1/3 of Top-Trending Search Topics Return Malicious Results, Norton Finds

More than one in three of the top-trending search terms returned at least 10 percent malicious results, a new Norton study finds. Those results obviously point out the dangers of cybercrime.

Between February and May, “tropical dreams sweepstakes” and “red hot laugh riot” searches could have returned 99 malicious links out of the first 100 results, Norton says.

One in Three Top-Trending Search Topics Return Malicious Results, Finds Norton Study

Google and Verizon Net Neutrality Agreement Might Allow Application Priorities?

To add yet another nuance to the reported network neutrality agreement Google and Verizon are said to be near, the New York Times reports that the deal will allow Verizon to to offer paid application prioritization.

The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers, the New York Times reports.

Presumably that would be possible only if all application providers were allowed to pay for the assured quality of service, and presumably Google would want to ensure that no application provider got a price advantage. In other words, Verizon would be allowed to offer video prioritization services, so long as all video application providers were able to get the same priority treatment.

The deal apparently is still in the works, so the confusion about the general outlines is understandable. So far, one version of the story is that there will be no prioritization allowed, at least on Verizon's fixed network. Another version is that prioritization is allowable, so long as all application providers within an application class get the same expedited treatment.

The New York Times version seems to suggest application-related priorities are permissible, and that providers could pay to get such treatment, but not that every video, voice, gaming, conferencing or other latency-sensitive app automatically will get such treatment.

Google and Verizon in Talks on Selling Internet Priority - NYTimes.com

Verizon, Google Net Neutrality Agreement?

A slightly different take on what Google and Verizon might have agreed on, as far as network neutrality rules, is offered by Washington Post writer Cecelia Kang.

As Kang describes the reported agreement, Verizon would refrain from offering paid prioritization to the biggest bidders for capacity on its DSL and fiber networks, essentially preserving a "best effort" access regime.

But Google and Verizon apparently also agreed that both could live with assured access tiers of service designed to optimize the performance of voice, video, conferencing, gaming or other services that are latency sensitive, at least on wireline networks.

Kang says the agreement does not cover wired networks.

Post Tech - Verizon, Google make net neutrality pact

What the Google, Verizon Deal Tells You

Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. reportedly have reached their own deal on how to handle Internet traffic management, Bloomberg reports.

The compromise, according to Bloomberg, would restrict Verizon from selectively slowing Internet content that travels over its wires.


That typically implies"no packet prioritization." Verizon, with its FiOS network nearly completely in place, seems to have been willing to concede that it has enough headroom, in terms of bandwidth, not to have to resort to packet prioritization at all when it needs to manage its broadband access business, at least if I am reading the report correctly, and if the report is correct.

What is not clear from this report is whether "best effort" services can be supplemented by application-optimized features. The compromise, as reported by Bloomberg, seems to suggest such quality measures would not be allowed on the Verizon fixed network.

The apparent compromise, though, is that Google seems to have agreed Verizon Wireless can do so to preserve network quality of experience at times of peak load.

There are some clear technology issues here, namely the fact that no mobile network ever has as much bandwidth as a fiber-to-home network. Network management typically is a more-urgent issue for a wireless network.

But the agreement likely also reflects the "fact" that Verizon's wireless network is viewed as the more strategic of the two networks as well. If something has to be compromised, Verizon seems to have concluded that bargaining away some freedom on its FiOS network is wise if it preserves ability to shape traffic on the wireless network.

It isn't so clear other service providers will be able to so "easily" strike this deal, since Verizon is among the few firms to embrace FTTH so universally. It simply has more bandwidth available to deal with congestion issues.

Still, the key issue here appears to have been Verizon's clear understanding that it could not yield on mobile network managment. Trading away a bargaining chip--no packet prioritizaton on the landline network--seems to have been part of the strategic thinking, at least if the Bloomberg report is correct. 

There could be some downstream impact on packet prioritzation suppliers, though. Verizon will still want to know what is going on. But it will not need tools to shape traffic, since it seems to have agreed it will not do so.

It isn't immediately clear how all the ramifications will work out. But Verizon seems to have set itself firmly on a path that preserves "best effort" as the only service level consumers can buy.

Google, Verizon Said to Strike Deal on Web Traffic Rules - Bloomberg

Froyo (Android 2.2) Update: You Won't Notice Much, At First

Chances are you won't really notice that much when you reboot with Froyo for the first time. This isn't a major overhaul to the look and feel of Android.

What you can't see is the "Just-in-Time compiler," which can double the processing power, and the ability to run Adobe Flash 10.1.

Q&A: All about the Froyo updates

Dish Network to Stream Their Subs Satellite TV on Mobiles

Dish Network subscribers will soon be able to watch live satellite TV on their mobile devices at no extra cost, Dish Network says.

Dish Network Corp. is planning to offer the feature on the iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch and BlackBerry devices in September and on phones using Google Inc.'s Android system in October.

Subscribers will need Sling Media Inc.'s SlingBox, which retails for $180 to $300.

Dish subscribers can also pay $200 to $400 to upgrade to Dish's high-definition digital video recorder with SlingBox features. They'll need to pay $10 a month for multiple DVR service.

The new plan is a piece of the broader move by existing multichannel video providers to add mobile access to their existing customers.

The Associated Press: Dish to stream live TV on iPad, other devices

Clearwire Announces LTE Tests

The other shoe has not yet formally dropped, but Clearwire now says it will conduct Long Term Evolution tests across its network, including both tests of frequency division and time division versions of LTE, plus the ability of LTE air interface technologies to coexist harmoniously with the existing WiMAX air interface already in use.

The tests do not definitively confirm a partial switch to LTE, but are a concrete bit of evidence that LTE will be part of Clearwire's future.

Clearwire intends to conduct FDD LTE (Frequency Division Duplex) tests using 40 MHz of spectrum, paired in 20 MHz contiguous channels, of its 2.5 GHz spectrum. Clearwire expects to confirm the capability to produce real-world download speeds that range from 20 Mbps to 70 Mbps. This is expected to be significantly faster than the 5 Mbps to 12 Mbps speeds currently envisioned by other LTE deployments in the U.S., which will rely on smaller pairs of 10 Mhz channels or less.

Clearwire will concurrently test TDD LTE (Time Division Duplex), in a 20 MHz configuration, which is twice the channel size currently used in its 4G WiMAX deployments.

Clearwire will also test WiMAX co-existence with both FDD LTE and TDD LTE to confirm the flexibility of its network and spectrum strength to simultaneously support a wide-range of devices across its all-IP network.

My own anecdotal experience with Clearwire's network is that, as you would expect, 4G is faster than 3G. But I have to say my experience also points out how much end user application latency is to be found elsewhere in the delivery ecosystem, such as the far-end servers. I also would observe that the 4G network signal seems more fragile than the 3G signal. Even in areas with both 4G and 3G available, the 4G often loses enough signal strength that my smartphone defaults back to 3G.

I'm not complaining, just noting that, as with many earlier increases in access bandwidth, faster is better, up to a point. If nothing else, having more access bandwidth simply points out latency elsewhere in the ecosystem.

Clearwire