Making Net Neutrality Policy [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:05:45 +0000

Net Neutrality policy, or, rather, the need for such policy, is not a new topic, yet it has only just reached the halls of Congress for consideration, and brought with it the usual slew of idiocy and incompetence that can only be found in a group of people trying to legislate on an arena of life they barely understand, let alone participate in.

At it’s heart, Net Neutrality is about unfettered, unrestricted, and unbiased access to the Internet, but as is typical with such a broad concept, there are many variations and definitions. The most idealistic and effective interpretation of Net Neutrality is one that prevents Internet Service Providers from filtering, shaping, or blocking traffic based on type, source, or size, as well as preventing discrimination by ISPs that may have conflicting interests.

An effective example is to examine Comcast’s holdings and behaviors: they are, at the heart, a cable network with television subscribers and have ample interest in seeing on demand media via the Internet (such as Hulu) fail to achieve mass market success - they also have VoIP telephone offerings, which competes with services such as Skype. In the case of Comcast, it would be in their best interest to prevent, augment, or charge an extra fee for the use of services over its network that competes with their offerings, but this is highly unethical and they have yet to officially implement such policy – although it is inevitable and is rumored to currently be the talk of their executives. Furthermore, Comcast has expressed interest in so-called “bandwidth caps” that would put arbitrary limits on the amount of data a user can send and receive over their broadband connection within a given time period, which is a not-so-clever approach to decimating their high bandwidth service rivals.

Companies such as Comcast already participate heavily, and illegally, in a practice known as “traffic shaping”, by which certain types of traffic are either severely impeded or prevented entirely for reasons that are not publicly admitted to – experiments have proven peer-to-peer traffic to be one of the triggers of this behavior, and using “too much bandwidth” in an arbitrary time period, a policy stated nowhere, is another trigger known for AT&T.

These are the reasons why Net Neutrality is important, but weak policy passed with a Net Neutrality label, either by the FCC or Congress, is not enough. Republicans have already, predictably, come out in force against regulating ISPs, along with their fellow corrupt politicians throughout Congress that are more interested in their own pockets than the betterment of America or its people – John McCain, an admitted technophobe and Internet-avoider, has even introduced legislation that would prevent the federal government from even getting involved in this issue.

It is critical to the future of America, most especially a digital one, that Internet Service Providers come to be regarded as the next utility company, rather than as a service that citizens can choose to participate in. If only a single lesson can be learned from the financial mess of the last two years, it is this: markets cannot, and will not, regulate themselves when there are ever greater profits to be had at the expense of their customers/beneficiaries. The lack of regulation on the broadband market so far has resulted in a situation that is quickly approaching chaos, with a variety of plans and machinations to provide ever-less services for ever-greater prices.

The inevitable argument in Congress will be whether the networks have the ability to support unadulterated traffic, and the answer is a resounding ‘yes’. This, however, will be hard to express to those who are technologically illiterate by trade or ignorant by choice. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that digitally-minded citizens across America make their voices heard on this issue: if a customer has ever experienced less-than-advertised speeds, long-term disconnected service, traffic filtering/shaping/blocking, or been the recipient of other such nefarious activities, both the FCC and Congress need to know.

An America that has bandwidth caps, approved traffic types, and networks that don’t communicate with each other is not a country that can continue to grow and compete on a global, or digital, scale. Technological illiterate Senators such as John McCain should be excluded, by whatever means possible, from the process, along with those Senators that have indicated their loyalties lie with those finance their campaigns, such as Diane Feinstein. This issue, much like true healthcare reform, is one that can only be accomplished through brute force and political strength of will – there will be no bipartisanship, and it is likely that anyone within Congress that considers themselves a conservative, regardless of party, will oppose such legislation as well.

In light of Congress' known stagnation and distinct lack of progressive interests, perhaps the FCC should pass their legislation first, however weakened, to set the tone and discussion for future Congressional legislation – if there is policy in place that provides the foundation of true Net Neutrality, it would be considerably more difficult for detractors to argue against the mere existence of such legislation.

Julius Genachowski, it is time to prove that you are capable of achieving what you claim to believe in - America is waiting.

This Is Why You (Comcast) Suck [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:51:32 +0000

Why does Comcast continue to suck? No-one really knows...

Let's review the major problems: blocking certain types of Internet traffic, limiting their "unlimited" bandwidth, playing porn on the Disney channel, filtering emails, shutting down accounts with "too much" traffic, high prices, terrible service, terrible products... Did I miss anything? Probably, but that was just off the top of my head.

Oh, Comcast

Comcast has been around a long time. A long long time. And they pretty much have a monopoly on cable TV/Internet service, which is cool. On top of that, prices keep going up for all services, while the quality / features stay the same. Not a good way to do business if you like your customers.

Oh, speaking of customers, Comcast is known for their superb customer service, right? And they're always on time for appointments. [end sarcasm] If your business revolves around deliver exactly what the customer wants, along with when and how, why would you erode your business by failing to do so? People initially switched to Comcast Internet because it was faster than dial-up, and cheaper than DSL. Comcast is now randomly slow, not cheap at all, and known to randomly crap out.

Why You Will Fail

Comcast is about to lose it's stronghold on America, possibly even disappear forever. It's not going to happen overnight, but the beginnings of the revolution are already in place: unsatisfied customers, major complaints across the board, upcoming competitors, and an inability to adapt to the present [see the links above for references]. Outsourcing customer service to India? Check. Refusing to answer direct questions about company policies? Check. Political scandal [email filtering]? Check. Money issues [inexplicably rising prices and "fees"]? Check.

Does this remind you of any company? No? Think hard. The company's business involved black gold, and their name rhymed with "Genron".

Alternatives

Right now, the main problem with trying to leave Comcast is alternatives. For all intents and purposes, the majority of it's customer base have no choice. If you live in an apartment building (like myself), chances are it's prewired for cable, and they frown on dishes. The only alternative is DSL, which is only available depending on your location in relation to the source. This will change.

Verizon has FiOS coming down the pipes, and it's promising to be a whopper of a death threat. TV service that resembles "cable", fiber-optic speeds for Internet service, and phone? All for one low price? Sign me up, moi capitan! The only problem with FiOS is that it may not be in your area in the near future (for example, if you live on a farm 25 miles from civilization), but they're supposedly laying cable as fast as possible. I'll have it within 6 months. And believe you me, I'm going to leave Comcast in a blaze of hellfire.

The Cableocalypse

People hate Comcast. People like Verizon. People hate high prices. People love low prices. People hate bad customer service. People love good service. People hate being controlled/throttled. People love being free.

It's a simple equation. How else can I spell out Comcast's impending date with the four horsemen? Verizon sees the fragile pane of glass that is Comcast, and they're rushing to shatter it with the mighty hammer of Thor.

Kyle Brady: Blog » Comcast

Making Net Neutrality Policy [OpEd]

This Is Why You (Comcast) Suck [Old Content]