Martin's aim now is to punish Comcast via an order he is trying to push through his fellow commissioners. If passed, Comcast would be forced to stop P2P blocking, provide details on its P2P blocking practices and inform its customers about its plans for the future. Fortunately, he only has to secure two more votes on the five-person panel to make his plan a reality. And there are two Democrats on the commission that are staunch supporters of net neutrality and are likely to follow his lead. So it looks like Comcast will be getting the big FCC boot in its ass in the very near future. Bout' friggin' time if you ask me. UPDATE: The WSJ is reporting that Martin is not looking to add a fine in addition to the bill against Comcast. [AP via Arstechnica]

Google just thinks that you have a right to know what your ISP is doing. If your ISP won't tell you, you should have the tools to figure out. In fact, according to one article cited by Hot Hardware, when net neutrality first started becoming an issue, at first Google considered just going along with ISPs: "We would come out fine—a non-neutral world would be a good world for us." Do no evil, eh? [Hot Hardware via /.]

The reasons behind the rush to curb heavy data users, whether or not they're asshole pirates, are simultaneously simple and complex, but one of the major reasons is that content flowing over the pipes increasingly competes with cable's TV offerings. Literally in Comcast's case, since it needs as much bandwidth as it can get to deliver HD content. We're keeping our eyes peeled for more about its rumored plan to test data caps, much like Time Warner is doing—it's increasingly looking like the future of broadband in the US. [Threat Level]

The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act is sponsored by Michigan Democratic Representative John Conyers (who happens to be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee) along with Silicon Valley Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren. Conyers' premise:

"The Internet was designed without centralized control, without gatekeepers for content and services. If we allow companies with monopoly or duopoly power to control how the Internet operates, network providers could have the power to choose what content is available."

The opponents specifically argue that new competition in broadband networks is what keeps ISPs honest in their dealings with consumers. Michigan Republican Representative Fred Upton is quoted as saying, "Our hands-off policy is working." From what we've seen there, Fred, you are either all wrong, mostly wrong or at least partially wrong. [IDG in NY Times via Slashdot]

If this is entering the mix with Comcast's new "protocol agnostic" network management technique (in something closer to English, very temporarily slowing down your whole connection if you're hitting the pipe really hard at the same time as a lot of other people in your area), you're looking at an uncomfortably restricted pipe (to me anyway), even if they're not targeting torrents specifically anymore, and the overage fees honestly aren't obscene.

The scary part is that this happening actually does make sense, for a couple of reasons. One, P2P traffic isn't the biggest bandwidth hog, it's streaming video, and this'll get people to (maybe) cut down on their habit, however they're sucking down bandwidth. Second, it'll keep them (sorta) clean with the FCC, which is seriously leaning toward transparency rules that would make ISPs be up front about this sort of thing anyway. And after all, there's no better motivator to watch your ass than money slipping out of your back pocket—no schmancy traffic management necessary. [Broadband Reports]

According to their data, "the results show a significant enough difference in the level of resets from one network operator to another, to warrant asking certain network operators to describe their network management practices," and AT&T, Cablevision and AOL are at the top of the heap. In our feature on ISP network management, while AT&T directly stated its "techniques don't include degrading or blocking traffic," they did decline to elaborate on what they did do.

While in Comcast's case, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told a Senate committee they lied about throttling torrents only during periods of congestion and never issued a flat denial, AT&T's repeated, direct counters incline us to believe them. But we still agree with Azureus's goal, to push ISPs to be completely transparent about how they manage their network—we'll leave whether the FCC should mandate net neutrality up to the policy wonks. Besides, it's looking like the FCC is moving toward transparency regulations anyway, if not neutrality. [PC World]

So, let's see. No anal sex without prior negotiation. Condoms must be worn, unless the nerd-gin wishes to release his manfat on Tanya's body. No under-18s. Proof that the victimrgin supports net neutrality must be provided (a black tee-shirt with "I Support Net Neutrality" emblazoned on the front won't cut it, sorry.) Finally, Tanya "may deny service for hygiene reasons."

This is not the first time that Ms Devereaux has offered up her orifices for a good cause. Last year she put 40,000 blowjobs on the negotiating table when she ran for a seat in the Belgian senate, as a protest against other politicians' claims that they would create 400,000 jobs. Clearly she thought that sucking on a pencil would get voters putting a XXXX in her box. [Don't Stay Virgin and Skirmisher—thanks Dirk]

He continues that "Based on testimony we've received thus far, this equipment was typically deployed over a wider geographic area or system, and is not even capable of knowing when an individual ... segment of the network is congested."

Honestly, the Comcast/P2P/net neutrality story is a bit played out, and frustrating, because nothing material has really happened, and I'm actually sort of tired of it. The major reason I'm posting this is because I was specifically told something by Comcast PR—which I gave the benefit of the doubt, because while PR cajoles and spruces, they rarely intentionally deceive—which the chairman of the FCC is stating to be categorically untrue. That's unfortunate, and disconcerting.

While we should always fact check, we shouldn't have to worry about being lied to. I'm waiting for them to get back to me, and I hope there's just some mixed signals going on here, but their response to Computerworld, that doesn't flat-out deny Martin's accusations, isn't very reassuring. [Computerworld via /.]

No, p2p is no longer the single biggest traffic whore, responsible for only 20 percent of total traffic. It's streaming video, like YouTube and Hulu, which is now 50 percent of total traffic. During peak congestion—the times when Comcast will slow you down for hitting the pipe too hard—70 percent of it is http.

Which explains Comcast's flip on network management and why it's a total smokescreen. P2P is no longer the number one leech on networks, it's streaming video across regular old http. So they don't need to throttle p2p exclusively anymore—they need to slow the whole pipe down, hence the new "protocol agnostic" scheme. But they can look good showing off how much they love p2p. It remains to be seen how much of it the FCC will eat up. [GigaOM]

And it's because you assholes are using it too much. Cicconi argued that the "unprecedented new wave of broadband traffic" currently flooding the tubes will increase to 50 times what it is now by 2015, with video making up 80 percent of all internet traffic by 2010. So yeah, you really can only use the internet for porn twice a day, max, or it could one day be gone forever.

Of course, this was all just a lead up to poo on government-enforced net neutrality, the overt argument being that only the ISPs know how to manage the internet, with the subtext that only traffic management can save it: "I don't think government intervention is the right way to do this kind of thing. I don't think government can anticipate these kinds of technical problems. Right now, I think Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem."

But can you really trust someone who doesn't believe in the giant Linksys router? [Cnet via Valleywag]

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

"Application designers need to understand what will and what will not work on the network, and consumers must be fully informed about the exact nature of the service they are purchasing."

"Particularly as broadband providers are trying to provide tiers of service, it's critical to make sure that we are understanding that the broadband network operators are able to deliver the speeds and service that they are selling."

Poor Comcast, it really is looking like their whole P2P vaudeville show might not stop the FCC after all. If none of this made any sense to you, check out our quick guide to ISPs and network practices, and what they mean for you. [Reuters]

As Ars points out, they don't plan on inviting consumer groups to this constitutional convention, viewing it as more of an "industry" deal. Which is what we told you guys earlier about ISPs suddenly seeing the light of P2P. It's an industry thing, not a you thing. Protocol agnostic management, for one, can simply mean slowing down all your traffic equally, be it p2p or streaming video.

Also, if they make a "bill of rights" on their own terms, it's a further case for the industry that the FCC doesn't need to step in with a government-mandated bill of rights or net neutrality rules—which no ISP wants, not even Verizon, who is the most vocal about not policing or throttling their pipes.

The upside, again, is smarter use of increasingly taxed pipes with more efficient protocols. But that's not necessarily about you. And if the rest of the industry doesn't jump aboard, this could all amount to jack. [Comcast, Ars, Multichannel]

The scariest scenario is invasive "packet filtering," where companies look at what you're downloading and punish you for perceived misconduct. Comcast was the poster child for BitTorrent throttling before getting cozy with it to avoid an FCC smackdown, and AT&T infamously broached the idea of filtering its entire network for copyrighted content. Beyond packet filtering, there are two potentially more widespread ways big ISPs can try to bring down the Torrent mad: "Caps," already used by local ISPs such as BendBroadband and Sunflower, are set amounts you can download each month. Anything over that, like cellphone plans, means overage penalties. "Throttling" is the ability of the ISP to, any given moment, put the brakes on your connection when you're being too much of a resource hog. Here's where the ISPs stand on the tactics above and your pipes.

AT&T

We have said consistently that AT&T will not allow itself to become a policeman or enforcement agent on the Internet. We have also made clear that there is nothing inherently wrong with P2P applications like BitTorrent, which are advanced, and legal, technologies that are used and welcomed on our network... We do not block or degrade any P2P application to manage network congestion. At the same time, we feel that any company involved with the Internet should be concerned about illegal activity, whether it is identity theft or intellectual property theft, and should be prepared to cooperate in legal means of addressing such problems while protecting fully the privacy of our customers.

Update: AT&T wrote in with an additional statement: "We can't give you details on our specific network management techniques to handle times of high-volume" citing similar reasons as Time Warner, "but those techniques don't include degrading or blocking traffic."

Comcast:
Here's the statement we got pre-BT chumminess, though we now know that Comcast is moving to a more management style that'll temporarly slow all traffic, whether it's cracked copies of Final Cut Pro from your favorite P2P or YouTube, to a drip during congestion:

We have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience and we use the latest technologies to manage our network so that they can continue to enjoy these applications. During periods of heavy peer-to-peer congestion, which can degrade the experience for all customers, we use several network management technologies that, when necessary, enable us to delay—not block—some peer-to-peer traffic.

Comcast is not currently using or testing any filtering technologies. We agree that copyright owners have a right to protect their content. We work well with them under existing law and will continue to work with content owners to find solutions to help support their efforts around piracy. We cannot speculate on what AT&T is doing or how its technology works.

Speakeasy
They got back to us after we went to press, but here's what they had to say on network management: "Our position on this is that [we] attempt to manage our network to account for peak usage so that we do not need to throttle bandwidth of customers pending applications in order to keep our pipes unclogged." And on content filtering: "Speakeasy does not currently do any content filtering, and at this time we have no plans to filter content."

The Takeaway
Since BitTorrent became a rallying point for net neutrality advocates (and caught the attention of the FCC) ISPs have made a show of stepping back from P2P hampering to shield themselves from both nerd backlash and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's steely gaze. Verizon and AT&T, for instance, both pointed me toward their corporation-friendly "P4P" file-sharing development initiatives for more effective downloading (at an unknown cost), and Comcast has touted its R&D with BitTorrent.

All of that's a pretty effective smokescreen for moving to more hardcore capping and throttling, allowing them to cry "We treat all traffic equally, neutrally even!" while nuking all of your traffic without prejudice. Most people downloading the hugest amounts are probably not paying for all that content. And note that everyone except Verizon left themselves plenty of hedge space on the issue. Time Warner says it doesn't talk about it because it's afraid others will use it in marketing; well, Verizon is kinda sorta using their total lack of filtering as an underground marketing thing already, which is especially effective when coupled with FiOS's insane speeds.

Even with ever-higher speeds, bandwidth will remain an issue for ISPs as they try to cram more and more HD content down pipes you're using to download movies, swap music and other increasingly bandwidth-intensive applications. So more management is going to go hand and hand with more bandwidth, make no mistake.

But it doesn't have to be a bad thing, if they're smart about it. They make a genuine movement to smarter protocols and management techniques that don't hose anyone's broadband (like that P4P stuff, if it's really open), but instead help everyone squeeze every last bit out of it as efficiently as possible. We can only hope.

Though the European Parliament has plenty of power, this particular legislation seems to be more for advisory purposes. The BBC says:

The vote has no legal force and leaves national governments free to implement their own anti-piracy plans. But, said the Open Rights Group, it does "signify resistance" among European law makers to the strict measures that nations such as France are implementing.

"Protocol agnostic" sounds a lot like net neutrality, treating all data equally, be it P2P or FTP. Except in this case, it means slowing all packets equally when traffic reaches an unacceptable volume. Under the current system, which was described as "surgical" in its precision when we talked to Comcast about it just a few days ago, only the torrent uploads of super traffic hogs (something like the 5 percent worst abusers, similar to Time Warner's estimation) are delayed, and only when and where there's heavy congestion. So, you could be hammering the shit out of your connection on FTP, and you wouldn't see the kind of management being applied to someone on the block using torrent if the network was congested.

Now, it doesn't matter how you're raping the connection—they slow your whole pipe down if you're "disproportionately" swallowing bandwidth when the network's congested (I'm repeating that phrase to emphasize that's the only time they hit the nuke button), whether it's BitTorrent or you have 100 YouTube vids running at once. It's a nice marketing move: Comcast actually gets to engage in stiffer throttling while gaining credit for easing off BitTorrent. What's good is that it's promising to be extremely upfront and transparent about how and why it manages traffic, which takes the evil bite out of the practice.

But it also makes it more acceptable to the average Joe, clearing the way for every ISP to do so: "Hey, we told you we might do it."

Another reason they made the switch? To try to keep the FCC from laying down net neutrality rules, which no ISP seems to want. Head honcho Kevin Martin has a huge hard-on for reaming the cable industry, in particular Comcast, and the recent dustup with BitTorrent had the FCC seriously considering laying down net neutrality rules for the first time. In my dealings, Comcast and BitTorrent execs actually seem pretty friendly toward one another; presumably they wanted to work it out without the government stepping in.

The people who want net-neutrality regulation may get their wish in the end, since Martin still isn't impressed with the show of friendship:

"While it may take time to implement its preferred new traffic management technique, it is not at all obvious why Comcast couldn't stop its current practice of arbitrarily blocking its broadband customers from using certain applications. Comcast should provide its broadband customers as well as the Commission with a commitment of a date certain by when it will stop this practice.

First, the good news: Comcast and BitTorrent are joining forces to "run BitTorrent's technology more smoothly on Comcast's broadband network, and allow Comcast to transport video files more effectively over its own network in the future." Yes, Comcast is going to embrace net neutrality completely by the end of the year, allowing all sites and programs equal access to bandwidth. Hey, that's a change of policy, right? Can't complain about that. That doesn't mean Comcast is now the ISP of choice for heavy BT users, however.

Comcast CTO Tony Warner says that "Rather than slow traffic by certain types of applications — such as file-sharing software or companies like BitTorrent — Comcast will slow traffic for those users who consume the most bandwidth." So feel free to use BitTorrent, just don't use it too much or your speeds will dip down to nothing.

This will probably lead to the end of all-you-can-eat broadband plans and force heavy downloaders to pay extra for all their bandwidth in the near future. But hey, at least everything is on the level now, right? At least we think so. [WSJ via TorrentFreak]

Adelstein half dodged that with a question: "The problem is, how can you ever tell what's illegal?" Well you can't, not without some serious filtering and snooping by ISPs, and a lot of wrangling over whether uploading or downloading is deemed piracy. And what about telling the difference between illegally sharing a movie from a big studio, and sharing an independently-produced movie designed for P2P sharing? Clearly, the FCC isn't comfortable going all in for content filtering, at least not yet.

We'll just have to watch to see what this implies for the final net neutrality guidelines. [Ars Technica]

AT&T has also participated in tests like this one, but is trying to find a way to block pirated content and only allow "legal" content such as NBC's officially delivered shows to make it through the network. Verizon, on the other hand, says they do "not accept the role of network police agency," which means filtering for pirated content is unlikely. Time to sign up for Verizon! [Yahoo]

"The time has come for a specific enforceable principle of nondiscrimination. This principle should allow for reasonable network management, but make crystal clear that broadband network operators cannot shackle the promise of the Internet."

Here's why I'm a Kevin Martin fanboy: He called out Comcast for selling tiered bandwidth packages while crapping up the service at the same time, saying "it's a little odd" before asking, "Doesn't it undermine your arguments and isn't it inconsistent?"

Topping it off, the NY Attorney General just subpoenaed Comcast for information about its non-neutral network practices, so we might be looking at even more regulatory beatdowns.

It sucks to be Comcast right now, but I've never been happier with the FCC. [NYT, NYT]

As a bonus, a local filter would defeat encrypted torrents, since you've gotta decrypt 'em, at which point the filter would kick in. Sherman is a smart cookie though, and knows people aren't just gonna sign up to have their machine lojacked:

"Why would somebody put that on their machine? They wouldn't likely want to do that, they'd do that when it benefits them such as for viruses and so on and so forth...it could be enforced at the modem or put in by the ISP."

John McCain

The 100-Word Version:

McCain thinks the market should determine the fate of the net, so government-mandated "neutrality" would be too much of an intervention. He also voted against renewable energy. He voted in favor of federal funding to get more tech in classrooms, yet he wants to be hands off in closing the digital divide. This is also the same man who is self-proclaimed as computer illiterate, and almost went broke before primaries even began.

Bonus Bits: McCain expects to be in Iraq for over 100 years. No matter what opinion you have on the war, just think about all the crazy gadgets they'll be fighting with then!

If McCain were a gadget, he'd be: a Motorola StarTAC cellphone. Once relevant and desired, both are woefully underpowered now, and backed by a company in financial turmoil.

Mitt Romney

The 100-Word Version:

Romney suspiciously lacks a position on many prevalent tech issues; he offers no statements on net neutrality and vague, blanket statements about subsidized tech programs that might help the poor. He did propose $20 billion for the automotive industry to research alternative energy sources. But he's more concerned with becoming energy independent from other countries, as opposed to finding a replacement for oil. Given his lifelong commitment to capitalism, Romney probably won't take any big risks in the name of technology.

Bonus Bits: Romney probably wishes we weren't living in the YouTube era, so the public wouldn't be exposed to his grasp on cultural relevance.

If Romney were a gadget, he'd be: a Lenovo ThinkPad. Romney and the ThinkPad both are meant for the business sector, eschewing romanticism for a bottom-line mentality.

Mike Huckabee

The 100-Word Version:
Huckabee is the only candidate from the GOP who's in favor of net neutrality, picking up major points from us (in spite of ourselves). He also supports reducing CO2 emissions through renewable energy programs, though I wouldn't exactly call him a techie. Huckabee is mostly concerned with renewable energy so that CO2 emissions don't muck up his hunting grounds. As far as funding tech programs to bridge the Digital Divide, he lacks any stated position.

Bonus Bits: Huckabee has Chuck Norris, the ultimate internet meme, in his corner.

If Huckabee were a gadget, he'd be: a Big Mouth Billy Bass. Not only does Huckabee come off as a low-tech kind of guy who loves his nature, but he has a certain low-brow appeal to him. The Singing Fish embodies a similar characteristic.

Ron Paul

The 100-Word Version:

Paul, our Libertarian in wolf's clothing, is against net neutrality and thinks the FCC should stay out of 700 MHz spectrum auction. He also voted against funding for tech education, reducing greenhouse gases and increasing automotive fuel economy. Sure, he is against federal requirements for search engines to keep detailed search logs. But still, DO NOT WANT.

Bonus Bits: The users of Digg have taken a liking to Paul. Any story that mentions his name is almost guaranteed to hit the front page.

If Paul were a gadget, he'd be: the BugLabs BugBASE. Bug Labs is about letting people do whatever the hell they feel like with the gadget. Ron Paul thinks American citizens should be able to do whatever the hell they feel like with the country. Kindred spirits, they are.

And the winner is...: Huckabee. This may sound absolutely mad, but if I had to pick a GOP candidate based on his tech policies, it would be Mike Huckabee. McCain and Romney could potentially have better tech platforms, but neither has the balls to show their hand. Therefore, mostly by default, Huckabee wins.

Related Reading:
Mike Huckabee
• Chuck Norris Endorsement of Mike Huckabee
• Mike Huckabee on the Issues
• NY Times Magazine: "The Huckabee Factor"

Mitt Romney:
• Mitt on YouTube: Who Let The Dogs Out?
• Mitt on the Issues
• Tech Crunch interviews Mitt

John McCain:
• John McCain @ D5 Conference
• John McCain On The Issues
• John McCain interview with CNET

Ron Paul:
• Digg Nation Hearts Ron
• Ron Paul On The Issues
• CNET Interviews Ron Paul

Special thanks to TechCrunch and CNet.

Hillary Clinton

The 100-Word Version:
Clinton is progressive in several tech areas, including her support for net neutrality, plans for a Strategic Energy Fund to develop alternative resources, and providing tax credits for research and development. Unique to Clinton's manifesto is her desire to bring more women and minorities into math and science professions, where the groups are sorely underrepresented. However, she loses points with us for skirting issues of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, reserving opinion on a consumer's right to legally create backup copies of their media pending further review, and accepting the Bush administration's support of requiring ISPs and search engines to record the surfing habits of their users.

Bonus Bits: Clinton recently said that if elected, she would take the "radical step" of hiring bloggers for government agencies to write about what goes on in meetings. She didn't say how these government employees working under the eye of the president would remain watchdogs of the agencies.

If Clinton were a gadget, she'd be: a designer Taser. The pink outer case projects an image of charm and beauty, but it's the stun gun on the inside that is the true mark of its power. Just like Hillary.

Barack Obama

The 100-Word Version:
The only candidate with a dedicated technology section on his website, Obama has vowed to make priorities of ensuring net neutrality, affordable broadband access, and accelerating research and commercialization of biofuels and plug-in hybrids. In addition to this standard Democrat fare, Obama plans to redefine "broadband," calling the present definition of 200kbps "astonishingly low," reform the patent system to protect major innovations and prevent patent trolls from stifling development, and use the wireless spectrum for maximum public benefit. Finally, an Obama-led administration would include a Chief Technology Officer to oversee these issues and maintain communication between the government and the American people.

Bonus bits: Obama is likely the Apple fanboy's candidate of choice. On a recent episode of Letterman, he made one campaign promise we hope comes true: "I won't let Apple release the new and improved iPod the day after you bought the previous model."

If Obama were a gadget, he'd be: an iPhone. He's the new, sexy and popular candidate, but he still has a lot to prove.

And the winner is...: Barack Obama. From a purely technology-based standpoint, Obama is the more progressive of the two. He cares about topics as nerdy as broadband speed, and wants to protect the freedom that exists on the internet. Obama appears to understand technology on a deeper level than Clinton, and is our choice for the most tech-savvy Democratic candidate.

Further reading:
Hillary Clinton
• Clinton's technology plan
• "Hillary Clinton on Energy & Oil"
• "Clinton knows the value of research"

Barack Obama:
• Obama's technology plan
• "Obama pledges Net neutrality law if elected president"
• "Obama: No warantless wiretaps if you elect me"

Special thanks to TechCrunch and CNet.

The EFF asked, "What's so bad about what Comcast's actions?"

One objectionable aspect of Comcast's conduct is that they are spoofing packets—that is, impersonating parties to an exchange of data. Comcast is essentially deploying against their own customers techniques more typically used by malicious hackers (this is doubtless how Comcast would characterize other parties that forged traffic to make it appear that it came from Comcast or its subscribers). In this sense Comcast is behaving worse than if they dropped a propor¬tion of packets under congested circumstances in order to throttle bandwidth usage, or even if they blocked certain ports on their network. In other words, Comcast is essentially behaving like a telephone operator that interrupts a phone conversation, impersonating the voice of one party to tell the other that "this call is over, I'm hanging up."

Comcast maintains it only "delays" traffic and is "not blocking anything," swearing stuff will get to where it's going eventually—traffic shaping, which a lot of ISPs do. But according to the AP and EFF, they're actually forging packets telling both ends of a connection the other side doesn't want to play, killing it like innocent children on a playground.

Hart's seeking class-action status for the suit, disclosure of traffic shaping—or blockage, as it were—in ads and a ban on blocking applications. All reasonable, though if goes class action and prevails, it won't probably won't look so reasonable to Comcast's coffers. [Ars Technica, Flickr]

The CTO would have a much different agenda than the head of technology under the current administration, the "cyber-security czar". While that post is concerned with preventing cyber attacks, the CTO would concentrate on critical issues facing the technology world as well as maintain an open line of communication between the government and the American citizens by using—what else?—the internet.

The rest of his outline includes plans to provide broadband access to areas lacking it, open up the 700MHz wireless spectrum so smaller carriers can compete, and create a federally-backed, $50 billion venture capital fund for the development of more environmentally-friendly technology.

Obama also wants a transparent government, where meetings between Cabinet officials and government executives are streamed live, and the public can comment on legislation on the White House website for five days before it is signed into law. Giving the public wide access to the policy makers is a radical step from the closed governments of the past. Though it kinda takes the term "commentard" to a new level. No word yet on Obama's banhammer, but we guess it will be as swift and merciless as ours, democracy be hanged.

Other proposals in Obama's technology manifesto include reforming the patent system to provide better security to important innovations and decreased protection for trolls, and regulations on network neutrality. Overall, Obama's plans seem very advanced, open-source and engaging to the community, things that any technology buff can appreciate. OK, Hillary: your turn to network with the nerds. [Venture Beat]

This Daily Show clip kicks the point through with a double-foot-to-face-stomp-of-fury that the internet is not a big truck. The clip stars our favorite Apple PC vs. Mac commercial actor and Daily Show "resident expert", John Hodgman, and tells us in G.E.D. terms what Net Neutrality really is. The best part? The throwout to the Apple ads, and the huge audience reaction afterwards. – Jason Chen

Once More For The Road: The Daily Show Reminds Us "The Internet...It's Not A Big Truck" [Jalopnik]