Society.

Looking over the list, about 98% of the courses come from MIT, so you know you are going to learn something valuable. Admittedly, some of the courses are a bit out of date, but they should provide you with a foundation on usefull topics like computer systems engineering, C++, Computer graphics, Flash and Database systems to help you decide whether or not to pursue your education further. Hit the link for the full course list. [OnlineCourses]

And before you dismiss the chart outright, check out your cable company's channel packages. Replace content provider fees with new network backbone charges, and cable packages with traffic or website packages, and hey, look, shit—this doesn't seem so crazy, does it? Click here for the full version. [Reddit via Crunchgear]

Seriously, this is incredibly huge. Aside from being one of the single biggest changes to domain names since the "creation" of the Internet, more than 40 years ago, it also finally takes into consideration that more than half the Internet's users' native languages contain non-Latin characters. In a sense, it truly represents the liberty of the Internet.

It's taken many years to get here, but if plans are approved as expected, on October 30, then applications for these new domains can start flying in as soon as November 16. I'm definitely crossing my fingers and hoping that there aren't any let downs, because, as Brian remarked (tongue-firmly-in-cheek, I'm sure), this proposal shows that the white man doesn't own the Internet anymore. [BBC]

Photo by Infosecurity

Number one is, predictably, Japan, where the average broadband speed is 60mbps and they pay $0.27 per 1mbps. We, in comparison, average 4.8mbps and pay $3.33 per 1mbps, putting us at #15. Be sure to click the above image to see it in its full glory. [Zach Klein]

I have preserved the lyrics of the opening song for posterity's sake:

On your mark, get set!
We're riding on the internet!
Cyberspace, set free, hello virtual reality!
Interactive appetite! Searchin' for a website!
A window to the world, got to get online!
Take a spin, now you're in with the techno-set!
You're goin' surfin' on the internet!

Elmore Leonard once said that a writer only gets ten exclamation points to use in his life, so he'd better use them wisely. I just used eight and I am 100% confident that it was the right decision. I love this video more than Steve Jobs loves turtlenecks. The world is a sunnier and happier place with this video in it. Enjoy your night. [Videogum]

The idea is simple, but the politics aren't. All white spaces networks do is stick data into the unused frequencies that neighbor television signals, but broadcasters are afraid that TV signals aren't robust enough to handle data being packed in so tightly. This trial will be the first real-world test of that belief.

Hopefully all will go well and the tech will be able to provide rural communities with the broadband they've been hurting for. [Ars Technica]

Image via FutureAtlas

Let's face it, the Internet was designed for the PC. The Internet is not designed for the iPhone. That's why they've got 75,000 applications - they're all trying to make the Internet look decent on the iPhone.

Only trouble is that I don't know how those fart apps are making the Internet look decent. [AP via Business Insider]

Update: AT&T says that the letter was sent to "U.S. managers only" and that they "were providing important information to our employees, and it was up to them to respond personally. If they use their company email that is fine, too."

Specifically, he tells employees how to register to post comments on the FCC's net neutrality site using their "personal" email accounts, so it doesn't look like they're from AT&T shills, and lays out talking points for them to use, like "competition in the wireless industry is strong" and, hmmmmm, "the rules should apply to more than just network operators and should also include Web content companies like search engines." They're really pulling out all the stops, aren't they? Which should show you how truly scared they are of the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules.

If you want to comment in favor of net neutrality (or, um, not I suppose) to counter the lobbyist scum quotient, you can direct your comments here until Thursday. In the meantime, the FCC's busy tweaking the proposal, in particular the sections about network management—which is obviously what the carriers are most concerned about. [Washington Post]

Microsoft has deemed the hole to be a "critical" security threat, as it gives webmasters the ability to quietly install software on your PC. Last May, Microsoft released an update that made it possible to uninstall the .NET framework. They also released a patch earlier this week that supposedly fixes the problem. The vulnerability can also be exploited on users running any version of Internet Explorer. Needless to say, Firefox and IE users should employ one of those solutions ASAP. [Computer World Image via rootshell.be]

Oh ED, you're a lifesaver! A general who lead an infantry division in Iraq recently said that of the 155 men killed in combat, 122 could have lived if autonomous robots were doing the shooting instead. (Strangely, the other 33 would have died whether robots were around or not.) Replacing infantrymen with robots is a no brainer if you want to save your own boys, but Smokey from The Big Lebowski would probably say if nothing did the killing, even more lives would be spared. [Wired]

Am I reading this right? Slashdot says the entire domain .se—a million souls, I mean sites—up and vanished from the internet. Some didn't deliver successful replies for more than a day. Maybe I need to call Tim Berners-Lee for interpretation, but I don't get why more people aren't freaked out that an entire country up and disappeared, even if it was just for a moment. [Slashdot]

[Edit: This has been one of the most traumatic moments in my life. J.D.]

Someone did a comprehensive study of 836 people to see how people managed to keep username/password logins straight in their head. The test noted that only 4.4% of people showed no "deviations" from the ideal password rules, deviations including jotting down the password, reusing it time and again, using a deliberately short password or—and here's probably where most people failed-having no mix of characters and symbols. Having "best practices" that insanely rigid probably upped the failure rate substantially, but I think the important thing here—as Ars points out—is that the username/password system is a joke to begin with. [Ars Technica]

The 23-year-old guy who founded the International Church of Jediism obviously needs to watch Star Wars a few more times. The other day, he wore his hood into a supermarket and got yelled at something fierce. His very Jedi response? To run to the press and cry like a little bitch:

They said: 'Take it off', and I said: 'No, its part of my religion. It's part of my religious right.' I gave them a Jedi church business card.

No lightsabers, no waving of the hand in the air, not even "Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!" Just a business card? He continues:

They weren't listening to me and were rude. They had three people around me. It was intimidating.

"Intimidating"? For a Jedi? Just remember, intimidation leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Don't look now, but I think someone's headed for the Dark Side. [Guardian UK]

Apparently, the 18-year old kid flew into a rage a few months ago when his connection dropped during an online game. He decided that the only remedy was to skip all of the traditional troubleshooting techniques and go right to stabbing an innocent girl walking down the street. Fortunately, this completely insane act of random violence did not end as bad as it could have—the girl managed to escape with wounds that are not life threatening. As for her attacker, he is currently spending some downtime at a psychiatric hospital with an attempted manslaughter charge in the works.

Clearly, this is one disturbed individual we are talking about here. I mean, a rational person would have yelled at his modem and smacked it around with tears streaming down his face right? [Metro via SK Gaming via Crunchgear]

He apparently laments all the trees and time that's been killed by people having to type and print out "http://" instead of just "http:" and whatever the address is. I'm pretty sure, though, that typing out all those slashes isn't quite the biggest waste of time on the internet, so I hope he doesn't beat himself up too badly at night. [Bits]

He told Commonwealth Club of California forum attendees that he recently responded to an email that appeared to come from his bank, stopping only when he was asked for his password. Using his experience as an example, he went on to speak about the ever increasing threat of cybercrime. One smart-ass citizen responded to his warnings thusly:

"I'm not worried about a teenage hacker reading my e-mail. I'm worried about you reading it."

Ballsy—I'll give him that. But it appears that we have little to worry about as far as Muller is concerned. He's too busy reading every email in his inbox that's from Zimbabwe or in all caps. [SFGate]

A quick refresher: Net neutrality is, simply, the principle that all data gets treated the same by an ISP or service, whether it's incoming email or HD videos of dudes getting socked in the nuts by a 4-year-old on YouTube. A real-world example of very non-neutral behavior would be what got Comcast slapped by the FCC: specifically sabotaging torrents.

Theoretically, this could go beyond policing piracy, for instance if, say, Time Warner competitively blocked or slowed down Hulu, or if Verizon struck a deal with Google to give its data priority over traffic from Bing, so people using Google would get a way better experience than people using Bing. Streaming video is a not-so-coincidental theoretical example, since the explosion of video traffic is what the ISPs say is swallowing up all of the internet.

The end result of the threat of government-mandated net neutrality regulations for ISPs was a mixed "win" for consumers: AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner all responded with monthly data caps on their internet service in at least some of their markets. (Comcast limited it in all markets.)

As for the FCC telling ISPs to be more explicit about network management practices, Comcast started straight-up telling people heavy internet users would have their entire connections slowed down. While they suck for consumers, these are all "net neutral" practices, since no particular kind of data is discriminated against. The net neutrality debate fizzled down, though in some ways people were worse off than before.

With a new president, comes a new FCC chair, Julian Genachowski. Unlike his predecessor, who regularly reamed the cable industry but was a little too snuggly with the telecoms and against "hard and fast" net-neutrality rules, Genachowski is all about rules for everybody. Including the wireless carriers.

As you're probably well aware, mobile broadband is treated way differently than the internet that's piped into your house. It's considered fragile. There's far less of it to go around, with a less developed infrastructure and limited wireless spectrum to use. The rules for using it are tighter, like dating a nun. Restrictions abound, like no p2p. You don't want the network to break, after all. That's why, for instance, AT&T previously blocked Skype and SlingPlayer from running on 3G on the iPhone—and continues to block Sling—and why Apple rejects every torrent app that even tries to cross into the App Store.

In the past weeks, Genachowski has made it clear that he thinks that should change, that openness should "apply to the Internet however accessed." He's not saying they shouldn't be able to manage the network to make sure it runs smoothly, to be clear. But if you were scratching your head about why AT&T conceded and opened their network up to VoIP on the iPhone, look no further than this nugget from Genachowski, from a speech he gave three weeks ago:

We've already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet's historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications (phone calls delivered over data networks)..."

AT&T very much does not want the government to tell it how to run its networks, particularly the mobile one. AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega this week responded pretty clearly to the FCC's plans:

"Before we begin ‘fixing' what isn't broken, we need to be thoughtful about the consequences. We believe the marketplace today is vibrant, and there is no need to burden the mobile Internet with onerous new regulations."

So what's going to happen?

Well, the FCC is clear about what it thinks. This week, at a wireless telecom conference, Genachowski reiterated that net neutrality should apply to mobile broadband too. If those regulations pass, we'll likely see the same thing we saw with the landline providers: Caps (not just on 3G cards like there are now) and "transparent" network management. Goodbye unlimited mobile broadband like the iPhone has. You will pay for every ounce of data that you use. And if you're "crowding" the network by downloading a bunch of stuff, you're gonna get slowed down because that's the easy "net neutral" way to keep users in check. How much better is that, really?

So iPhone users, enjoy your "unlimited" wireless connections now. Pay-per-byte data—for both wired and wireless broadband networks—may well be the road we're going down. Verizon is the last major landline broadband provider who has held back from capping or throttling its services (looove my FiOS), but even its CTO says that eventually, "we are going to reach a point where we will sell packages of bytes."

Hopefully those packages will come cheap.

As illustrated in a few of our surveys, many of you have already made the jump, catching fresh TV via broadband instead of actual channels or even DVR. But the vast majority of us are still watching TV the old fashioned way—paying for packages from cable or satellite providers. But from what I've seen in my own house lately, I suspect that it won't be long before this practice is as archaic as owning a landline. Many of you refuse to pay for a phone twice, so why are you paying for two or three different ways to see your favorite TV shows?

There are, of course, drawbacks to a life without a broadcaster-friendly set-top box, so I spent a month trying to find out whether or not these drawbacks were significant enough to justify the huge additional cost.

The Experiment

Since this is Prof. Dealzmodo, you already know the impetus for this experiment was money. In particular my 12-month introductory package runs out soon, and the same channels will soon cost me nearly $80 per month. But why? The channel lineups are bloated and padded with filler—a veritable hot dog of entertainment where the real meat is mixed in with a lot of hooves and snouts. I mean, 70 music channels? Really? Isn't that what services like Pandora—and about 100 others—are for? Speaking of services, I decided to play it straight. I didn't get shows via BitTorrent. For a month, I simply used easily accessible, generally legal alternatives like Netflix, Hulu Desktop and network websites, plus Windows Media Center, which comes "free" with most PCs these days. The idea here is to prove that you don't need to spend tons of money, use complicated software or go to extreme measures to watch what you want.

Hardware

First let's talk about hardware. I don't see the point in spending money on niche players like Apple TV , Vudu, and Roku to get internet content onto your television. These players only handle a fraction of what any home theater PC can deliver. Also, sticking with a computer makes it easier to roll with new services and software platforms as they're released. (Hulu isn't on any set-top box yet, but it's available to every Mac and PC, in several ways.)

You don't need something elaborate here—an HTPC's main purpose is to browse the web and stream video. Just about any computer will do—including the old laptop you're thinking about replacing anyway. Back in the day, I used to attach my laptop to the TV with a simple S-video connection, but a lot of today's laptops and home-theater PCs make things extremely easy with an HDMI port.

If you don't have an HDMI port, there are simple workarounds. For older computers in general, there are DVI-to-HDMI (video only) and VGA-to-component cables are also doable for older PCs, and if you already have some video cables, there are adapters out there that might do the trick for less money. Owners of new Macs have to fudge a bit with Mini DisplayPort-to-HDMI converters, but even those, from Monoprice and others, are getting better.

There are plenty of products out there designed for the home-theater market that cost less than $500—including the Asus' EEEBox line and the Lenovo IdeaCenter Q700. Plus, there is always the option of buying refurbished or upgrading a cheap PC yourself to control costs.

If you want to cheat and record broadcast shows, you still don't have to pay for cable—you can get an over-the-air HD TV tuner. Generally, a USB dongle TV tuner or PCI card like those from Hauppage will cost $100 or so, and they work reasonably well, though you may need an external antenna for best results. You don't have to pay for service, and you can be assured of local news and other local programming, if that's important to you. Just don't come crying to us if you can't get your rabbit ears into just the right position.

No matter what computer and accessories you use, the added cost will probably pay for itself pretty quickly when you start canceling all those expensive subscriptions. As I mentioned earlier, going broadband-only will save me about $80 a month in satellite fees—in 8 months, I will have recouped my $600 home-theater PC investment.

In the end, my entire monthly TV entertainment budget runs about $60—that's $50 for basic broadband plus $10 for Netflix. Compare that to the $140 I would have paid starting in February for the combination of all that plus DirecTV. (As a sports fan, there are online programs that I do pay extra for, but you get what you pay for—as you'll see below.)

How To Manage and Control Your TV Content

You will have to sacrifice the basic (if not exactly pretty) UI you are used to. Fortunately, things are getting better. Hulu Desktop looks more like what you would find with a broadcast set-top box, and with Windows Media Center, having Netflix and other plug-ins makes finding and watching on-demand shows a whole lot easier. And there's at least one new website, Clicker that is taking a crack at organizing internet content into an easy-to-use programming guide.

Fortunately, I managed to keep the number of remotes on my coffee table to a minimum. I have a Windows Media Center remote to handle Netflix, DVDs, Hulu Desktop and downloads. Mac users have their own little white remote which handles much of this functionality, too. (A wireless keyboard and mouse are essential for more intricate navigation and many PC functions, but those can stay out of sight for the most part.)

iPhone/iPod Touch apps like Air Mouse and iTunes Remote have made my iPhone an all-in-one solution for controlling my computer and its software.

Watching Your Favorite Shows

I'm not a TV addict by a long shot, but there are shows that I watch religiously. These shows include 30 Rock, Lost, Family Guy, Californication and Dexter. The following graph illustrates the pluses and minuses of viewing a handful of different shows—not just my favorites—from popular networks.

The newest episodes of many of these shows are on Hulu, which mostly hosts fresh content—there isn't a huge back catalog of shows. The catch with new shows, on Hulu or on network websites, is that you usually have to wait a day to see them. (For many DVR devotees, that's not a big deal anyway.)

It's also important to point out that certain networks tease their new seasons in many locations online—NBC has been offering free HD downloads of many new shows on iTunes, in hopes you'll buy the season pass for $40 or more.

Netflix is another place where networks promote new shows: I was able to see the first episode of Californication and Dexter on Netflix during their limited time Watch Instantly preview. Speaking of that, Showtime shows, if available at all, do tend to appear on Netflix, but mostly only in re-runs.

As you can see, not everything streams in HD quality, although this appears to be changing. ABC is already streaming in HD, and others like Hulu and Netflix are dabbling, so it's only a matter of time before HD content is widely available for streaming online.

What's Not Online

CBS, HBO and Discovery: I'm talkin' to you. I couldn't care less about CBS programming—though it's the #1 rated network, so clearly somebody does. CBS.com (and TV.com) offers a handful of full episodes (CSI and NCIS), and some of those show up in Netflix too, but until CBS decides their agenda, you may have to wait for new seasons of Big Bang Theory to show up on DVD, or try to record over-the-air broadcasts (see above).

I love History Channel and Discovery Channel, and these guys are also reluctant to accept reality, move away from old revenue models and look towards the future. Nonetheless, I still get my fix though Netflix. Early seasons of some of my favorite shows (Deadlest Catch, Man vs Wild) are available for streaming via Watch Instantly, and more recent seasons are available for rental. I have the patience to wait for some of my favorite shows to arrive on DVD or Blu-ray—it's a virtue that could save you lots of money.

Let's Talk Live Sports

Traditionally, one of the major drawbacks of internet TV is a lack of live sports. Again, I don't know what sports and teams you are interested in, but for me it is all about football. For example, a few days ago I checked out the Steelers/Chargers game on NBC Sunday Night Football online. The streaming content is "HD" quality (at least it's in the realm of HD) and the service offers a viewing experience that is actually deeper than a standard broadcast. Users have access to DVR style controls, four separate camera angles, highlights and live analysis.

I also have the privilege of access to my beloved out-of-market NY Giants games each week with DirecTV's online Supercast service. It broadcasts all of the Sunday Ticket NFL games over the internet, but access to the online content requires DirecTV service and the full SuperFan package that runs a ridiculous $400 per year (Manhattan residents can access Supercast without DirecTV service). However, if you know someone with a Supercast account, you can piggyback.

If baseball is your thing, MLB.com offers a service similar to Supercast for around $100 per year depending on the package—although it only includes out-of-market games. Live golf can be viewed for free on PGATour.com; college sports, baseball, tennis, soccer and more is free on ESPN360 (if you are affiliated with an ESPN-approved broadband provider) and streaming sites like Justin.tv offer plenty of free sports viewing options, including live ESPN. Windows Media Center owners can also get SportsLounge, with Fox Sports.

The Future?

This is still the wild west, and things are apt to keep changing. I already mentioned services like DirecTV's Supercast and streaming games from MLB.com. Little by little, you will start to see primetime shows or packages offered a la carte online too. I hope we don't get to a point where we are paying more for access to online content than we now pay for cable content, but there has been serious talk by executives from Time Warner (HBO), CBS and Hulu (Fox, NBC, Disney) about that very thing: Either charge subscribers for premium content on demand, or simply verify that they are already paying customers of cable and satellite, and grant them access to stuff others can't see.

If the broadcasters have their way, you'll pay for it one way, or you'll pay for it another. Still, technology has a way of keeping pace with the dreams of media execs, and the experiments conducted by YouTube and Hulu and others with advertising may lead to some kind of compromise, too. It is really all up in the air, but for now...

What You Should Think About

When all was said and done, I found my experience without standard cable television to be more liberating than anything else. Sure, streaming video isn't always HD quality, not all of my favorite shows are readily available, and I have to search around a bit more for the things I want to watch—but I didn't suffer and I didn't feel like I was missing out. The added expense was not justifiable—especially when I was paying for a bunch of things I never watched. The best part is that I was able to get pretty much everything I needed with a basic set of tools that anyone with a computer can take advantage of right away.

Not everyone shares my taste in television but, at the very least, you should take a good look at your cable or satellite bill and ask yourself if it's really worth all that money.

Cohen is Comcast's executive vice-president for broadband. And of course, he believes that the FCC should get their hands off the internet. Because, you know, everything is perfectly fine now that private companies are controlling it, making sure to block or throttle down any traffic they want, like they did a few months ago. And these internet companies just want to keep doing this because—according to him—that's what benefits all of us, the consumers and companies trying to make free use of a vital infrastructure. One that should be neutral for everyone.

The Comcast VP gets the demagogical corpospeak award of the month with a headline that summarizes his article perfectly: "Does the internet need more regulation? FCC to decide". As in: "Oh, the big BAD government wants to regulate YOUR internet. Are you going to let them do that, your ignorant peasants you?" This comes from a guy who is working for Comcast. You know, the company that the FCC took to court because they were illegally throttling down bandwidth for certain internet applications.

So, does the internet need more regulation, Señor Cohen? Yes, it does. Regulation against you arbitrarily deciding to regulate the service we pay for. And so you and your pals in the communications and entertainment industries don't get all cozy and snuggly to take services or companies out of the network, just because you want to at any given point.

That's not regulation against consumers and companies. That's regulation to avoid that you keep doing whatever you want to in your own benefit, and against the interests of everyone else. [Comcast via Crunchgear]

Adding to previous guidelines, the FCC Chairman talked this morning about how he wants to prohibit any kind of discrimination against any kind of content by Internet access provider. He also wants them to make their network management rules public and clear, so there are no tricks hidden anywhere. Genachowski argues that this is the only way that companies and consumers can have true free access to the internet, leveling the ground for everyone with no arbitrary distinctions.

That's tough talk, Sr. Julius, but bravo is all I can say. We will see what happens, because I'm sure your intentions will find strong opposition from the industry—telcos and entertainment—as well as Vice-President Biden and his bandwagon of RIAA and BSA cheerleaders.

Here is the complete text of his speech:

Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation, Opportunity, and Prosperity
Prepared Remarks of Chairman Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission
The Brookings Institution
Washington, DC
September 21, 2009

I'd like to thank Brookings for hosting me and this discussion about the future of broadband and the Internet.
We've just finished a summer of big-ticket commemorations, celebrating the 40th anniversaries of the Apollo landing and of Woodstock; 1969 was also a good year to be a kid in New York, with Joe Namath calling the Super Bowl, and the Knicks' season that ended with the legendary Willis Reed in Game 7. I grew up a long fly ball from Shea Stadium and soaked up every minute of the Miracle Mets' season. Maybe that's why I tend to believe in miracles.
But perhaps the most momentous birthday from that famous summer of 1969 went by just a couple of weeks ago with little mention. Just over forty years ago, a handful of engineers in a UCLA lab connected two computers with a 15-foot gray cable and transferred little pieces of data back and forth. It was the first successful test of the ARPANET, the U.S.-government-funded project that became the Internet - the most transformational communications breakthrough since the printing press.
Today, we can't imagine what our lives would be like without the Internet - any more than we can imagine life without running water or the light bulb. Millions of us depend upon it every day: at home, at work, in school - and everywhere in between. The Internet has unleashed the creative genius of countless entrepreneurs and has enabled the creation of jobs - and the launch of small businesses and the expansion of large ones - all across America.
That's why Congress and the President have charged the FCC with developing a National Broadband Plan to ensure that every American has access to open and robust broadband. The fact is that we face great challenges as a nation right now, including health care, education, energy, and public safety. While the Internet alone will not provide a complete solution to any of them, it can and must play a critical role in solving each one.
Why has the Internet proved to be such a powerful engine for creativity, innovation, and economic growth? A big part of the answer traces back to one key decision by the Internet's original architects: to make the Internet an open system.
Historian John Naughton describes the Internet as an attempt to answer the following question: How do you design a network that is "future proof" - that can support the applications that today's inventors have not yet dreamed of? The solution was to devise a network of networks that would not be biased in favor of any particular application. The Internet's creators didn't want the network architecture - or any single entity - to pick winners and losers. Because it might pick the wrong ones. Instead, the Internet's open architecture pushes decision-making and intelligence to the edge of the network - to end users, to the cloud, to businesses of every size and in every sector of the economy, to creators and speakers across the country and around the globe. In the words of Tim Berners-Lee, the Internet is a "blank canvas" - allowing anyone to contribute and to innovate without permission.
It is easy to look at today's Internet giants - and the tremendous benefits they have supplied to our economy and our culture - and forget that many were small businesses just a few years ago, founded on little more than a good idea and a no-frills connection to the Internet. Marc Andreessen was a graduate student when he created Mosaic, which led to Netscape, the first commercially successful Web browser. Mark Zuckerberg was a college student in 2004 when he started Facebook, which just announced that it added its 300 millionth member. Pierre Omidyar originally launched eBay on his own personal website. Today more than 600,000 Americans earn part of their living by operating small businesses on eBay's auction platform, bringing jobs and opportunity to Danvers, Massachusetts, Durham, North Carolina and Lincoln, Nebraska, and many other communities in both rural and urban America. This is the power of the Internet: distributed innovation and ubiquitous entrepreneurship, the potential for jobs and opportunity everywhere there is broadband.
And let us not forget that the open Internet enables much more than commerce. It is also an unprecedented platform for speech, democratic engagement, and a culture that prizes creative new ways of approaching old problems. In 2000, Jimmy Wales started a project to create a free online encyclopedia. He originally commissioned experts to write the entries, but the project only succeeded after moving to volunteers to write them collaboratively. The result is Wikipedia, one of the top 10 most visited websites in the world and one of the most comprehensive aggregations of human knowledge in our history. The potential of collaboration and social media continues to grow. It is changing and accelerating innovation. And we've seen new media tools like Twitter and YouTube used by democratic movements around the globe.
Even now, the Internet is beginning to transform health care, education, and energy usage for the better. Health-related applications, distributed over a widely connected Internet, can help bring down health care costs and improve medical service. Four out of five Americans who are online have accessed medical information over the Internet, and most say this information affected their decision-making. Nearly four million college students took at least one online course in 2007, and the Internet can potentially connect kids anywhere to the best information and teachers everywhere. And the Internet is helping enable smart grid technologies, which promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by hundreds of millions of metric tons.
At the same time, we have also seen great strides in the center of the network. Most Americans' early exposure to the Internet was through analog modems, which allowed a trickle of data through the phone lines to support early electronic bulletin boards and basic email. Over the last two decades, thanks to substantial investment and technological ingenuity, companies devised ways to retrofit networks initially designed for phones and one-way video to support two-way broadband data streams connecting homes and businesses across the country. And a revolution in wireless technologies - using licensed and unlicensed spectrum - and the creation of path-breaking devices like the Blackberry and iPhone have enabled millions of us to carry the Internet in our pockets and purses.
The lesson of each of these stories, and innumerable others like them, is that we cannot know what tomorrow holds on the Internet, except that it will be unexpected; that the genius of American innovators is unlimited; and that the fewer obstacles these innovators face in bringing their work to the world, the greater our opportunity as citizens and as a nation.
Notwithstanding its unparalleled record of success, today the free and open Internet faces emerging and substantial challenges. We've already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet's historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications (phone calls delivered over data networks) and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen at least one service provider deny users access to political content. And as many members of the Internet community and key Congressional leaders have noted, there are compelling reasons to be concerned about the future of openness.
One reason has to do with limited competition among service providers. As American consumers make the shift from dial-up to broadband, their choice of providers has narrowed substantially. I don't intend that remark as a policy conclusion or criticism - it is simply a fact about today's marketplace that we must acknowledge and incorporate into our policymaking.
A second reason involves the economic incentives of broadband providers. The great majority of companies that operate our nation's broadband pipes rely upon revenue from selling phone service, cable TV subscriptions, or both. These services increasingly compete with voice and video products provided over the Internet. The net result is that broadband providers' rational bottom-line interests may diverge from the broad interests of consumers in competition and choice.
The third reason involves the explosion of traffic on the Internet. With the growing popularity of high-bandwidth applications, Internet traffic is roughly doubling every two years. Technologies for managing broadband networks have become more sophisticated and widely deployed. But these technologies are just tools. They cannot by themselves determine the right answers to difficult policy questions - and they raise their own set of new questions.
In acknowledging the existence of challenging competitive, economic, and technological realities for today's Internet, I want to underscore that this debate, as I see it, isn't about white hats or black hats among companies in and around the network. Rather, there are inevitable tensions built into our system; important and difficult questions that we have an obligation to ask and to answer correctly for our country.

When I worked in the private sector I was fortunate to work with some of the greatest innovators of our time. That taught me some lessons about the importance of innovation and investment. It also taught me the importance of developing clear goals and then being focused and practical in achieving them, making sure to have the best input and ideas from the broadest group possible.
I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust Internet. I also know that achieving this goal will take an approach that is smart about technology, smart about markets, smart about law and policy, and smart about the lessons of history.
The rise of serious challenges to the free and open Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see the Internet's doors shut to entrepreneurs, the spirit of innovation stifled, a full and free flow of information compromised. Or we could take steps to preserve Internet openness, helping ensure a future of opportunity, innovation, and a vibrant marketplace of ideas.
I understand the Internet is a dynamic network and that technology continues to grow and evolve. I recognize that if we were to create unduly detailed rules that attempted to address every possible assault on openness, such rules would become outdated quickly. But the fact that the Internet is evolving rapidly does not mean we can, or should, abandon the underlying values fostered by an open network, or the important goal of setting rules of the road to protect the free and open Internet.
Saying nothing - and doing nothing - would impose its own form of unacceptable cost. It would deprive innovators and investors of confidence that the free and open Internet we depend upon today will still be here tomorrow. It would deny the benefits of predictable rules of the road to all players in the Internet ecosystem. And it would be a dangerous retreat from the core principle of openness - the freedom to innovate without permission - that has been a hallmark of the Internet since its inception, and has made it so stunningly successful as a platform for innovation, opportunity, and prosperity.
In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement, I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet.
This is how I propose we move forward: To date, the Federal Communications Commission has addressed these issues by announcing four Internet principles that guide our case-by-case enforcement of the communications laws. These principles can be summarized as: Network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.
The principles were initially articulated by Chairman Michael Powell in 2004 as the "Four Freedoms," and later endorsed in a unanimous 2005 policy statement issued by the Commission under Chairman Kevin Martin and with the forceful support of Commissioner Michael Copps, who of course remains on the Commission today. In the years since 2005, the Internet has continued to evolve and the FCC has issued a number of important decisions involving openness. Today, I propose that the FCC adopt the existing principles as Commission rules, along with two additional principles that reflect the evolution of the Internet and that are essential to ensuring its continued openness.
The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination - stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed.
This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications - not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network openness can and must co-exist.
I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a different framework. I believe such services can supplement - but must not supplant - free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that maximizes the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and thriving Internet.
I will propose that the FCC evaluate alleged violations of the non-discrimination principle as they arise, on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that the Internet is an extraordinarily complex and dynamic system. This approach, within the framework I am proposing today, will allow the Commission to make reasoned, fact-based determinations based on the Internet before it–not based on the Internet of years past or guesses about how the Internet will evolve.
The sixth principle is a transparency principle - stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices. Why does the FCC need to adopt this principle? The Internet evolved through open standards. It was conceived as a tool whose user manual would be free and available to all. But new network management practices and technologies challenge this original understanding. Today, broadband providers have the technical ability to change how the Internet works for millions of users - with profound consequences for those users and content, application, and service providers around the world.
To take one example, last year the FCC ruled on the blocking of peer-to-peer transmissions by a cable broadband provider. The blocking was initially implemented with no notice to subscribers or the public. It was discovered only after an engineer and hobbyist living in Oregon realized that his attempts to share public domain recordings of old barbershop quartet songs over a home Internet connection were being frustrated. It was not until he brought the problem to the attention of the media and Internet community, which then brought it to the attention of the FCC, that the improper network management practice became known and was stopped.
We cannot afford to rely on happenstance for consumers, businesses, and policymakers to learn about changes to the basic functioning of the Internet. Greater transparency will give consumers the confidence of knowing that they're getting the service they've paid for, enable innovators to make their offerings work effectively over the Internet, and allow policymakers to ensure that broadband providers are preserving the Internet as a level playing field. It will also help facilitate discussion among all the participants in the Internet ecosystem, which can reduce the need for government involvement in network management disagreements.
To be clear, the transparency principle will not require broadband providers to disclose personal information about subscribers or information that might compromise the security of the network, and there will be a mechanism to protect competitively sensitive data.
In considering the openness of the Internet, it is also important to recognize that our choice of technologies and devices for accessing the Internet continues to expand at a dizzying pace. New mobile and satellite broadband networks are getting faster every day, and extraordinary devices like smartphones and wireless data cards are making it easier to stay connected while on the go. And I note the beginnings of a trend towards openness among several participants in the mobile marketplace.
Even though each form of Internet access has unique technical characteristics, they are all are different roads to the same place. It is essential that the Internet itself remain open, however users reach it. The principles I've been speaking about apply to the Internet however accessed, and I will ask my fellow Commissioners to join me in confirming this.
Of course, how the principles apply may differ depending on the access platform or technology. The rulemaking process will enable the Commission to analyze fully the implications of the principles for mobile network architectures and practices - and how, as a practical matter, they can be fairly and appropriately implemented. As we tackle these complex questions involving different technologies used for Internet access, let me be clear that we will be focused on formulating policies that will maximize innovation and investment, consumer choice, and greater competition.
I've talked about what we need to do; now I'd like to talk about how we should do it. I will soon circulate to my fellow Commissioners proposed rules prepared by Commission staff embodying the principles I've discussed, and I will ask for their support in issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. This notice will provide the public with a detailed explanation of what we propose to do and why.
Equally importantly, the notice will ask for input and feedback on the proposed rules and their application, such as how to determine whether network management practices are reasonable, and what information broadband providers should disclose about their network management practices and in what form. And - as I indicated earlier - it will pose a series of detailed questions on how the Internet openness principles should apply to mobile broadband.
While my goals are clear - to ensure the Internet remains a free and open platform that promotes innovation, investment, competition, and users' interests - our path to implementing them is not pre-determined. I will ensure that the rulemaking process will be fair, transparent, fact-based, and data-driven. Anyone will be able to participate in this process, and I hope everyone will. We will hold a number of public workshops and, of course, use the Internet and other new media tools to facilitate participation. Today we've launched a new website, www.openinternet.gov, to kick off discussion of the issues I've been talking about. We encourage everyone to visit the site and contribute to the process.
Some have argued that the FCC should not take affirmative steps to protect the Internet's openness. Let me be clear about what this is about, and what it isn't.
The fundamental goal of what I've outlined today is preserving the openness and freedom of the Internet. We have an obligation to ensure that the Internet is an enduring engine for U.S. economic growth, and a foundation for democracy in the 21st century. We have an obligation to ensure that the Internet remains a vast landscape of innovation and opportunity.
This is not about government regulation of the Internet. It's about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet. We will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity, and entrepreneurial activity.
This is not about protecting the Internet against imaginary dangers. We're seeing the breaks and cracks emerge, and they threaten to change the Internet's fundamental architecture of openness. This would shrink opportunities for innovators, content creators, and small businesses around the country, and limit the full and free expression the Internet promises. This is about preserving and maintaining something profoundly successful and ensuring that it's not distorted or undermined. If we wait too long to preserve a free and open Internet, it will be too late.
Some will seek to invoke innovation and investment as reasons not to adopt open Internet rules. But history's lesson is clear: Ensuring a robust and open Internet is the best thing we can do to promote investment and innovation. And while there are some who see every policy decision as either pro-business or pro-consumer, I reject that approach; it's not the right way to see technology's role in America.
An open Internet will benefit both consumers and businesses. The principles that will protect the open Internet are an essential step to maximize investment and innovation in the network and on the edge of it - by establishing rules of the road that incentivize competition, empower entrepreneurs, and grow the economic pie to the benefit of all.
I believe we share a common purpose - we want the Internet to continue flourishing as a platform for innovation and communication, with continued investment and increasing deployment of broadband to all Americans. I believe my fellow Commissioners share this purpose, and I look forward to working collaboratively with them in this endeavor.
In closing, we are here because 40 years ago, a bunch of researchers in a lab changed the way computers interact and, as a result, changed the world. We are here because those Internet pioneers had unique insights about the power of open networks to transform lives for the better, and they did something about it. Our work now is to preserve the brilliance of what they contributed to our country and the world. It's to make sure that, in the 21st century, the garage, the basement, and the dorm room remain places where innovators can not only dream but bring their dreams to life. And no one should be neutral about that.

[All Things D]

A 1.2 billion pound book, people, almost as tall as 10 Empire State Buildings. I'll skip the boring parts, and watch the naughty pics. [Creative Cloud via Dark Roasted Blend]

Click on the picture for a closer look.

The higher up in the hierarchy a distractions is, the more of a priority it's supposed to be. I'm not entirely sure I agree about a work email trumping a new pal's Facebook update, but it's a reasonable enough chart. What's your order of priorities? [Information is Beautiful]

The image above shows the log entry of the first meaningful connection between two computer nodes. It happened on October 29, 1969. However, the very first heart beat, the first actual connection in which bits were exchanged between two hosts happened 40 years ago today.

Later those two nodes evolved into this:

That's the first logical map of ARPANET, the world's first operational packet switching network created by the Advanced Research Projects Agency. It's objective was to provide data connectivity at all times for the U.S. government, who wanted a way to keep communications in the case Ivan emptied its ICBM silos all over the United States and its allies. Years later, ARPANET became the Internet.

So may God bless the military, for without them we wouldn't be writing, and reading Gizmodo every day. Happy birthday, ARPANET! Or internet! Or arpaternet! Or whatever the hell you call yourself these days, you old promiscuous data whore you. [Wikipedia and LA Times via Boing Boing]

Credit to Nicholas Thompson over at Epicenter, who spent some quality time with the bill:

[I]n its original form, did have some seriously bad ideas in it. For example, in an emergency, the president could "order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network."

And then, Senate procedure happened. The softened, pared-down language of the current bill would only entitle the President to, "In the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network" help to "direct the national response" to a crisis, "in coordination with relevant industry sectors." As Thompson notes, nothing scary is granted here, and the President definitely hasn't been authorized to take over private networks, for malign ends, for fun, or otherwise.

In reality, the bill might actually aid transparency, oddly enough: Thompson highlights a theory that, by ensuring the government's digital emergency management powers are kept out of the less accountable hands of the NSA and in the public view, abuses are less likely. So there's that! [Wired Epicenter]

Created in part by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, this animated web toy might not render the most appealing soundscapes straight away, but it gives you plenty of tools to at least try to coax notes out of two years of topographical data collected by the Kaguya moon orbiter. There are two playback modes: Orbit, which translates the altitudes along a fixed rotational path into sounds, sort of like a phonograph needle; and Free Scratch, which lets you plot a listening path along the moon's surface with your cursor. Both modes have a slew of MIDI instrument options, as well as adjustable speed.

Fiddle as I may, I couldn't really create anything that most people wold consider listenable—the only consistent aesthetic I could achieve was "Childhood Clown Nightmare"—but that's not the point: For a certain class of aspirational armchair astronauts, anything that brings us even a micrometer closer to experiencing space, the moon, or really, anything that isn't earth in a new way, is an unqualified, unconditional Good Thing. [Moonbell via Pink Tentacle]

No word on new features; even though our own Matt really liked the original Chumby, he didn't see much of a niche for it to fill. But the design has kind of an iriver neo-retro thing going on with the cubic design and big dial, and we've always had a soft spot for the little guy. We'll update more as we get new information. [Ryan Block]

Mininova's been working on a copyright filter for a while, but with the stakes so artificially high, it would need to be almost perfect to make operating the site worthwhile. This means that Mininova will either A.) Become the premier torrent indexer for Linux ISOs and public domain FLAC music, or B.) die.*

With two major torrent sites all but snuffed out in the last few weeks, there are only a few decent alternatives left. Although if you're of a hardier type, there's always Usenet. [Torrentfreak]

*Spoiler: It's B.

Gina at Lifehacker has you covered with their definitive guide to finding free Wi-Fi. Besides the usual easy haunts, like Harbucks or one of those coffee places that won't kick your ass to the curb for busting out your laptop, there are a few tricks of the trade: Scanners, look-up tools, and when you're desperate, you might just need to crack some WEP. Check that guide for all the how-tos. Just don't be greedy now, to save some for the rest of us. [Lifehacker, Image via florian/Flickr]

This is only a concept of course, but imagine how much weight you would lose if you had to pedal to enjoy all of the inappropriate videos you peruse online? You would be in great shape in no time. Of course, it may take a while before you are ready to "multitask" and kick that workout into overdrive. [Matt Grey via Make]

This is painful for the vast majority of the world's online population, who live out their lives in a sub-10Mbps ghetto, but doubly so for South Korea, who seemed to have the claim to the first 1Gbps connection all locked up. If it's any consolation, nobody's even claiming they'll be able to hit 1Gbps here.

Of course, there will be disadvantages. 1Gbps connections surely won't come cheap, and seriously, beyond extremely well-seeded torrents, you're going to have trouble finding too many places that are willing to serve you content at over 128 megabytes per second. But still, this hurts. UPDATE: Apparently Japan might already have this? Well, screw you guys too. [Broadband TV News]

Three guards (who are now detained) apparently beat the boy for "running too slowly," despite the camp promising that it uses no techniques that might compromise a visitor's health. His father had paid the camp $1,024 for Deng Senshan's treatment.

According to Time, there are hundreds of such camps in China. This is the first reported death from an internet addiction facility. [Global Times via WSJ via The Raw Feed]

The one billion downloads milestone includes users downloading multiple copies for different computers as well as any manual downloads for upgrading purposes, though not any automatic updates. With so many users, it's now holding about 31% marketshare, second only to that ornery old dinosaur Internet Explorer at around 60% (Opera, Chrome and Safari are all below 5%). Once Firefox Mobile and the oddly Chrome-like Firefox 4.0 come out, we can expect that number to skyrocket even more. Congratulations and mazel tov, Mozilla. [BBC]

Created by Scottish musical collective Found, Cybraphon is basically a collection of mechanical instruments in a box, including some acoustic instruments and a whole lot of junk machinery. It constantly searches the internet and adjusts its "mood" between depressed and ecstatic by such vapid statistics as number of Myspace friends and Facebook invites. Its mood is then demonstrated by the tone of the music it plays, from dirgey melodrama to perky upbeat tones.

It's a really cheeky and fun project, and we're in a unique position here to overflow the Cybraphon's happiness sensors by bombarding its social networking pages with hits. Let's make the cabinet-sized whiner as cheerful as it can possibly be. [Cybraphon]

The game, named Page Hunt, presents users with a random Web page and then asks them to input the search terms that will put that page within a search engine's top five search results. Depending on how close to the top of the rankings their queries put the Web page, players are awarded points. In order to sweeten the experience, the game adds animations, a top-score list, bonus points and other "gamelike" features.

It's a good idea, and the game couldn't be more simple. Is it fun? Well, that depends on how bored you are at work right now. At any rate, if you have been using Bing and you want to help to fine tune their algorithm, Page Hunt can help you kill a few minutes. [Page Hunt via eWeek via PCMag]

Verizon Broadband Better Than Ever With Free Wi-Fi

Millions of High Speed Internet and FiOS Users Now Provided Access to Thousands of On-The-Go, Wi-Fi Hotspots Across the U.S.

NEW YORK – Verizon continues to enhance its broadband service capabilities for consumers to offer competitive advantages over rival communication providers.

Since the beginning of the year, Verizon has introduced faster downstream and unprecedented upstream speeds for its all-fiber-optic FiOS Internet service; expanded the reach of its digital subscriber line-based Verizon High Speed Internet (HSI) service; and started offering mini netbook computers to customers as part of select bundle promotions.

And starting today, the company will expand Internet connection capabilities for millions of Verizon broadband customers by providing them free access to thousands of Wi-Fi connections across the U.S., reflecting the company's sharp focus on developing and deploying broadband and entertainment services.
"Wherever they go – across town or across the country — Internet users today want the freedom and flexibility of staying connected online whenever they want," said Mike Ritter, Chief Marketing Officer for Verizon Telecom. "In addition to providing in-home broadband networks and the nation's most reliable 3G wireless network, we're now offering even more connections with fast, free Wi-Fi that customers can use in their local communities and when traveling across the country."

New Verizon FiOS Internet customers who order an up-to- 25/15 Mbps* (megabits per second) or faster connection or new HSI customers who order an up-to- 3 Mbps/768 Kbps* (kilobits per second) or up-to- 7.1 Mbps/768 Kbps* connection can connect to the new Verizon Wi-Fi hotspots, at no additional charge as part of their broadband service.

The new WiFi service is also available free of charge for existing FiOS Internet customers with up-to-20 Mbps or faster packages and existing HSI customers who have either an up-to-3 Mbps or up-to- 7.1 Mbps package.

Free Verizon Wi-Fi hotspot locations include hotels, airports, restaurants, coffee shops, retailers, convention centers and public locations across the U.S. For a list of hotspot locations, visit www.verizon.net/hotspots.

"Our new free Wi-Fi connections are an ideal complement to our current netbook promotion that really enhances the value and functionality of the netbook," said Ritter. "We're making it more enticing for customers to want to use Verizon broadband services by giving them the mobility tools they need to stay connected more often and in more places."

I wonder if he's thought about a Kindle? I know I wish I had time to read real books. I'm glad he found time to write about his 1979 memories for Giz though, back when all you could read were like, things made out of paper, or poo scribbled on a wall, like the Marquis de Sade. [Yahoo via Neowin]

Beginning Friday, an AT&T customer was impacted by a denial-of-service attack stemming from IP addresses connected to img.4chan.org. To prevent this attack from disrupting service for the impacted AT&T customer, and to prevent the attack from spreading to impact to our other customers, AT&T temporarily blocked access to the IP addresses in question for our customers. This action was in no way related to the content at img.4chan.org; our focus was on protecting our customers from malicious traffic.

Overnight Sunday, after we determined the denial-of-service threat no longer existed, AT&T removed the block on the IP addresses in question. We will continue to monitor for denial-of-service activity and any malicious traffic to protect our customers.

I'm sure that won't stop the 4chan retaliation, but it's good to know censorship hasn't taken hold at AT&T. Yet.

Update: 4chan's Moot says:

Unfortunately, as an unintended consequence of the method used [to filter a DDoS attack against 4chan], some Internet users received errant traffic from one of our network switches. A handful happened to be AT&T customers.

In response, AT&T filtered all traffic to and from our img.4chan.org IPs (which serve /b/ & /r9k/) for their entire network, instead of only the affected customers. AT&T did not contact us prior to implementing the block. Here is their statement regarding the matter.

In the end, this wasn't a sinister act of censorship, but rather a bit of a mistake and a poorly executed, disproportionate response on AT&T's part. Whoever pulled the trigger on blackholing the site probably didn't anticipate [nor intend] the consequences of doing so.

[AT&T, 4chan]