As the story continues to unfold, some rather disappointing facts are coming to light that are quickly cheapening the calls for Net Neutrality.

Comcast’s toll that Level 3 so publicly and vociferously decried actually is turning out to be the blow-back from an existing peering arrangement between the two.

Peering is when two entities allow each the use of the other’s broadband infrastructure at significantly reduced rates or for free. The catch is that the bandwidth usage needs to be about even on both sides. Given Level 3′s deal with Netflix, Comcast was going to find itself overly burdened carrying the extra traffic.

So, it appears Comcast wasn’t wholly out of line in asking for some compensation from Level 3.

Level 3 has cried wolf on a very sensitive issue. This will undoubtedly be fodder for those against Net Neutrality.

Regardless, things still stink. One thing we have learned from all this is that the concept of the open Internet hangs in a fragile balance. Comcast has shown how easy it would be for them to effectively turn-off Netflix for their subscribers.

While Comcast may be in the right on this particular issue with Level 3, there is still the elephant in the room. The broadband infrastructure in the US is shit. Telecoms and Cable companies were given over $200 billion dollars throughout the 1990′s, as well as having the FCC reclassify the Internet from phone to information service (which removed many restrictions and regulations) in exchange for what was supposed to be massive broadband build-out.

That build-out never appeared. The telecoms and cable companies got everything they wanted.

The consumer got nothing.

Today we’re effectively held hostage inside each fiefdom the ISPs have built for themselves. Even though I pay monthly for a connection to the internet who knows what my ISP will decide to block tomorrow – and no one can stop them.

ISPs have set themselves up to the be the Robber Barons of the 21st Century.

Comcast has levied a threat that they will throttle Netflix streaming unless a toll is paid.

While this may be psychosomatic, some Comcast customers have already appeared on Twitter wondering why their Netflix has stopped working.

This is why people have been clamoring for Net Neutrality.

This is why the internet needs to be regulated like a utility. No one company should  hold hostage content and access you have already paid for in an effort to bloat their own profits.

The FCC, having lost to Comcast in court, seemed on the verge of giving up. However, a new proposal is on the table of how net neutrality could be leveraged and put in place. This has struck anew the fires of pure inane comments, ridiculous talking points and pure and utter bollocks retching from the mouths of individuals who think a TCP/IP stack is a librul way to organize your books.

There are few things more frustrating than ignorant individuals spouting off talking points – grossly wrong talking points on a topic that is rooted strongly in fact and logic. Where there might be leeway in debating how governments might most efficiently run and serve its people, there’s no wiggle room in debating how the internet works unless you’re actually debating the engineering standards.

That’s clearly not what is going on in newspapers, blogs, and talk shows around the country. People aren’t debating what internet protocols might create the most efficient and robust delivery systems. They are vomiting forth scripted talking points like:

So much for laying down billions to build a network so freeloaders can abuse it. 80% of the network is used by 20% of the content…is that fair?

Why should comcast or anyoe else have to subsidize freeloaders?

Wow. The dictatorial, managerial, administrative state in the world of Obama! The EPA, FCC, 26 Czars, and an out-of-control Congress answer only to themselves.

Obama wants “absolute power.” There is nothing he won’t take control of if he gets a chance.

I don;t trust anything the current regime tries. There is always some hidden agenda that ends in “transforming Amerika” and “Spreading the wealth around”. These people want total control over our lives. These Marxist have to be stopped!

Should I let the Gub’mint regulate the internet so my neighbor can download porn 24/7 with no delay ?

the free market is doing what the FCC can only dream of doing, providing choice and service to customers. Of course the government via the FCC can screw up this free market like it’s done to countless other free markets

This “net neutrality” will be coupled with the so-called ‘fairness doctrine’ as an attempt by the statists to stifle free speech.

Where do these inane ideas comes from? Straight from the mouths of Rush, Beck, Hannity, and scores of talk shows with political agendas that know jack shit about how the internet works. Their goal is to smear their political opponents anyway they can. If that means completely brain-washing their audiences on a topic – well you can see they have no qualms. It’s quite sad, really.

First, Net Neutrality has nothing to do with pricing. It doesn’t want to dictate what prices or tiered pricing structures ISPs want to offer. It doesn’t care what bandwidth cap limits will, could, or would be imposed. It could care less about what information is being transmitted.

The long view is that Net Neutrality doesn’t want ISPs throttling packets based on where they come from or what content they contain – most especially if said ISP is both a content producer and transport provider.

That’s it.

Whether the FCC is the best arbitrator for this is still up for rational debate. They very well may not be the best for what needs to be done.

The problem lays in that there is no free market. There is no competition. ISPs have total control – and this is where the wharblegarbl falls apart. The spittle-flecked paranoia that a gubment power grab is underway stems from the ill-reasoned fact that these corporations, based in a competative free market, will regulate themselves.

This reality does not exist.

Looking at the comments posed against net neutrality I can only conclude that the individuals who crafted these responses do not live in our reality either.

Once you’ve built up a life and culture around the internet it’s about as hard to cut off as water or electricity. The internet is a tool, entertainment, and a career.

After years of looking for another house that would better suit the family needs, one has finally appeared. It hits all the tick marks. The only thing left to do was check out what kind of internet service was available.

Right out of the gate Comcast begged off. The street sits too far out of their existing network. The only other choice in Maryland after that was Verizon (Satellite and mobile just aren’t a reasonable solution given their high latency).

I started phoning Verizon Monday morning. Their customer service ‘voice activation menus’ (press 1 for this, say “no’ to that) was a wreck. I spent over two hours just trying to get through to someone. The nice lady who finally answered the phone confirmed that residential DSL was unavailable but I could get business DSL. Twice the speed at only a little more cost.

Awesome, I was in heaven.

For the hell of it during a lunch break I went to check for availability through verizon.com. No dice. The response was no service available except phone. I started getting nervous.

During the commute  home on Monday their customer service menuing system was in such a wreck I couldn’t get a hold of anyone. At this point I had burned another 180 cellphone minutes – almost half my plan at this point – and only three days into the month.

Tuesday brought the same. Their customer service menuing system was still a wreck and continued to hang up on me half way through the menu selections. When I would make it through, I’d magically get teleported from their Business customer service to Residential. They’d transfer me back to Business and I’d eventually get kicked from the network. 120 cell phone minutes later I was left with two more answers. One rep said neither Residential nor Business DSL was available. A third rep said only Business DSL was available but I would have to use a static IP (WTF?!).

My bullshit quota was reached. It was time to turn up the social pressure. To Twitter I went with my complaints, along with the scores of others that were venting about Verizon’s lack of customer service and inability to actually talk to a rep on the phone. A few hashtags and pithy comments later and I had customer service responding directly to me. Amazing what you can do through the internet. What a fantastic medium and communication device.

The end result was that Verizon does not service the location.

Therein lays the real story in all of this. I now have no broadband choices. For all the bluster and hype of the right-wing spin machine and the blow-hard ISP giants, broadband access in this country is piss poor.

It’s slow, coverage is spotty, and access is expensive. And because of that I’ll have to keep looking for another residence that hits all the tick marks. It only took five years of continuous searching to find this last one…

So, remember the next time some windbag spouts off about how net neutrality is a danger, that we have a multitude of choice and the free market is handling it fine, tell them to fuck off.

On April 6th, the Federal Court of Appeals handed down a 36-page ruling on one of the first test cases of net neutrality. They ruled in favor of Comcast who was fighting against an earlier ruling by the FCC that Comcast was not allowed to throttle Internet usage.

About the ruling Comcast said:

“We have always been focused on serving our customers and delivering the quality open-Internet experience consumers want,” the company said.

Anyone that has been a customer of Comcast knows that line is pure bullshit.

This ruling by the Federal Court of Appeals sets in motion a dangerous precedent whereby no consumer protections are now in place. So why does anyone think this is a good thing? Chalk it up to the nice propaganda campaign waged by the talking-heads of radio and television.

A recent editorial in the Las-Vegas Review Journal spells out the mentality of those against net neutrality. It’s almost a point for point delivery of the screed pumped out by Glen Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity.

The summary of the editorial is A) It’s a government power grab, B) ISPs have been improving customer service, options, and service on their own, C) 98% of the people in this country already have at least three wired options and six wireless options, D) net neutrality stifles innovation and investment.

It’s hard to get things 100% wrong, but this editorial wins.

Let’s take a look at the facts of net neutrality.

First, net neutrality is an attempt to keep anyone, including government, from assuming control of the internet for purposes of selectively throttling one company’s content over another’s.

Second, some ISPs have been improving speeds in some markets. Overall, there are very few markets with quality broadband – and nothing compared to what you find in many other countries. The US is one of the wost in broadband speed, access, and cost.

Third, I’d love to know where the AT&T rep that was quoted in the editorial came up with this magical 98% number. I disbelieve. Because of the exclusivity agreements most municipalities have signed with companies like Comcast, you are lucky to have one option for broadband internet access. Wireless options are still in their infancy, and only in huge metropolitan areas. I personally have one option, Verizon DSL. That’s it, nothing else. And that’s only at 3.1Mbps speed. Moreover, I’m one of the few in the neighborhood that can actually almost hit those speeds.

Fourth, the internet is the awesome, innovative, artistic, knowledge-filled, and ridiculous troll-tastic place that it is because companies have not been allowed to selectively throttle packets. The sheer amount of applications, protocols, services and innovations are in spite of the crappy, uncaring service the big ISPs provide.

What really takes the cake, however, is the fact that everyone already pays their share. The terrabytes of videos sent out over YouTube? Google pays for that on their end and you pay for it on yours. Online video games? The same. iTunes music downloads? The same. Each company has to purchase that bandwidth so you can reach their servers. You pay a monthly fee to get online as well.

Khan has nothing to do with this, but screaming his name loudly is cathartic.

What the opponents of net neutrality propose is that ISPs now force you to pay an additional fee on top of all of that based on their arbitrary terms decided on whether somebody else might be offering a competitive service to their own.

And this all wouldn’t be quite so maddening if the big ISPs hadn’t already been given billions of dollars by the government in the 1990′s to build out their infrastructure in the first place. You see, we’ve already paid for all this. Moreover, what we paid for – high quality, fast broadband connections – most don’t have and will never see.

It’s enough to make you scream.

And this is why we can’t have anything good. We’re surrounded by stupid people writing editorials about topics they know jack shit about, parroting talking points from slimy but clever talk show hosts.

And they believe every word they’re fed.

To hear the lamentation of Verizon, Comcast, and every other worhtless ISP that has dragged its sorry ass in rolling out decent broadband across America.

As reported by Engadget,

today the company (Google) announced that it’s getting in the game for real with the launch of a fiber-based ISP service that’ll offer 1Gbps speeds at “competitive prices” to select markets.

I sincerely hope this scares the living hell out of ISPs across the land and forces them into action. Broadband in this country is scattered and pitiful. Prices are ridiculous, and choices are either between two evils or non-existent.

I hope Google hits them like the fist of an angry god.

Comcast is changing its name. In 11 markets, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Chicago, Seattle, Hartford, Augusta, Chattanooga, Portland, and San Francisco, Comcast will become XFINITY.

XFINITY

Does this make their horrible customer service, ludicrous network throttling, and monopolies on local markets better?

Doubt it. I’m sure it’ll cause confusion and billing errors.

It might fool some new people (or very old people), and perhaps that’s their end game to pick up a few new customers.

Wouldn’t it be awesome if all that energy actually went into fixing their problems and delivering a product and allowing customers to use what they pay for? Shocking idea!