In an interesting case of two very uninteresting Internet companies going at it, a judge thankfully ruled the obvious.  Wildcarding subdomains is OK, but reverse domain name hijacking isn't.  The two bland companies duking it out are Goforit and Digimedia.  Both run search engines of the boringly irrelevant kind you find on cybersquatted domain names, but Digimedia does it by wildcarding one of their domains, "com.org."  This would include "goforit.com.org," which Goforit claimed infringed on their trademark.  But Goforit went beyond by namelocking, not just com.org, but all of Digimedia's domain names.  Two mistakes.

'Net Neutrality came under attack this month, not from any government, but from a pair of big media companies.  Level 3 Communications, one of the Internet's backbones in the US, said that Comcast want a fee from Level 3 for carrying movies and other digital media to Comcast's customers.  Discrimination against bandwidth based on its content, type, and purpose -- which this is -- is not a neutral Internet.  I brand it as a legitimate attack on Net Neutrality, but some are branding it as nothing more than a peering dispute.  My answer to the latter is that peering does not and ought not depend on the sequence of data bits within any sequence of TCP and UDP packets.  One of the interesting bits of trivia brought up is that Level 3 is Netflix's streaming partner; this matters only so far as Comcast compete directly against Netflix within Comcast's market.

• Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions - Level 3 Communications, 2010-11-29.
• Level 3 Communications Issues Response to Comcast Statement - Level 3 Communications, 2010-11-30.
• How to discredit Net Neutrality - CircleID, 2010-12-02.
• Level 3 Releases Statement to Clarify Issues in Comcast/Level3 Interconnection Dispute - Level 3 Communications, 2010-12-03.

I'd link to Comcast's statements, but I can't find any on their corporate Web sites.

A german ISP association called eco reported that 100,000 PCs were cleaned remotely through its "anti-botnet" center.  This is interesting, especially in light of the botnet-based backlash against Wikileaks' opponents.

Also, because of the U.S. unilaterally removing access to dozens of domain names worldwide and the backlash occurring within the DNS, including the unilateral removal of domains having nothing at all to do with counterfeiting, a co-founder of the Pirate Bay has gone public with a peer-to-peer based DNS project to ensure that no government anywhere in the world can act beyond its borders as the United States did.