A Wall Street Journal article this morning calls the imminent introduction of Net Neutrality policy “a boon for consumers […] to use their computers or cellphones to enjoy videos, music and other legal services that hog bandwidth.”

The article refers to the widely expected announcement today by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski that Net Neutrality should be adopted as the fifth principle governing Internet service in the United States.

But Journal reporter Amy Schatz’s judgment about who wins and who loses in the Net Neutrality debate is framed by the flawed broadband provider arguments she adopts as reality:

The proposed rules could change how operators manage their networks and profit from them, and the everyday online experience of individual users. Treating Web traffic equally means carriers couldn’t block or slow access to legal services or sites that are a drain on their networks or offered by rivals.

The rules will escalate a fight over how much control the government should have over Internet commerce. The Obama administration is taking the side of Google, Amazon.com Inc. and an array of smaller businesses that want to profit from offering consumers streaming video, graphics-rich games, movie and music downloads and other services.

Setting aside the inappropriate use of the word “hog” to define broadband usage, which comes straight out of the broadband industry’s public relations strategy, Schatz ignores the fact some of the biggest drains on these networks will soon come from the industry’s own efforts to dominate online video — TV Everywhere.

In fact, the excuses for imposing Internet Overcharging schemes in 2009 do not reference much beyond online video growth as a justification to impose speed throttles and price increases on consumers.

Schatz adopts industry positions as fact in a number of places throughout her piece, which belongs on the Editorial page of the Journal:

If the FCC does force U.S. wireless carriers to open their networks to data-heavy applications like streaming video, it could push them beyond the limited capacity they have. Already, in areas like New York and San Francisco, a high concentration of iPhones has caused many AT&T customers to complain about degrading service.

In fact, many wireless carriers already provide their own wireless video to customers, and don’t seem to be engaging in a lot of hand-wringing over that.  Should Net Neutrality force open the wireless platform, the quality of the service, not the provider’s self interest will govern the success and failure of individual applications.  AT&T, which has earned massive revenue from its exclusive iPhone arrangement with Apple, can and should continue to invest some of that revenue into expanding their network to meet the demand.  If they cannot, it is an open question why they would allow any online video or other data-heavy applications on their networks until those networks can handle the traffic.

In such a scenario, wireless carriers may have to rethink how much they charge for data plans or even cap how much bandwidth individuals get, said Julie Ask, a wireless analyst at Jupiter Research.

This ignores the fact providers have already rethought about how much they charge for data plans.  Some providers are now compelling subscribers to choose data plans as part of their two year service agreements, while the industry is replete with 5GB usage caps on wireless data services today.  Someone should ask Ask what she thinks is forthcoming that hasn’t already happened.

The FCC’s proposal will take into account the bandwidth limitations faced by wireless carriers, according to people familiar with the plan, and would ask how such rules should apply to current networks.

…which takes the wind out of the sails of the argument Net Neutrality would be ruinous to wireless providers.

The proposals come as the FCC faces a federal appeals court case over its authority to regulate Web traffic. Comcast is fighting an FCC decision last year to ding it for violating the agency’s “net neutrality” principles when it slowed traffic for some subscribers who were downloading big files. Comcast said it didn’t violate any rules because the FCC had never formally adopted any, but it did change how it manages its network.

In reality, Comcast’s speed throttle targeted files small and large, all because they were delivered over a specific network Comcast didn’t like: peer to peer.  That’s a protocol that relies on a group of people obtaining files by sharing pieces already downloaded with one another until the file is complete for everyone.  That involves uploading and downloading file pieces, often over a lengthy period.  Comcast’s network was built with the assumption most customers would download far more than they upload, and peer-to-peer challenged that model with its file sharing methodology.  The surge in upload traffic challenged their network at times, so Comcast decided to throttle the maximum speeds consumers could use while engaged in peer-to-peer file sharing.

Republicans are likely to oppose the FCC’s new proposal — both at the FCC and in Congress — arguing that the FCC is trying to fix problems that don’t exist and that the agency should take a more hands-off approach to the fast-changing industry.

“With only a few isolated instances of complaints alleging net neutrality-like abuses ever having been filed, it is a mistake,” said Randolph May, president of Free State Foundation, a free-market oriented think tank.

It’s difficult to fathom exactly how much more “hands-off” the agency can get with respect to broadband, an unregulated service in the United States.  That “hands-off” policy was responsible for the establishment of de facto monopoly/duopoly broadband service in most American cities, wireless broadband that charges nearly the same price for the same usage capped service, and is tinkering with Internet Overcharging to leverage that market status into higher pricing for all consumers.

May’s argument is akin to calling the fire department only after a fire has consumed half of your home, not when the smoke detector first goes off.

As a result, both the cable companies and phone companies had incentives to create conditions on the Internet — either through pricing or slowing or speeding up certain sites — to favor their own content.

This sentence, buried towards the end of the piece, exemplifies exactly why Net Neutrality is so important.  Let’s put this fire out before it burns out of control.

Washington County, New York

Washington County, one of New York’s many rural counties, sits on the eastern border of the state adjacent to Vermont.  Its 62,000 citizens have access to dial-up, some areas have been wired by Time Warner Cable, and some others have access to Verizon DSL service.  But vast swaths of the county have no choice for broadband at all.  The Washington County Board of Supervisors wants to do something about that and will vote this week on a proposal to spend $40,000 to study how Washington, in cooperation with Warren and Hamilton counties, could benefit from a wireless broadband network being proposed by Plattsburgh (N.Y.)-based CBN Connect.

CBN Connect is a non profit corporation that constructs broadband platforms and networks it resells to commercial providers who will not construct such networks themselves.  CBN Connect’s website states “providers like Time Warner (Cable), Primelink, Westelcom, and others [can use their networks] to reach new customers.”

CBN Connect has plans to develop both fiber optic and wireless networks across New York’s “North Country” in eastern upstate areas.

No details about the type of wireless network under consideration were available.

Readers of The Post Star, which serves the county, had some problems with the country spending $40,000 of taxpayer dollars on the study:

“We are actually thinking of spending $40,000 to fund a private company’s “study?” If CBN wants to sell their services, which I am guessing they will profit on, let them fund whether it is feasable or not. This money can be better spent in other areas of the county, or better yet, don’t spend it at all.” — Whall01

“If there’s a demand (home or business) then the providers (Time Warner Cable, Verizon, CBN Connect) will do their own study (and fund it) to see if it makes sense to them. If they don’t, then they won’t be in business long. Washington county supervisors need to figure out how to cut expenses and overhead, not add to them.” — HFRES

“What a waste — $40,000 for a study to bring broadband to the community? FiOS is the technology that we should be looking into.  Why are our counties always a day late and a dollar short of keeping up with the rest of the world? These counties should be joining together to get Verizon here and bring us FiOS.” — Enoughalready

Cricket has a nasty habit of selling customers an unlimited mobile broadband service… that is limited to 5GB of usage per month.  Today, the company announced it would be expanding its prepaid wireless broadband service to “big box” retail stores nationwide:

Cricket Broadband will soon be available in nearly 1,000 national retailer stores through a new all-inclusive $50 monthly service plan. The new plan will include all fees and taxes and provides unlimited Internet access without a signed contract or credit check. The Cricket A600 modem will be available as a grab-and-go offering for $69.99 with no activation fee. $50.00 top-up cards will also be available for this product.

The marketing on their website underlines the point: “With unlimited broadband access you can email, surf and download from your desktop or laptop anywhere in Cricket Broadband’s coverage areas.”

“Unlimited” in their marketing is actually “5GB” in the nitty-gritty details on their website as you sign-up:

Subscriber Management
We reserve the right to protect our network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance. We reserve the right to limit throughput speeds or amount of data transferred, and to deny, modify or terminate service, without notice, to anyone whose usage adversely impacts our network, service levels or uses more than 5 GB in a given month. We may monitor your compliance with the above but will not monitor the content of your communications except as otherwise expressly permitted or required by law.

Cricket needs to discontinue the practice of referring to a service as “unlimited” when it isn’t unlimited at all.  Cricket is also well aware of the 5GB limitation, because it is currently testing a 10GB plan priced at $60 a month.

Cricket has also applied for federal broadband stimulus funding to provide service to low income residents:

Low-income residents in San Diego County who can’t afford Internet service may get some financial help if a local wireless provider succeeds in getting more than $8 million in federal stimulus funds to expand broadband access.

San Diego-based Cricket Communications said yesterday that it has applied for federal Recovery Act funding geared to expanding high-speed Internet access not only in more remote rural areas but also to the urban poor.

Cricket is proposing a $10.7 million program to provide subsidized, low-cost Internet service to 23,000 low-income families in San Diego, Baltimore, Houston, Memphis, Tenn., and Washington, D.C.

Under the proposal, the federal government would cover 80 percent of the cost, with Cricket picking up the remainder. Cricket, a wholly owned subsidiary of Leap Wireless International, is working with One Economy, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit, to help it reach out to low-income households.

In addition, it plans to substantially discount its normal monthly service of $40 so that participants would pay $5 a month the first year and $15 a month the second year. The grant would cover two years of subsidized service.

As for Cricket’s new broadband plan, I’m unsure what’s new about it.  It appears to be priced $10 higher than the old $40 Cricket plan (that comes with a $25 activation fee).  The A600 modem is available for free after rebate from the Cricket website, and the service price there remains $40 a month, although “taxes and fees” are extra, which may account for the primary difference between the two plans. Cricket appears to be moving to “all-inclusive” pricing strategies, which means the price you see is your “out the door” price. Many consumers are shocked when signing up for a mobile phone service that is advertised at one price, and turns out to be considerably higher once taxes and fees are included on the bill.

The A600 offers average download speeds of 538 kilobits per second (Kbps) and peaks at 787 Kbps. The average upload speeds offered by this modem are of the order of 502 Kbps, according to a PC Magazine review.

[Update 9/22: A response from Zocolo Group on behalf of Cricket can be found in the comment section of this article.]

One of the benefits of being an investor in Clearwire is that Time Warner Cable will get to leverage the benefits of that investment.  This fall, Time Warner Cable will introduce a wireless broadband option, similar to what Comcast is offering, to provide a portable version of Road Runner.

The Time Warner Cable WiMax service will launch first in Dallas and Charlotte, North Carolina.

If it is anything comparable to what Comcast is providing through Clearwire, expect 4Mbps service for about $30 more a month.  Roaming service may also be an option outside of Clearwire service areas on Sprint’s 3G data network.  Comcast charges an extra $20 a month for that capability.

No usage allowance information has been released.

Petawawa and Laurentian Valley township are located in eastern Ontario, Canada.

The days of dial-up are finally coming to a close for large portions of two rural Ontario communities — Petawawa and Laurentian Valley Township, with the announcement that the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has approved a grant application to help expand broadband access to reach at least 95% of residents.

A joint broadband project committee met Monday for the first time to review the project’s budget and rollout plans.  The two communities joined forces to appeal for broadband connectivity, and now will work together to administer the project.  Laurentian Valley Councillor George Hodgkinson will serve as committee chairman and Petawawa Councillor Treena Lemay as vice-chairwoman.

The broadband project budget is $2.1 million dollars: $708,908 from the Canadian government and an additional $1.8 million dollars from Bell Aliant, which will be spent on additional towers and switch equipment.

Laurentian Valley township (population 9,265) and Petawawa (population 14,651) are located west of Pembroke, the nearest city.  Mayors from both communities praised the project.  Petawawa Mayor Bob Sweet is pleased the broadband issue is being addressed.  It’s an issue he heard about “constantly” from town residents.  Laurentian Valley Mayor Jack Wilson also feels broadband access is long overdue in his community, particularly because residents’ tax dollars helped construct the nation’s broadband infrastructure.  His residents have “waited a long time to get high-speed Internet at their homes.”

The Bell Aliant broadband proposal envisions traditional DSL service for more populated neighborhoods and community centers and Inukshuk Wireless broadband delivered from existing Bell towers to reach those who live too far away for DSL service or are located in particularly rural areas where DSL is not cost effective.  Inukshuk is an Inuit word that represents a beacon or a familiar place marker.  Inukshuk Wireless is a joint project between Bell and Rogers Communications to provide wireless broadband connectivity in Canada’s rural communities.

Planned for completion by 2010, the joint project hopes to cover 82% of the areas currently unserved with any broadband service.