DOCSLIB.ORG

Sharing and Caring Countries Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sharing and Caring Countries Report Sharing and Caring COST ACTION CA16121 Member Countries Report on the Collaborative Economy May 2018 3 Table of Contents PREFACE .................................................................................................................................. 6 AUSTRIA ................................................................................................................................... 8 BELGIUM ................................................................................................................................ 11 BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA ................................................................................................. 15 BULGARIA ............................................................................................................................. 16 CYPRUS .................................................................................................................................. 19 CROATIA ................................................................................................................................ 19 ESTONIA ................................................................................................................................. 21 FINLAND ................................................................................................................................ 25 FRANCE .................................................................................................................................. 27 GERMANY .............................................................................................................................. 32 GREECE .................................................................................................................................. 34 HUNGARY .............................................................................................................................. 37 ICELAND ................................................................................................................................ 39 IRELAND ................................................................................................................................ 41 ISRAEL .................................................................................................................................... 44 ITALY ...................................................................................................................................... 46 LITHUANIA ............................................................................................................................ 50 THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA .............................................. 52 MALTA .................................................................................................................................... 55 THE NETHERLANDS ............................................................................................................ 56 NORWAY ................................................................................................................................ 60 POLAND .................................................................................................................................. 63 PORTUGAL ............................................................................................................................. 65 4 ROMANIA ............................................................................................................................... 68 SLOVENIA .............................................................................................................................. 71 SLOVAKIA ............................................................................................................................. 74 SPAIN ...................................................................................................................................... 78 SWEDEN ................................................................................................................................. 81 SWITZERLAND ...................................................................................................................... 84 UNITED KINGDOM ............................................................................................................... 87 LIST OF AUTHORS ............................................................................................................... 92 5 PREFACE The main objective of the Cost Action “Sharing and Caring” is to develop European network of actors investigating the development of Collaborative Economy (CE) models, platforms and socio-technological implications. The network involves more than two hundred members (including scholars, practitioners, communities and policymakers) across 34 European countries, and 3 other associated countries. This “Sharing and Caring Countries Report” represents its first synergetic outcome and provides an overview of the Collaborative Economy phenomenon as interpreted and manifested in each of the countries part of the network. According to the European Commission, the term Collaborative Economy is used interchangeably with ‘Sharing Economy’. The term ‘Sharing Economy’ was frequently used when early models (i.e.: Airbnb, ZipCar) appeared and gained popularity especially in the USA, but it was soon substituted with the term ‘Collaborative Economy’ in European contexts. The country reports in this collection often use the two terms interchangeably, further illustrating the fact that a shared, stable definition is still missing. However, the ambition driving the term Collaborative Economy is to create specific European economic models “with greater emphasis on the involvement of community” (Ouishare). In Europe, too, the definition of collaborative/sharing economy remains fuzzy, including both non-profit and for-profit models, and both monetary and non-monetary exchange among participants. The phenomenon is complex, covering various fields of activity, as well as operating on different levels, ranging from the international to the national and the local. Some definitions focus mostly on sustainability, while others highlight technological and financial aspects and business models specific to the phenomenon. The examples cited in this report picture both aspects of the phenomenon: the collection speaks to the business side of peer-to-peer exchange and the use of intermediary digital platforms as well as a variety of bottom-up civic initiatives that aim at promoting new societal values among society members without a direct economic benefit. Both for profit and non- profit stakeholders are taking part and pushing forward the phenomenon, exploring challenges and opportunities offered by the expanding match between ICT infrastructure development and societal needs. In this report, national and local governments frequently come up as crucial stakeholders involved in the development of the Collaborative Economy, especially when it comes to laws and regulations. 6 The collaborative economy has the potential to create new opportunities for consumers and entrepreneurs, but also to introduce new threats and concerns. Big companies, like Airbnb and Uber, have been frequently subjects of critical, public debate related to issues such as labour conditions and real estate regulations, as well as emerging conflicts concerning the breach of local, regional, and European laws by these new business models. The role of national governments and local authorities could be crucial in promoting and developing the Collaborative Economy in a responsible and sustainable way. This report illustrates the range of perspectives and experiences in different European countries, embracing the diversity that stems from their different historical, social and political context. Next to cultural and political factors that have shaped the attitudes, institutions, and practices that play a key role in how the collaborative economy is perceived and realized in different countries, another important issue relates to technological tools that are being used, including a range of mobile applications, social media platforms (such as Facebook), and other tools based on online social networks. However, in countries like Belgium, Poland, Estonia, Hungary there are many platforms in use that are specific to the collaborative economy (i.e. ListMinut, Bringr, Conceptz, znanylekarz.pl, Osta.ee, Miutcánk.hu). In July 2017, representatives from each of the twenty-eight countries featured in this report were invited to produce short country reports including, definition(s) of the Collaborative Economy; types and models of the Collaborative Economy; key stakeholders involved; as well as legislation and technological tools relevant for the Collaborative Economy. The reports vary in length and in the level of detail included, in accordance with how much information was available in each respective country at the time of writing. We have compiled these early reports into this summary report, which is intended as a first step in mapping the state of the Collaborative Economy in Europe. A new version of the report is planned for 2019. 7 AUSTRIA In Austria, both non-profit initiatives and for-profit companies are active in the field of collaborative economy. Old forms of collaborative economy, such as libraries or the sharing of equipment in agriculture, have a long tradition. Since the global spread of new platforms and network activities, the collaborative economy has
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Online Platforms for Exchanging and Sharing Goods
    CASE STUDY ONLINE PLATFORMS FOR EXCHANGING AND SHARING GOODS by Anders Fremstad 2/2/2015 A project of EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Americans own huge and underutilized stocks of consumer goods, including furniture, appliances, tools, toys, vehicles, and lodging. Websites like Craigslist, Couchsurfing, and NeighborGoods have lowered the transaction costs associated with acquiring secondhand goods and sharing underused goods, which may help us take advantage of this excess capacity. Indeed, advocates of the so-called sharing economy argue that technology can facilitate peer-to-peer transactions that enable us to save money, build community, and reduce environmental burdens. This case study evaluates the economic, social, and environmental effects of three online platforms. Craigslist provides an online market for local secondhand goods such as vehicles, furniture, appliances, and electronics. Couchsurfing matches travelers with hosts around the world who welcome guests into their homes. NeighborGoods helps people borrow and lend household goods free of charge. Together these case studies provide an overview of the role of online platforms as future economy initiatives. The economic benefits to these three platforms are significant, and likely to grow over time. Americans posted hundreds of millions of secondhand goods for sale on Craigslist in 2014, increasing access to affordable used goods. Couchsurfing has helped provide its members with millions of nights of free lodging, substantially reducing the cost of travel. While NeighborGoods has not achieved the scale of Craigslist or Couchsurfing, online platforms for sharing household goods could save Americans significant sums of money, especially if they can facilitate widespread ride-sharing and car-sharing. Online platforms may particularly improve the livelihoods of poor Americans.
    [Show full text]
  • IT's 10 P.M. Do You Know What Apps Your Kids Are Using?!?!?
    Instagram Facebook Twitter Snapchat Musical.ly WhatsApp kik SayAt.Me Marco Polo Monkey Ask.Fm House Party Fire Chat After School Sarahah VIDEO-MESSAGING APPS • VIDEO APPS LIKE MARCO POLO, HOUSE PARTY AND FIRECHAT ARE THE NEW CHAT ROOMS • MARCO POLO, WHICH HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED AT LEAST 10 MILLION TIMES ON THE GOOGLE PLAY STORE, TOUTS ITSELF AS A VIDEO “WALKIE-TALKIE.” YOU MAKE A VIDEO AND SEND IT. IN RESPONSE YOUR FRIEND MAKES A VIDEO. ALL THE VIDEOS LIVE IN A QUEUE; YOU ADD A VIDEO WHEN IT’S CONVENIENT. YELLOW • YELLOW, WHICH HAS BEEN CALLED “TINDER FOR TEENS” (SWIPE RIGHT IF YOU WANT TO BECOME FRIENDS WITH SOMEONE; SWIPE LEFT IF YOU DON’T), OPENS WITH A GEO-LOCATOR. THERE IS A 13-YEAR- OLD AGE MINIMUM, WHICH THERE’S NO WAY OF VERIFYING. ANONYMOUS APPS • ANONYMOUS APPS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FOR PEOPLE INTERESTED IN A FACELESS AND NAMELESS DOCUMENTATION OF THEIR LIVES (AS OPPOSED TO A SELFIE), DRAWING IN CHILDREN WHO LEARNED FROM EARLIER GENERATIONS ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN OFFENSIVE ONLINE FOOTPRINT. • THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ANONYMOUS APPS ON THE MARKET — AFTER SCHOOL, SARAHAH, SAYAT.ME, MONKEY AND ASK.FM ARE SOME OF THE MOST POPULAR — ALL OF THEM PROMISING THE SAME FEATURE: SPILL INTIMATE FEELINGS ABOUT YOURSELF OR, ON THE FLIP SIDE, SPREAD RUMORS AND ATTACK FRIENDS, WITHOUT ANY TRACE OF WHO SAID WHAT. EPHEMERAL APPS • MANY ADULTS HAVE HEARD OF SNAPCHAT AND INSTAGRAM STORIES, BUT WHAT ABOUT LIVE.LY, A RISING LIVE-STREAMING APP WITH A LARGE TEENAGE AUDIENCE? • ALL THREE WORK LIKE A DISAPPEARING MAGIC ACT.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing and Tourism: the Rise of New Markets in Transport
    SHARING AND TOURISM: THE RISE OF NEW MARKEts IN TRANSPORT Documents de travail GREDEG GREDEG Working Papers Series Christian Longhi Marcello M. Mariani Sylvie Rochhia GREDEG WP No. 2016-01 http://www.gredeg.cnrs.fr/working-papers.html Les opinions exprimées dans la série des Documents de travail GREDEG sont celles des auteurs et ne reflèlent pas nécessairement celles de l’institution. Les documents n’ont pas été soumis à un rapport formel et sont donc inclus dans cette série pour obtenir des commentaires et encourager la discussion. Les droits sur les documents appartiennent aux auteurs. The views expressed in the GREDEG Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the institution. The Working Papers have not undergone formal review and approval. Such papers are included in this series to elicit feedback and to encourage debate. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Sharing and Tourism: The Rise of New Markets in Transport Christian Longhi1, Marcello M. Mariani2 and Sylvie Rochhia1 1University Nice Sophia Antipolis, GREDEG, CNRS, 250 rue A. Einstein, 06560 Valbonne France [email protected], [email protected] 2University of Bologna, Via Capo di Lucca, 34 – 40126, Bologna, Italy [email protected] GREDEG Working Paper No. 2016-01 Abstract. This paper analyses the implications of sharing on tourists and tourism focusing on the transportation sector. The shifts from ownership to access, from products to services have induced dramatic changes triggered by the emergence of innovative marketplaces. The services offered by Knowledge Innovative Service Suppliers, start-ups at the origin of innovative marketplaces run through platforms allow the tourists to find solutions to run themselves their activities, bypassing the traditional tourism industry.
    [Show full text]
  • How Are Startups Shaping the Future of Road Mobility? ROAD MOBILITY STARTUPS ANALYSIS 2018
    How are startups shaping the future of road mobility? ROAD MOBILITY STARTUPS ANALYSIS 2018 1 1 FOREWORD Startups can further enhance the mobility offer Tesla, Uber, Blablacar. Most in doing for passenger transport, Europeans would acknowledge to the point of being now a leading that these 3 startups have alternative to buses, trains and revolutionized the world of road short-haul aircraft. passenger transport over the last 10 years. Tesla, Uber and Blabacar - and their counterparts in other parts of By launching a company with the world - are no longer startups. global ambitions in this industry, Are there new startups that will the likes of which had not been herald market re-alignments of the seen since the creation of Honda in magnitude of these 3 companies? 1948, Tesla shook well-established If so, in which domains? How are car manufacturers. It opened the they going to do it? door to a new generation of cars: To answer these questions, we electric, connected, autonomous. studied 421* startups associated with on-road mobility. The world of taxis was halted, even blocked. By relying on This study of 421 startups allowed smartphones, Uber dynamised us to highlight 3 major groups: the situation and somewhat satisfied - not without criticism - / Startups that contribute to the the shortage of affordable private emergence of a new generation of driver services in some cities. cars; / Those which conceive mobility not The sharing economy is simple through means, but as a service; (...on paper): exploit the over- / Those that mix the future of the capacity that one person has in vehicle and new types of services to order to make it available to all.
    [Show full text]
  • The Top 7 International Ride-Sharing Apps
    Locations Resource Artciles Beyond Uber: The Top 7 International Ride-Sharing Apps Need a Lyft? In an Uber rush? Chances are good that if you’re residing in the United States, both these questions have taken on double meanings in recent years. From the most urbanized to isolated societies, applications such as Lyft and Uber have brought a new form of transportation, known as ridesharing, to the masses. As part of the greater sharing economy, or through the uberisation effect, these applications take advantage of our telecommunication networks and smart devices to make our lives easier. In short, they do this by ultimately removing the larger companies from the equation and facilitating mutually benecial peer-to-peer interactions. Ride-sharing is a great example for this, as anyone who has used an associated application can attest. When using Uber, for instance, a customer must only broadcast their need for a ride to a specic destination, and any registered nearby driver may accept. Uber, of course, takes its cut from the fares, but otherwise, the transaction is solely between the consenting driver and customer. For many in the world, Uber has become more than a household name for ride-sharing applications, becoming more akin to the industry as a whole, rather than a specic brand. This is in the same regard as to how Kleenex has superseded tissue paper, despite other brands available on the market. That said, there are actually several competitors to Uber outside of the United States. If you’re traveling abroad, having some knowledge of them, as well as their existence, might save you when you need it most, particularly if your destination is not supported by the company you’re familiar with.
    [Show full text]
  • Growth of the Sharing Economy 2 | Sharing Or Paring? Growth of the Sharing Economy | 3
    www.pwc.com/hu Sharing or paring? Growth of the sharing economy 2 | Sharing or paring? Growth of the sharing economy | 3 Contents Executive summary 5 Main drivers 9 Main features of sharing economy companies 12 Business models 13 A contender for the throne 14 Emergence of the model in certain key sectors 16 I. Mobility industry 16 II. Retail and consumer goods 18 III. Tourism and hotel industry 19 IV. Entertainment, multimedia and telecommunication 20 V. Financial sector 21 VI. Energy sector 22 VII. Human resources sector 23 VIII. Peripheral areas of the sharing economy 24 Like it or lump it 25 What next? 28 About PwC 30 Contact 31 4 | A day in the life of the sharing economy While he does his Yesterday Peter applied for an online Nearby a morning workout, Peter data gathering distance young mother 8:00 listens to his work assignment 12:30 offers her Cardio playlist on Spotify. on TaskRabbit. home cooking So he can via Yummber, 9:15 concentrate better, and Peter jumps he books ofce at the space in the opportunity. Kaptár coworking ofce. On Skillshare, 13:45 16:00 he listens to the Nature Photography On the way home for Beginners course. he stops to pick up the foodstuffs he 15:45 To unwind, he starts ordered last week from watching a lm on Netflix, the shopping community but gets bored of it and reads Szatyorbolt. his book, sourced from A friend shows him Rukkola.hu, instead. a new Hungarian board game under development, on Kickstarter. Next week he’s going on holiday in Italy 18:00 He likes it so much with his girlfriend.
    [Show full text]
  • Carpooling for Long-Distance Transport in Italy: First Insights on Users, Usage and Geography
    XVIII RIUNIONE SCIENTIFICA DELLA SOCIETÀ ITALIANA DI ECONOMIA DEI TRASPORTI E DELLA LOGISTICA, GENOVA, 4-5 LUGLIO 2016. Carpooling for long-distance transport in Italy: first insights on users, usage and geography Alberto Bertolin1, Paolo Beria1∗, Gabriele Filippini2 1Dipartimento di Architettura e Studi Urbani, Politecnico di Milano, Via Bonardi 3, 20133 Milano, Italia 2Studio META, Via Magenta 15, 20090 Monza, Italia Extended abstract Innovative mobility practices (carsharing, carpooling, electric mobility, etc.) show an increasing penetration in European markets. Although still marginal in terms of total mobility, these new modes are becoming important niches in specific contexts. At the same time, they provide useful information in terms of mobility practices. The paper analyse a sample of data collected from the well-known carpooling web-platform BlaBlaCar, in Italy. The aim of the work is twofold. On the one side we want to analyse and better understand the dynamics of diffusion of the carpooling at the national scale. Secondly, we want to verify if and how, in perspective, such data could be used to obtain information on the least known segment of mobility, namely the occasional long-distance mobility. Data has been collected from the BlaBlaCar online portal during July 2015, recording all publicly accessible trips from a sample of five Italian cities: Milano, Roma, Napoli, Ancona e Vicenza. In total, the observations include 10.838 trips, offered by 6.557 drivers. The information collected include date and time of the trip, itinerary of the trip, price, sex and age of the driver. All trips collected has been cleaned, localised in a GIS-database and passed to an Access database to be elaborated.
    [Show full text]
  • Template Word Document NO LETTER with Logo +
    1 Standard Terms Assistance guarantees Insurance and assistance agreement taken out on behalf of a third party relating to the BlaBlaCar contract – n° 04 418 These Standard Terms have been drawn up in accordance with article L 112-2 of the French Insurance Code. They describe the assistance benefits, exclusions and obligations of the driver and BlaBlacar passenger (as defined below) granted under the insurance and assistance agreement n°04 418 taken out on behalf of third parties drawn up in accordance with article L. 112-2 of the French Insurance Code and subscribed by Comuto SA on behalf of the beneficiaries designated below with Inter Partner Assistance SA. Comuto SA is the only policyholder under the insurance policy and you benefit from insurance by virtue of you being registered as a driver or passenger with BlaBlaCar on an eligible trip. The insurance policy does not give you direct rights against Inter Partner Assistance SA save in the case of a valid claim, enabling you to benefit from the insurance benefits described below. The insurance policy issued to Comuto SA by Inter Partner Assistance SA and under which you benefit from insurance is governed by French law and notably the French Insurance Code. If there is a dispute, it will only be dealt with in the competent courts of France. You should read this document carefully to make sure you understand the insurance benefits you benefit from. Please note the general exclusions that apply to the insurance benefits, and the general conditions that you must follow so you are entitled to them.
    [Show full text]
  • RFS Final Report
    LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Parliamentary Paper No 358 General Purpose Standing Committee No 5 Report on Inquiry into the NSW Rural Fire Service Ordered to be printed 23 June 2000 Report No6 - June 2000 i LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Inquiry into the NSW Rural Fire Service How to contact the Committee Members of General Purpose Standing Committee No 5 can be contacted through the committee secretariat. Written correspondence and inquiries should be directed to: The Director General Purpose Standing Committees Legislative Council Parliament House, Macquarie Street Sydney NSW 2000 Email [email protected] Telephone 61-2-9230 3544 Facsimile 61-2-9230 3416 Website www.parliament.nsw.gov.au ISBN 0-7347-6407-3 ii GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO 5 Table of Contents COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP ............................................................................................................................. VI TERMS OF REFERENCE....................................................................................................................................VII RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... VIII ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. XIII CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................... XV 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Humanitarian Futures for Messaging Apps
    HUMANITARIAN FUTURES FOR MESSAGING APPS UNDERSTANDING THE OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS FOR HUMANITARIAN ACTION Syrian refugees, landed on Lesbos in Greece, looking for a mobile signal to check their location and notify relatives that they arrived safely. International Committee of the Red Cross 19, avenue de la Paix 1202 Geneva, Switzerland T +41 22 734 60 01 F +41 22 733 20 57 E-mail: [email protected] www.icrc.org January 2017 Front cover: I. Prickett/UNHCR HUMANITARIAN FUTURES FOR MESSAGING APPS UNDERSTANDING THE OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS FOR HUMANITARIAN ACTION This report, commissioned by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), is the product of a collaboration between the ICRC, The Engine Room and Block Party. The content of this report does not reflect the official opinion of the ICRC. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in the report lies entirely with The Engine Room and Block Party. Commissioning Editors: Jacobo Quintanilla and Philippe Stoll (ICRC). Lead Researcher: Tom Walker (The Engine Room). Content: Eytan Oren (Block Party), Zara Rahman (The Engine Room), Nisha Thompson, and Carly Nyst. Editors: Michael Wells and John Borland. Project Manager: Waiyee Leong (ICRC). The ICRC, The Engine Room and Block Party request due acknowledgement and quotes from this publication to be referenced as: ICRC, The Engine Room and Block Party, Humanitarian Futures for Messaging Apps, January 2017. This report is available at www.icrc.org, https://theengineroom.org and http://weareblockparty.com. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.
    [Show full text]
  • Hongkong Protest Using Firechat
    FireChat Introduction: FireChat is a “peer-to-peer mesh networking” based mobile application developed by Open Garden that allows users to send messages using Bluetooth or Wi-Fi; it works without any Internet Connection or mobile phone coverage. FireChat provides a new type of communication called “firechats”. These live and anonymous discussion groups can hold as many as 10,000 people simultaneously. Gain in Popularity: The app first gained popularity in Iran and Iraq following government restrictions on Internet use. In June, more than 40,000 Iraqis downloaded this application. It was also used by students in Taiwan during the „Sunflower movement‟ Hong Kong Protest: Recently, the app has reached a massive popularity in Hong Kong. According to Reuters [1], the posts and links related to “Hong Kong protests” are being removed from search engines, social networks and other websites. The pro-democracy protesters reported that their contents posted in popular Chinese micro blog „Weibo‟, Search engine „Baidu „and messages on WeChat are being censored. The Chinese authorities also banned Instagram. To bypass the censorship, the protestors have begun using the FireChat application to communicate with other protesters. The app gained more than 200,000 new users within few hours. Wired noted [2] that there were 2 million chat sessions initiated within two days. The app is seeing about 20,000 concurrent users in Hong Kong. The application became the most downloaded app from Hong Kong iOS Apple Store. According to Android application store, the app has now been downloaded more than 10,00,000 times. Using: To begin, a user needs to sign up by providing his full name, username and email ID.
    [Show full text]
  • Asia Chats- Update on Line, Kakaotalk, and Firechat in China
    Research Brief The Citizen Lab July 2014 Asia Chats: Update on Line, KakaoTalk, and FireChat in China Media coverage: CBC News, TechPresident, and Slate. On July 10 we reported that messaging applications LINE and KakaoTalk were being disrupted in China as a result of DNS tampering and HTTP request filtering. We also found that Flickr and Microsoft OneDrive were blocked in the country. Since that time we have done daily tests of these domains from servers in China. We find that Flickr and OneDrive remain consistently blocked, but LINE and KakaoTalk show inconsistent fluctuation between accessibility and inaccessibility. We also analyze security and privacy issues in the mobile app FireChat and test accessibility of the service in China. ACCESSIBILITY OF KAKAOTALK, LINE, FLICKR, ONEDRIVE IN CHINA In our previous post, we established that injected DNS replies was the primary mechanism by which KakaoTalk and LINE was being blocked in China. We test the domains that we investigated in our previous post twice daily from July 12 – 23, 2014 to measure the consistency of the blocks. We resolved the DNS records of the following domains in China: Domain Tested Service flickr.com Photo sharing service kakao.com KakaoTalk – Cross platform messaging app line.naver.jp LINE – Cross platform messaging app onedrive.live.com Cloud file sharing service 1 July 2014 Our tests return known fake DNS replies that have been previously observed in China, as noted in a presentation from John-Paul Verkamp at the CAIDA Active Internet Measurements Workshop (see slide 6). These possible fake response addresses are summarized below: IP Network 8.7.198.45 LEVEL3 – Level 3 Communications, Inc.,US 78.16.49.15 AS-BTIRE BT Communications Ireland Limited,IE 37.61.54.158 BAKINTER-AS Baktelekom,AZ 93.46.8.89 FASTWEB Fastweb SpA,IT 46.82.174.68 DTAG Deutsche Telekom AG,DE 159.106.121.75 59.24.3.173 KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR 203.98.7.65 CLIX-NZ TelstraClear Ltd,NZ 243.185.187.39 127.0.0.1 Localhost We tested the domains to see whether or not they would return these known bad DNS responses.
    [Show full text]