Bennett discusses video navigation devices in his most recent reply comments to the FCC. Navigation devices are more commonly known as personal video recorders (PVR) in these comments. Bennett believes that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on PVRs is based on technology of navigation devices in the late 1990′s. He feels that ITIF can offer a different solution that both meets the FCC’s long term goals and will meet consumer needs.

The word “Network Neutrality” has always been so vague that it could mean any desirable thing people wanted it to be.  The inverse of “Network Neutrality” or a “non-neutral network” could mean any undesirable thing people wanted it to mean.  If people of a certain political leanings could be whipped into a frenzy when told that FoxNews.com [...]

One way of looking at the recent Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal is that the companies are arguing for an Internet structure that is a hybrid between “common carriers” and “contract carriers.” A fundamental distinction, which can be traced back centuries in the common law, is between a service that holds itself out to the public [...]

Free Press and their fellow Net Neutrality advocates are a classic example of this contradiction when they say “it’s not their first amendment but ours” and Nicholas Deleon of Crunch Gear is making the same mistake. Everyone loves to support free speech when it comes to speech they support, but the true test of a person’s conviction is when it comes to speech that they don’t support.

Jim Glassman interviews three experts on cybersecurity and Americas readiness for a cyberattack. Nearly a year after the Obama Administration review, these experts suggest that we are still not ready.

A few days ago Owen Good over at Kotaku published a story called Does “Net Neutrality” Mean a Golden Highway Paved By Gamers? in which he discusses the Google-Verizon deal. He was particularly interested in the 5th point listed at Google’s Public Policy Blog which he termed a “loop hole” for video gaming.

The Google-Verizon proposed compromise is based on good faith on the part of both companies but it falls short in some key areas. It takes the extreme position that paid router prioritization and that broadband providers are presumed guilty. It also defers the important debate on ISP differentiation while ignoring the will of the end user.

Net Neutrality advocates have this fantasy that all websites are supposed to run at the same speed and they want to “preserve” the equal-outcome Internet of their fantasies even if it changes the actual Internet into something it never was. Based on this equal-outcome premise, a differentiated equal opportunity but unequal players Internet is against the “freedom” of “the people” as defined in Free Press guide to public debate and “differentiation” is now replaced with the word “discrimination” with all the accompanying evil connotations.

Internet discussion of the Verizon-Google proposal on Net Neutrality has soaked up a lot of bits this week, but I do not feel enlightened. My problem is one that is endemic to the whole NN debate – the debate is conducted at a high level of abstraction, rarely getting down to cases on the question [...]

Saint reports that 4Chan.org’s founder Christopher “moot” Poole was called in as government witness in order to testify to the definition of terminology used on the web forum.