The European Commission has sent Google a request to remove Russian state media results for searches performed in countries within the EU. As The Washington Post reports, Google has uploaded a letter from EU officials to a database of government requests. In it, the officials explain how the commission's official order to ban the broadcast of RT and Sputnik in the European Union also applies to search engines and internet companies in general.

If you'll recall, the commission issued a ban on the state media outlets a few days after Russia's invasion of Ukraine began. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, said back then that by doing so, the outlets "will no longer be able to spread their lies to justify Putin's war." While it wasn't quite clear how the order applies to internet companies, Facebook, Twitter and TikTok promptly restricted access to RT and Sputnik across Europe. Google also announced its own restrictions, but only for the outlets' YouTube channels.

In the letter Google has uploaded, officials explained that search engines play a major role in disseminating content and that if the company doesn't delist the outlets, it would facilitate the public's access to them. Part of the letter reads:

"The activity of search engines plays a decisive role in the overall dissemination of content in that it renders the latter accessible to any internet user making a search on the basis of the content indication or related terms, including to internet users who otherwise would not have found the web page on which that content is published...Consequently, if search engines such as Google did not delist RT and Sputnik, they would facilitate the public's access to the content of RT and Sputnik, or contribute to such access. 

It follows from the foregoing that by virtue of the Regulation, providers of Internet search services must make sure that i) any link to the Internet sites of RT and Sputnik and ii) any content of RT and Sputnik, including short textual descriptions, visual elements and links to the corresponding websites do not appear in the search results delivered to users located in the EU."

Google didn't return The Post's request for comment, but the publication says a search conducted within the EU didn't bring up links for "Russia Today." RT links still showed up for us, however, when we conducted searches using Google Austria and France. 

The letter also said that the order applies to "posts made by individuals that reproduce the content of RT and Sputnik" — for example, screenshots of articles from those outlets — and that social networks must delete those posts if they get published. That could create a deluge of additional work for social media websites already struggling to moderate content posted by their users. According to The Post, though, the actual sanctions law doesn't define the order in the way that's written in the letter, so the officials' interpretation could be challenged in court. 

Cogent isn't the only large American internet provider pulling out of Russia following that country's invasion of Ukraine. The Washington Postreports Lumen is "immediately" halting business in the country. The company is disconnecting over concerns of an "increased security risk" inside Russia, fears of government action and a desire to protect the integrity of the Internet at large.

The company claimed that its services are "extremely small and very limited" in Russia, and that it only has a handful of enterprise customers. However, analysts at Kentik noted that Lumen is a major source of international data within the country, and that those customers include state-owned telecoms like Rostelecom and TransTelekom. Russia should feel the impact, in other words.

This could hurt Russians' access to internet services hosted outside of the country, and might make them reliant on state propaganda. However, it comes as many US tech companies are limiting or pulling products, including Apple, Google, Meta and Microsoft. Lumen is joining a united front, then. Support is growing, too, as Amazon Web Services said it would stop accepting new customers from either Russia or Belarus.

This isn't going as far as Ukraine wanted. It called on ICANN to boot Russia from the internet. It's still a significant move, though, and it suggests many tech heavyweights aren't worried about the threat of Russian retaliation.

Cogent Communications, an internet backbone provider that carries approximately 25 percent of all global web traffic, has begun cutting ties with Russian businesses in response to the country’s invasion of Ukraine. The company told The Washington Post it was doing so to prevent the Kremlin from using its network to carry out cyberattacks and spread misinformation about the ongoing conflict.

“Our goal is not to hurt anyone. It’s just to not empower the Russian government to have another tool in their war chest,” Cogent CEO Dave Schaeffer told the outlet, adding “it was a tough decision.” In a statement to ZDNet, the company said it was also complying with European Union sanctions against Russia Today and Sputnik. “Cogent is not otherwise restricting or blocking traffic originating from or destined for Russia. Cogent continues to provide services to Ukraine,” the company added.

The move is expected to disrupt and slow down internet connectivity. Some of Cogent’s Russian clients include state-owned telecom operator Rostelecom, one of the country’s largest internet providers, and wireless carriers Megafon and Veon. Cogent said it was working with some of those companies to provide them extensions.

Some experts worry the move will also prevent Russians from accessing information that doesn’t come from the Kremlin. “I would like to convey to people all over the world that if you turn off the Internet in Russia, then this means cutting off 140 million people from at least some truthful information,” Mikhail Klimarev, the executive director of Russia’s Internet Protection Society, told The Washington Post. “As long as the Internet exists, people can find out the truth. There will be no Internet — all people in Russia will only listen to propaganda.”

To that point, Russians already can’t access Facebook and Twitter after the country’s government moved to restrict those platforms. They may soon lose access to Wikipedia as well.

Even as governments and corporations around the globe squeeze the Russian economy through increasingly stringent financial sanctions for the country's invasion of its neighbor, Ukraine, some within the aggrieved nation have sought to punish Russia further, by kicking it off the internet entirely. 

On Monday, a pair of Ukrainian officials petitioned ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) as well as the Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC), to revoke the domains ".ru", ".рф" and ".su." They also asked that root servers in Moscow and St. Petersburg be shut down — potentially knocking websites unde those domains offline. On Thursday, ICANN responded to the request with a hard pass citing that doing so is not within the scope of ICANN's mission and that it's not really feasible to do in the first place.

"As you know, the Internet is a decentralized system. No one actor has the ability to control it or shut it down," ICANN CEO Göran Marby, wrote in his response to ICANN representative for Ukraine, Andrii Nabok, and deputy prime minister and digital transformation minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, on Thursday. 

"Our mission does not extend to taking punitive actions, issuing sanctions, or restricting access against segments of the Internet — regardless of the provocations," he continued. "Essentially, ICANN has been built to ensure that the Internet works, not for its coordination role to be used to stop it from working."

The Federal Communications Commission launched an investigation this week into a large number of media, telecom and infrastructure companies that operate in the United States with ties to Russia, CNN reported. The probe, allegedly being conducted jointly with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, is aimed at firms considered a “national security risk,” and covers a wide array of business types including wireless providers, VoIP services and submarine cable operators.

The FCC’s review also arrives as many US cybersecurity experts warn of the increased danger of cyber attacks, especially on critical infrastructure. The US recently imposed a number of sanctions on Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine, and it’s possible Russia may retaliate through cyber warfare. Recent cyber campaigns suspected to have ties to the Russian government include the hacks of the Olympics, SolarWinds, Ukraine's government websites and coronavirus vaccine research in the US, UK and Canada. US cyber officials have also warned businesses, banks and state and local governments to be vigilant for ransomware.

A similar investigation against Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE launched by the FCC in 2019 over concerns their equipment allowed for Chinese surveillance of US activities. It’s unknown exactly how many similar companies with Russia ties will be covered by the probe. Russia also funds media companies in the US and other countries. UK prime minister Boris Johnson recently ordered a probe into the UK license for RT (Russia Today) a Kremlin-backed global news outlet with offices in the United States and across Europe. US company T&R Productions, which backs RT America, has received over $100 million from the Russian government, an Open Secrets investigation revealed.

Meta is ending its Express Wi-Fi program designed to provide low-cost internet in developing countries through partnerships with local communities, mobile operators and businesses. Launched in 2016, it wasn't free like Meta-owned Facebook's failed Free Basics program, struck down by Indian courts for violating net neutrality. Instead, it was designed to be inexpensive, starting at around 15 cents for 100MB or $5 for 20GB. 

Facebook partnered with satellite companies, ISPs and others in places like India, South Africa and the Philippines. Retailers were able to sell hotspots at reasonable rates decided by them and the operator, rather than Facebook. Meta would benefit, of course, by gaining access to new customers it no doubt hoped would create Facebook accounts. As with Google, most of the company's recent growth has come from developing countries where people are getting online for the first time. 

Recently, The Wall Street Journal reported that glitches in Meta's free internet services were creating unwanted charges for users in countries like Pakistan. Meta was also reportedly favoring its own content on its free-data Discover service to the detriment of other sites. 

Meta said that while it's winding down Express Wi-Fi, it's focusing on other projects around internet access. "While we are concluding our work on this program to focus on developing other projects, we remain committed to working with partners across the telecom ecosystem to deliver better connectivity,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. It promised to work with Express Wi-Fi partners to "minimize the impact to their businesses while keeping networks running." 

The FCC's voluntary broadband labels might not be quite so voluntary in the future. The FCC has proposed rules requiring point-of-sale labels that clearly illustrate what you'll get when you sign up with an internet service provider. As before, the labels would include not only prices and speeds, but also data caps, "network management" policies like throttling and other details you'd likely appreciate.

Officials also want to know if the nutrition-style 2016 labels are enough to help customers make informed buying decisions. The Commission is likewise considering new guidance on where ISPs would display these labels.

The proposal comes in response to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that President Biden signed into law in November. The law required broadband providers to make "consumer-friendly" labels, tasking the FCC with devising new rules within a year of the Act's passage.

The labels would theoretically spur competition by making it easier for customers to compare internet services and choose the one that offers the best value. However, they might only be of limited use. Americans are frequently stuck with broadband duopolies, and in some cases monopolies. While that's improving with the rise of wireless home internet and higher-quality satellite service, many customers won't have meaningful choices for a long time.

The White House wants the government to adopt a security model called Zero Trust within the next two years. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a finalized federal strategy that lays out the initial details of the shift.

It told agencies to each designate a strategy implementation lead within 30 days. Agencies were given 60 days to submit an implementation plan to the OMB and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). 

"This memorandum sets forth a federal Zero Trust architecture (ZTA) strategy, requiring agencies to meet specific cybersecurity standards and objectives by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2024 in order to reinforce the government’s defenses against increasingly sophisticated and persistent threat campaigns," OMB acting director Shalanda D. Young wrote in the memo. "Those campaigns target federal technology infrastructure, threatening public safety and privacy, damaging the American economy and weakening trust in government."

The Zero Trust approach is based on the notion that local devices and connections can't be completely trusted. Users need to be authorized, authenticated and continuously validated. Organizations usually have control over Zero Trust setups, and users and devices are often only granted access to essential data, apps and services.

Google offers a Zero Trust solution called BeyondCorp. Last week, a company called Sikur revealed a smartphone it designed using Zero Trust principles.

The release of the strategy follows an executive order President Joe Biden signed last year with the aim of improving the country's cybersecurity, as well as a draft strategy that the OMB published in September.

The finalized strategy lays out a vision for the government in which staff have "enterprise-managed accounts, allowing them to access everything they need to do their job while remaining reliably protected from even targeted, sophisticated phishing attacks." The devices would be continuously monitored and each agency's system would be isolated, with reliable encryption for internal network traffic and sending data to other agencies.

Under this approach, enterprise applications would be tested internally and externally before staff could access them over the cloud. The OMB also said federal security teams and data teams would work together "to develop data categories and security rules to automatically detect and ultimately block unauthorized access to sensitive information."

The strategy directs agencies to harness strong, phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication, perhaps using physical methods like Personal Identity Verification cards. The OMB also told agencies to have a full inventory of devices that are authorized and used for official business and to make sure they meet CISA standards.

The White House cited the Log4j vulnerability that recently emerged as the latest proof that "adversaries will continue to find new opportunities to get their foot in the door."

"This strategy is a major step in our efforts to build a defensible and coherent approach to our federal cyber defenses,” national cyber director Christopher Inglis said in a statement. “We are not waiting to respond to the next cyber breach. Rather, this administration is continuing to reduce the risk to our nation by taking proactive steps towards a more resilient society."

Software glitches in Meta's free internet service are leading to unwanted charges for users, according to documents obtained by whistleblower Francis Haugen and shared with The Wall Street Journal. Paid features, like videos, have been appearing in the service's free mode, even though clips are either supposed to stay hidden or warn users of data charges. When users tap the content, they face carrier bills that can be especially difficult to pay for the service's target audience of users in developing countries.

The slip-up appears to have been lucrative for carriers. Meta estimated carriers were charging free users about $7.8 million per month as of last summer. The issue was particularly serious in Pakistan, where users have reportedly been charged a total $1.9 million per month.

A Meta spokesperson said it had received reports about the problem and had "continued work" on fixing the software flaws. New versions of the free mode explicitly label it as "text only" rather than implying it will never cost any money. The representative said the document estimating $7.8 million per month in charges wasn't based on carrier billing information, and that the overcharges were closer to $3 million per month.

Meta, like Google, has a strong interest in pushing free internet access. Most of its recent growth comes from developing countries where many people are hopping online for the first time. While the free service doesn't limit users to only visiting Facebook and other services it owns, it increases the chances internet newcomers will sign up and spur Meta's growth.

There are other concerns about Meta's free offerings beyond surprise billing. The company has been criticized for making it too easy to pay for data through in-app systems (instead of direct purchases from carriers) and after-the-fact "loans" in some countries. It has also been accused of pushing users of its Discover product towards content on its own services, while not doing enough to make external content easily accessible. While the company has claimed it will treat all internet traffic —whether to its own products or elsewhere — equally, the leaked document itself states that Discover “is not functioning consistent with our commitments.” 

Following the activation of its C-band 5G network last week, AT&T is now upgrading its fiber-based broadband service with two new plans that top out at 2Gbps and 5Gbps, respectively. The company says its new multi-gig fiber broadband will be available in more than 70 metro areas including Dallas, LA and Atlanta. Currently, AT&T’s fiber broadband covers around 15 million customers across 90 markets, with the ISP looking to expand its network to reach more than 30 million customers by 2025.

While AT&T’s new 5 GIG plan is almost certainly overkill for a typical household (even with a bunch of people making Zoom calls at the same time), the ongoing pandemic and shift towards working and schooling from home continues to put a strain on families with more limited internet.

The new 2 GIG plan is set to start at $110 per month plus tax (or $225 a month for a business fiber), while the faster 5 GIG plan will cost $180 per month (or $395 a month for businesses). Notably, AT&T describes both plans as offering “symmetrical” speeds, which means customers should see equally fast download and upload speeds. That last part is important for anyone who has to move large files around, especially when a lot of older internet plans often featuring upload speeds that are significantly lower than download speeds.

In addition to its new multi-gig fiber plans, AT&T is updating its fiber internet plans with more straightforward pricing. AT&T says this means new customers won’t get hit with any equipment fees, data caps or annual contracts, with initial pricing locked in for at least 12 months. So your bill should just be the price of the service plus tax, with AT&T throwing in perks such as its ActiveArmor internet security, speedy Wi-Fi 6 routers, and a free HBO Max subscription for customers with top-tier plans (either the gigabit, 2 GIG or 5 GIG plans).

So, while AT&T’s new fiber plans aren’t cheap, they should supply ample bandwidth for data-hungry people like content creators and stream video enthusiasts. To find out if you live in an area covered by AT&T’s new multi-gig plans, you can check availability on AT&T’s fiber landing page here.