Sony says that the credit card data associated with the accounts was encrypted, though there are anecdotal reports of credit card fraud occurring coincidental with the timing of the breach.

On top of that, regulators in places as varied as Connecticut and the U.K. and Ireland are demanding information, often the first step in investigations that lead to lawsuits. The office of Ireland’s data protection commissioner (cool title) says it wants a full report on the incident by the end of the week. The U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office is investigating. Perhaps Sony’s one lucky draw in all this, as Parmy Olson of Forbes notes, is that it won’t have to face the full fury of the European Union because authority for data privacy issues are reserved to individual member countries.

Meanwhile, the attorneys general of several U.S. states are starting to rumble, starting with Connecticut’s George Jepson, who said he is launching an investigation, while his counterparts in Missouri and Iowa are making the kind of public statements that are often a precursor to investigations of their own. A few lawmakers in Congress are tsk-ing disapprovingly too, mulling hearings and new legislation. Below is an appearance on CNBC by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., suggesting that the Department of Justice should launch its own investigation.

Thanks, Senator. However, my guess is that if the systems compromised are in the U.S.–and given the number of PlayStation Network customers there are in the U.S., how can they not be?–then one branch of Justice is already likely involved: The FBI. Hasn’t Sony already disclosed that it’s working with law enforcement? This isn’t exactly the sort of thing for which you call a local police agency.

“This transaction causes me concern because of its potential impact on the ability of consumers to search online for competitively priced airline fares in a market that has seen rapid growth,” wrote Koster wrote in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney dated Feb. 9 (full letter below). “Ensuring that new sellers can gain meaningful entry into this market, and that all sellers can compete against each other fairly, is our mutual concern.”

Evidently a broadly held one, too.

Because Koster’s letter wasn’t the only one Varney received yesterday. Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) and Rep. Thomas Petri (R-WI) also wrote to her, again urging close scrutiny of the deal. “We ask that your ongoing review pay particular attention to competitive issues involving consumers, the online ad market and the protection of intellectual property,” they wrote (full letter below). Their chief concern: The possibility that Google might use its dominant position in search and advertising to steer consumers to its travel services, limiting competition.

This, of course, is something that Google insists it would never do. “This acquisition will inject more competition into flight search, not less, and give consumers more options,” the company said in a statement. “Of course, the antitrust laws aren’t designed to protect incumbent companies from new competition, but to make sure that consumers benefit from more competition and innovation.”

Tell that to the DOJ, which has been reviewing the proposed $700 million deal for months and, as NewEnterprise recently noted, has prepared documents for a possible challenge to the acquisition.

Last night, I jetted east to Washington, D.C., for an unusual confluence of events: The 25th anniversary of the .com Internet domain name and the Federal Communications Commission’s release of the much anticipated National Broadband Plan.

Both are set for tomorrow in the nation’s capital and both concern the impact of the Web on the United States in the past and the future.

Incredibly, .com was almost .cor, for corporate.

And the first .com address handed out–Symbolics.com–belonged to a now-defunct Massachusetts computer company.

(It signed up via the domain registrar, Network Solutions, which was bought by VeriSign in 2000. The Symbolics.com domain was sold in 2009 to Missouri-based XF.com, which “operates commercial real estate and premium domain properties.”)

In honor of the anniversary, VeriSign (VRSN), which administers the .com registry, is hosting a policy forum in D.C. It includes a keynote address by former President Bill Clinton, as well as some panels.

I will be moderating the one in the afternoon titled “The Next Generation.” The panelists, looking to the future, include, among others: Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post; Aneesh Chopra, Federal CTO of the U.S.; and Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures.

There will be another gala event to honor Internet innovators in San Francisco in late May.

While the growth of .com was slow until the browser became popularized–numbering under 15,000 in 1992–there are now close to 85 million .com domains. This commercial one is clearly the most important of the designations, both financially and perceptually.

Still, despite how much impact the Internet has had globally, spurred mostly by innovation in the U.S., this country still remains woefully behind in high-speed access to the Web.

While it is easy–and fun–to blame the greedy telcos and cable companies (and they do deserve some of the blame), the lack of a federal imperative has been the most appalling explanation.

It is as if the federal government had decided dirt roads were preferable to the highway system or tin cans and string were better than universal telephone access.

Will making broadband access easy, fast and cheap for most people in the U.S. be the end result of the National Broadband Plan, to be officially unveiled by the FCC tomorrow?

As I wrote last week:

“The two key questions about the effort to get the United States up to speed, so to speak, with decent digital access: Will it be toothless or not and will there be any money to pay for it, given the cash-strapped federal government?”

A possible highlight of the plan concerns whether spectrum should be allocated for a free or inexpensive high-speed wireless service, as well as restoration of some regulations lifted in the previous Republican administration.

But the main focus will be that the U.S. needs high-speed access to improve dramatically across the nation, especially for poorer citizens and in rural areas.

After a quarter-century of .com, the growth of a trillion-dollar industry from one punctuation mark and three letters, and badillions of page views, you would think this would be glaringly obvious to our federal government.

You should think it would.

GodTube, which describes itself as a Christian video-driven social-networking site, “where users find inspiration, interact, chat, share and upload” Christian video, has about 2 million users per month.

GodTube also lets churches stream sermons and other events live on its “Godcaster” subscription service.

Also, its motto is “Broadcast Him,” but GodTube also calls itself “Jesus 2.0.” Get it?

Perhaps more in the holy-grail territory, GodTube just nabbed $30 million this week in funding from GLG Partners (GLG), which is also an investor in the less-holy Glam Media site, according to paidContent.

That gives the Dallas-based GodTube a $150 million valuation, putting it right up there with other miraculous start-up valuations like yesterday’s $500 million valuation for the online ad agency Spot Runner.

Praise the VC (and, for GodTube fans, JC too)!

Here’s the North Point Church video on GodTube: