searchneutrality.org Report : Visit Site

Technical data of the searchneutrality.org

Geo IP provides you such as latitude, longitude and ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Our GeoIP service found where is host searchneutrality.org. Currently, hosted in United Kingdom and its service provider is Hyve Ltd .

the related websites

npr.org dailymail.co.uk robertplant.com mercers.co.uk elizabethan-era.org.uk mirror.co.uk 

HTTP Header Analysis

HTTP Header information is a part of HTTP protocol that a user's browser sends to called Apache/2.2.22 (Unix) mod_jk/1.2.27 PHP/5.2.14 containing the details of what the browser wants and will accept back from the web server.

DNS

HtmlToText

follow @foundem home about making the case for search, spin, and anti-trust debunking google’s blatantly non-compliant remedy april 18th, 2018 foundem no comments today, we published our latest (and hopefully final!) interactive take-down of google’s hopelessly ineffective and blatantly non-compliant “remedy” proposal. this time around we take a more empirical approach, and directly address what we now believe to be the primary source of confusion: google’s reassuring-sounding but effectively meaningless commitment to run google shopping at a notional “profit”. stripping away this confusion reveals that google’s latest auction-based proposal is essentially the same as its previous, resoundingly rejected, auction-based proposals. categories: google tags: an open letter to commissioner vestager february 28th, 2018 foundem no comments the following open letter was sent to commissioner vestager today, signed by 19 companies and associations from across the comparison shopping, travel search, local search, digital mapping, and publishing sectors ( pdf ): ms margrethe vestager commissioner for competition european commission rue de la loi b – 1049 brussels 28 february 2018 dear commissioner vestager, re: at.39740 – google search (comparison shopping) we are writing to express our common views on the european commission’s ongoing monitoring of google’s compliance with the google search prohibition decision. google’s current remedy proposal has been in operation for more than four months, and the harm to competition, consumers and innovation caused by the infringement established by the decision has continued unabated. in our view, google’s current remedy proposal is no better than google’s commitment proposals under commissioner almunia, and in some ways may be worse. google’s remedy proposal is, on its face, non-compliant with the prohibition decision for at least three reasons: - first, without full ownership unbundling (structural separation), google shopping’s participation in the auction is essentially meaningless; - second, without explicit measures to prevent it, any fully- or over-subscribed auction inevitably leads to competing services being charged a fee that has the equivalent object or effect as the infringement established by the decision; and - third, the aggregation of rich product ads (derived from product feeds or their equivalent) in itself constitutes a comparison shopping service which google is favouring in its general search results. note that this remains true with or without the participation of google shopping. and of course, the resultant wholesale replacement of relevance-based search results with pay-for-placement ads has terrible consequences for consumers. moreover, google’s current remedy proposal does nothing to address the demotion half of google’s illegal conduct—the penalty algorithms, such as panda, that are prone to demoting competing services. it would be highly damaging to competition and consumers should the commission attempt to resolve its ongoing investigations into google’s similar anti-competitive conduct in other verticals with a commitments decision that is based on the same or similar ineffective “remedy”. we respectfully urge the commission to reject google’s current remedy proposal and to hold google to an effective remedy that complies with the principles of equal treatment set out in the prohibition decision. we continue to be ready to provide the commission with detailed feedback on any proposed remedy, including on google’s first post-implementation report. we believe that our respective expertise might be critical to assess whether a remedy effectively puts an end to google’s abuse of dominance. yours sincerely, frédéric lambert, founder and general manager, acheter-moins-cher.com helmut verdenhalven, head of media policy, bdzv (federation of german newspaper publishers) sylvie fodor, executive director, cepic (centre of the picture industry) philipp schrader, ceo, comparado christoph klenner, secretary general, ettsa (european technology & travel services association) dr. h.c. hans biermann, chief executive officer, euro-cities thomas vinje, legal counsel and spokesman, fairsearch shivaun raff, ceo and co-founder, foundem michael weber, owner, hot-map.com tim cowen, legal counsel, icomp (initiative for a competitive online marketplace) dr. albrecht von sonntag and dr. philipp-christopher peitsch, ceos, idealo eric leandri, president, oip (open internet project) kate sutton, director, streetmap.eu ltd dr. wolfgang sander-beuermann, ceo, suma-ev bastien duclaux, ceo and co-founder, twenga prof. dr. christoph fiedler, executive director for european and media policy, vdz (association of german magazine publishers) ben kerkhof, ceo, vergelijk (compare group) robert maier, founder and ceo, visual meta james cunningham, ceo and co-founder, yroo categories: google tags: why a pay-for-placement auction isn’t equal treatment – part 2 november 7th, 2017 foundem no comments following on from our september 2017 initial thoughts on google’s proposed auction-based “remedy”, our latest presentation explains why the proposed functional separation of google shopping is essentially meaningless within the context of a pay-for-placement auction. we also explore the various options that will be open to google if, or more accurately when, the commission informs google that its current “remedy” proposal is not compliant with the required equal-treatment standard. click on the screenshot below to open the interactive presentation. categories: google tags: why google’s proposed auction-based “remedy” isn’t a remedy september 28th, 2017 foundem no comments our initial thoughts on why google’s proposed auction-based “remedy” does not comply with the european commission’s required equal-treatment remedy. categories: google tags: google’s proposed “remedy”: the return of the undead auction september 18th, 2017 foundem no comments contrary to some reports, the commission’s june 2017 prohibition decision in the google search case did not leave it to google to propose a remedy. instead, the commission laid out a detailed set of requirements [1] for a remedy based on the principle of non-discriminatory, equal treatment for all services: google’s own and those of its competitors. the particular implementation of this principle-based remedy was, however, left up to google. towards the end of last month, google presented the european commission with an outline of how it is proposing to comply with the commission’s stated remedy requirements. and we understand that, since then, google has started to meet privately with various comparison shopping services throughout europe (presumably under nda) to brief them on its auction-based proposal. that’s right. auction-based. like google’s three previous remedy proposals under commissioner almunia—all of which were resoundingly rejected precisely because they were auction-based (see our deconstructions of google’s first , second , and third commitment proposals to see why). in our march 2017 remedy paper , we set out the various options available to google for implementing a solution that would be both effective and compliant with the commission’s stated requirements for an equal-treatment remedy. it is no coincidence that none of these options involved a paid auction. we will reserve final judgement until we have seen the details of google’s proposal, but it is difficult to imagine how google could devise an auction mechanism that would not inflict significant additional consumer harm, both by further restricting competition and by aiding and abetting google in its long-term goal to substitute unprofitable, relevance-based natural search results with highly-profitable, pay-for-placement [2] advertisements. it is also difficult to imagine how google could devise an auction that google’s own comparison shopping service could meaningfully participate in (without full-blown structural separat

URL analysis for searchneutrality.org

http://www.searchneutrality.org/google/foundem-response-to-google-nov-2016-blog#respond
http://www.searchneutrality.org/google/debunking_google_shopping_remedy
http://www.searchneutrality.org//#ftn9
http://www.xianguo.com/subscribe.php?url=http://www.searchneutrality.org/feed
http://www.searchneutrality.org//#ftn1
http://www.searchneutrality.org//#ftn3
http://www.searchneutrality.org//#ftn2
http://www.searchneutrality.org//#ftn5
http://www.newsgator.com/ngs/subscriber/subfext.aspx?url=http://www.searchneutrality.org/feed
http://www.searchneutrality.org//#ftn7
http://www.searchneutrality.org//#ftn6
http://www.searchneutrality.org/2016/12
http://www.searchneutrality.org/topic/uncategorized
http://www.searchneutrality.org/foundem/original-content
http://www.searchneutrality.org//javascript:void(0);
telegraph.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk
guardian.co.uk
wired.co.uk
foundem.co.uk
thetimes.co.uk
theregister.co.uk
arstechnica.co.uk

Whois Information

Whois is a protocol that is access to registering information. You can reach when the website was registered, when it will be expire, what is contact details of the site with the following informations. In a nutshell, it includes these informations;

WHOIS LIMIT EXCEEDED - SEE WWW.PIR.ORG/WHOIS FOR DETAILS

  REFERRER http://www.pir.org/

  REGISTRAR Public Interest Registry

SERVERS

  SERVER org.whois-servers.net

  ARGS searchneutrality.org

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain

  REGISTERED unknown

DOMAIN

  NAME searchneutrality.org

NSERVER

  NS1.HYVE.COM 188.65.32.75

  NS2.HYVE.COM 188.65.35.250

Mistakes

The following list shows you to spelling mistakes possible of the internet users for the website searched .