Now that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has put the issue of Net Neutrality on the front burner, the often-ludicrous reasons some people give to oppose Net Neutrality are coming out all over the place.  When you find one that is particularly preposterous, use the Contact Us link at the top of the screen and drop us a summary and a link.  We’ll be calling out the silliest and debunking those that might sound good on the surface but have a soft, squishy, logic-free center.

To get us started, this letter to the editor turned up last week in The Seattle Times:

The recent Seattle Times editorial on net neutrality seemed logical on the surface [“Protecting net neutrality,” Opinion, Sept. 22], but in reality was a Robin Hood-style regulation.

Let me pose a question: What would The Times’ opinion be if the Federal Communications Commission mandated The Times’ facilities were open to anyone who wants to use it as they wished?

I suspect the company would probably make an argument that it made the huge capital investment, and therefore should have control over who can or cannot use it.

So explain, what is the fundamental difference between the management of this capital asset and that of a company such as Comcast or any other Internet provider?

I suspect nothing other than another example of government intervention into a business and technology they do not understand. The Times should be thankful they are not focused on the newspaper industry.

I’ve long accused the Federal Communications Commission of being out of touch and not understanding (‘broadband over power lines’ advocacy being a particularly stupid idea on their part), but rest assured, they are well acquainted with the arguments the broadband industry makes to preserve its position.  Providers spend tens of millions of dollars to hire lobbyists to advocate just that.

To use Robin Hood as an analogy puts us squarely in OppositeLand, where ‘up is down’ and ‘right is left.’  Robin Hood was a story about robbing from the rich to give to the poor.  This writer seems to think the “poor” are Comcast and AT&T, and the individual customers most at risk from Net Neutrality abuse are somehow the “rich.”

Perhaps it would have been more apt to suggest the Seattle Times would be guilty of Net Neutrality abuse if it openly refused to print ‘letters to the editor’ or interview people for stories who did not have a home delivery subscription to the newspaper.

A newspaper, of course, is not the equivalent of the global Internet.  It’s just one of countless content creators that use the Internet to make their content more accessible to an online audience, one that might choose to read what they publish.  That’s an important distinction, because Net Neutrality does not interfere with content creators and tell them what they can and cannot say.  It helps protect their independence.  The Seattle Times can print whatever they see fit, and you and I make the individual decision to read or not read what they publish.

More importantly, and why the writer’s analogy misses the mark:  If you or I don’t like The Times and think we can do a better job, we can start our own website and publish our own content.  We don’t need the imprimatur of establishment media to make our own content available to the masses.  Individual readers will judge the quality and value of our content individually, and determine its importance and relevance accordingly.  So you or I don’t need to demand The Seattle Times open up their presses to our content — we can simply publish our own content independently, enjoying the exact same global reach, and have the potential to be just as successful as they are.

But let’s get back to the writer’s premise and adjust it slightly.  The Times pays a web hosting company to make their articles available online.  They have a business relationship with that hosting company, which uses part of that hosting fee to pay for their own pipeline to the Internet.

Meanwhile, you and I pay a monthly fee for an Internet Service Provider (ISP).  We pay them every month to provide unencumbered connectivity to the Internet, which happens to include the website for The Seattle Times.

One day, our ISP mails a letter to The Times and tells them that unless they pay to become a “preferred content partner,” they can no longer guarantee that the newspaper’s web pages will always reach you and I on a timely basis.  In effect, our ISP now wants to be paid twice — once by us to access the Internet, and once by the newspaper for “assurances” their content will reach us at broadband speeds.

The Times doesn’t have a business relationship with our ISP, but you and I do — specifically to provide the connectivity they suggest may soon no longer be guaranteed to those who “use their pipes for free.”

Now the problem becomes clearer to understand.  Even more concerning is that some of these ISPs own and manage news content sites.  Will they charge themselves the same price they ask from others?

Net Neutrality in its entirety protects content producers, like this website, from having its reach impacted.  Remember, one of the biggest strengths of the Internet is that anyone, anywhere, can reach this website or The Seattle Times on equal terms just by typing in the address.  No Internet user or content producer should have to face a blockade from providers that don’t like the message, had their content moved to the “slow lane” for not paying an unprecedented fee, or had their website overshadowed because a competitor leveraged favorable treatment from their “preferred content partner” status.

Communications and Information Technology Minister Hon. Steven Joyce

New Zealand, long ranked near the bottom of the barrel in broadband according to OECD rankings, will embark on a $1.5 billion (NZD) national broadband initiative, with a publicly-owned fiber network as its hallmark.

The plan, which will give urban and suburban New Zealand residents access to speeds faster than commonly available in the United States, will reach three-quarters of the population within the next ten years.  New Zealand has discarded the “wait around for the private sector” approach, which has left the country with stiflingly slow and heavily capped broadband at high prices.  Instead, it will create an open access fiber optic network on which private providers can compete and offer consumers the speeds they desire.  Communications and Information Technology Minister Steven Joyce issued a statement explaining why the government was getting involved:

Private sector companies have decided, on behalf of their shareholders and as a commercial decision, not to invest in a nationwide network of fibre-to-the-home at this point in time.  The government understands this, and so wishes to assist and work with the private sector in improving the business case for ultra-fast broadband.

The government is also getting involved in order to encourage the provision of widespread open access dark fibre services, which will facilitate the best possible competition outcomes in emerging markets and encourage innovation in wholesale and retail services.

For residents in 33 communities across the country targeted for access to the new network, it cannot come soon enough.  For many of them the most important issue, even beyond speed, is an end to what one Henderson resident called “the current crap called ‘data caps.'”

“The speed of the broadband is meaningless compared to the tiny data caps involved.  On the current slow broadband, I use up my 50GB data cap 12-15 days into the month.  Ultra fast broadband would only be useful with no data caps involved, because the existing broadband speed is twice as fast as the cap already,” Lucy in Auckland told the New Zealand Herald.

Rose in Glenfield agrees:

“We have a 20GB data cap that we chew through in about 10-14 days, and then we are stuck on 64kbps or we have to pay another $30 for another 20GB to get through the rest of the month. When are they going to address these kinds of issues,” she asks.

New Zealand has seen the impact of Internet Overcharging schemes for years.  Providers originally introduced ‘data caps’ to reduce the usage on their networks, but have since relied on them, and consumption billing also as a way to collect revenue.  Most residential customers endure usage caps of 20-50GB per month.  After that, some providers dramatically reduce their connections to just above dial-up speed, while others have found new revenue by charging customers $2/GB or more in overlimit penalties and fees.  Some offer additional usage allotments, but at high prices, such as $30 for 20GB of additional usage.

The result has been a dramatically lower adoption of broadband in New Zealand, and many don’t think it’s worth the money.

John Rutter in Howick suggests speed is secondary to dealing with the issue of loathed usage caps.

“I like the idea of a ultra-fast broadband investment initiative but I hope Internet service providers like Vodafone, Slingshot, and Orcon will provide unlimited Internet soon. Unlimited Internet should come first, then ultra-fast broadband,” he said.

The government has received public support for its broadband initiative.  The public benefit is a much faster “public highway” on which private providers can offer service to individual customers.  By constructing a fast pipeline publicly that no provider is willing to provide privately, it creates additional value for consumers who find faster, more reliable service, preferably on better terms.

“Already a number of companies have shown interest in the government’s broadband initiative,” Joyce said in a statement. “It’s time to get on with finding the right partners to build these networks.”

The government “is prepared to accept a less than commercial return” from the partners. It aims to hold less than 25 per cent in the partnered investment vehicles and will resist contributions of more than 50 per cent.

For rural New Zealand, the answer generally won’t come from a fiber-based strategy, Joyce says.  Instead, the government estimates $300 million will be needed from public and private sources for a rural broadband plan.  Significant portions of New Zealand are difficult to reach with traditional broadband networks, and many New Zealand residents in even medium sized outlying towns find themselves on long waiting lists for what service is available.

Steve in Wellington told the Herald “a lot of towns (like Richmond, Tasman and Rolleston – not just remote areas) have issues where due to lack of exchange space many people cannot get broadband or are on ‘port waiting lists’ waiting for ports to become available. I think the main issue should be ensuring access to broadband full stop. Not just faster for those lucky enough to already have it.”

Rural broadband through wireless is one initiative under consideration.  WiMax technology can deliver fast broadband to rural area, often at faster speeds than traditional telephone company DSL in rural communities.

This website is run on a voluntary and non-profit basis.  Our ability to reach you, the reader, comes as a benefit of an open and free Internet.  I can criticize and speak my mind openly and freely even about my own Internet Service Provider, because on today’s Internet the gatekeeper is your own motivation to write and publish content, and the motivation of the reader to consume it.

In the last few years, some Internet Service Providers have argued it is time to change this winning formula.  They are upset that groups and businesses are creating and distributing content over “their wires” without “paying a portion of the costs for those wires.”  No matter that you and I already pay those costs when we sign up for service with that provider.  Now they want content providers to be willing to pony up money to be assured that their content will reach you, the customer.  Don’t agree to pay?  They can’t guarantee your content won’t be slowed to a crawl by too many outside groups trying to use “their pipes for free” and you and I will be left with Internet service that provides super fast connections to those that pay, and a whole lot of waiting around to access those that don’t.

There is bipartisan support for the just introduced Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. It would finally make Net Neutrality the law. It’s urgently needed during this time of provider bad behavior, from Internet Overcharging schemes to efforts to control broadband content distribution. Our friends at SaveTheInternet have a petition to sign, but it’s also important to reach out directly to your member of Congress and tell them to support H.R. 3458. It protects the Internet as we know and love it today.

I usually don’t spend a whole lot of time debunking the more crazy conspiracy theories about Net Neutrality because I presume most online users are smart enough not to be suckered into sideshow distractions, usually paid for by providers trying to wave shiny keys at consumers to get them to support things exactly opposite their own best interests.  Unfortunately, there are a few shills out there who insist on trying to conjure up bizarre conspiracy theories about Net Neutrality representing some sort of Obama Administration/left wing takeover of the Internet.

When Newsbusters, a conservative media watchdog group, bought into this (and also sprang for the deluxe undercoatings, fabric protection, and deluxe floor mats), it was time to fire up the Debunk-o-matic once again and set the record straight.

What is particularly insulting is the ongoing effort to try and co-opt conservatives into this corporate protection circus, when truth be told, conservatives should absolutely be in favor of Net Neutrality for the same reasons any other person, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, should be — it protects their rights to be able to speak out on the issues that concern them the most, judged on the quality of their content, not on how much money they can pay to be sure those views can travel unimpeded to interested readers across the country and beyond.

Put on the rubber boots, because we’re going to splash through some inch deep puddles:

Enter the similarly-misnamed ‘net neutrality’ movement, which advocates total government control of Internet browsing. Net neutrality would forbid Internet service providers from regulating traffic on their networks, and would place that regulatory control in the hands of the FCC.

While the left bemoans restrictions by private companies on their subscribers’ use of the Internet, progressives have few qualms with allowing the federal government a say in what we can or cannot see, do, or say on the Internet.

The centralized control of Internet use by the federal government would provide a powerful tool for the censorship of websites deemed politically unfavorable. The current administration’s labeling of right-wing fringe groups as ‘extremists’ and potentially national security threats, and the labeling of town hall protestors as ‘political terrorists’ suggests that the realm of impermissible internet use could conceivably include groups that espouse intense opposition to federal policies.

I think author Lachlan Markay has been stuck in a parallel universe, like in that Star Trek episode, because he defined Net Neutrality the exact opposite of its reality.

The FCC can’t even get rational limits on cable system ownership to survive court review.  How Markay believes a naked attempt by the FCC to regulate political content on the Internet will pass muster requires something more than simply writing alarmist claims it will happen because he says it will.

The feeble effort to link town hall protesters and Obama conspiracy theories to the issue of Net Neutrality is a transparent effort to co-opt conservatives into a cause that means standing with the providers waiting to throttle their broadband speeds and charge their favorite websites more money.  I don’t believe for a second conservatives trust the local cable or phone company to do the right thing by them, as they continue to be stuck with ever-increasing bills for channels they don’t watch and certainly don’t want to pay for and phone features they don’t want or use, but end up paying for anyway.

Though no elected net neutrality advocate would ever suggest that the movement intends to regulate content, pundits on the left have been far more forthcoming. In March, a blogger at the Huffington Post lauding net neutrality wrote, “We have a very rare opportunity right now to lock in a progressive advantage in Internet communications, information sharing, and Netroots mobilizing.”

Markay attempts to bolster his argument by linking to a Huffington Post blogger that supposedly lets it all hang out in public — conspiracy revealed, case closed.  He assumes his readers won’t bother to click on the link, because if they do, they’ll discover Markay’s source didn’t have to be linked via HuffPost, he could have just turned around to the guy figuratively sitting at the desk behind him and quoted him directly.  Yes folks, he linked to a “Contributing Editor for NewsBusters.org,” the very site Markay writes for.

Seton Motley isn’t the go-to-guy for the quality expose either.  Indeed, Motley himself quoted from Joseph A. Palermo, another HuffPost blogger who penned a piece that proved he didn’t really understand Net Neutrality either.

Palermo instead advocated that progressive causes use broadband to bypass the “media filter” and talk to audiences directly.  Motley saw the words “Net Neutrality” in the headline and figured he’d done his job for the day.

Not so much. Not one of these people appears to understand what Net Neutrality is all about.

Net Neutrality is completely above the partisan divide because it insists, regardless of content, if it’s legal it should not be impeded by a broadband provider and should be allowed to travel unfettered across their wires.  Indeed, it also demands that the Internet be a true democracy of ideas, not one of entrenched interests with lots of money that can buy their way onto the fast lane while others make due with a potentially slower “free lane” that some providers proposed.

There you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth. The left is seeking net neutrality as a means of consolidating control over the Internet, the same way it sought consolidated control over the airwaves with the Fairness Doctrine, and the same way it is now seeking that same objective in the guise of ‘diversity’ and ‘localism.’ Those on the center-right should not be fooled into thinking that ‘localism’ or ‘net neutrality’ promote free enterprise or free speech.

Yes, three people who completely misunderstand the basic premise of Net Neutrality have weighed in and passed judgment on Net Neutrality. Palermo wasn’t writing about Net Neutrality and it should have not been in his headline.  Motley went along for the ride and assumed Palermo knew what Net Neutrality was, and then reflexively attacked just because Palermo plays for the blue team and Motley plays for the red.  Markay just provided the frosting for this big cake of wrong and added even more rhetorical sprinkles on top.  All that’s missing from this recipe for disaster is a provider to come on by and overcharge everyone for a piece.

The true risk of consolidation of control of the Internet isn’t coming from the federal government, it is coming from the providers themselves.  Where Markay has no concrete examples of actual government abuse, I do have real world examples of what happens when Net Neutrality protection is not guaranteed by law.  Providers in Canada, where Net Neutrality does not exist, uniformly throttle the speeds of certain content, and at least one provider directly blocked access to a website because of a political/business dispute the site had with that provider.

What should really scare conservatives is not having Net Neutrality.  These policies guarantee the right for all Americans to speak their minds and share their views, even those polar opposites Glenn Beck and Janeane Garofalo.  Let the best ideas win.

ABC - Australia's National Public Broadcaster

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has called on the federal government to have its online video service exempted from Internet Service Provider usage caps.

Mark Scott, ABC’s Managing Director, called on the government to intervene as part of Australia’s development of a National Broadband Network (NBN).  In comments directed to legislators drafting the regulatory framework for the NBN, Scott argued that “publicly-funded content and services carried over the NBN, including those of the ABC, should be available free to the Australian people.”

Scott is referring primarily to the ABC’s iView portal, which allows Australians to watch ABC-TV programming online.  Scott is worried that without an exemption, Australians simply won’t take advantage of the service, fearing they’ll exceed their monthly usage allowance.

The majority of Australia’s ISPs have strict usage limits on their services, blaming the expensive and limited underseas fiber connections Australia has with the rest of the global Internet.  Scott argues that since ABC content will be domestically distributed, there is no valid argument to cap it.

Only a small handful of ISPs, iiNet, Internode, iPrimus, Westnet and Adam Internet among them, provide the content without it counting against your usage allowance.