Kyle Brady: Blog » Net Neutrality

Political Change May Be Coming [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:34:46 +0000

Change, it seems, may be finally coming to American politics.

After almost a year and a half of political wrangling, fake debates, fingerpointing, namecalling, and almost no obvious or momentous progress, President Obama’s campaign slogan appears to have taken Washington D.C. by storm in just a few short days. With a final vote looming on healthcare reform, despite its status as actual reform now being questionable, some members of Congress have taken advantage of the Democratic momentum to propose, or put the finishing touches, on other legislation necessary for not only progress, but also stability, within America.

Depending on the individual, agency, or group counting, the Great Recession began somewhere around two years ago, and, until recently, regulation to address the very problems that caused the financial and economic crash has been sorely lacking. Senator Dodd had expressed interest in passing legislation through the Senate Banking Committee, but his dedication came into question when he announced not running for reelection – it is, therefore, surprising that Dodd announced an upcoming regulatory bill. Some of the details are still murky, but it has intentions to revitalize banking regulation, provide greater watchdog capabilities to both bank shareholders and government, create a “Consumer Financial Protection Agency”, and more. This bill has not yet been introduced, much less voted on, but if even half of it is passed into law, the battle will be well fought.

In addition to the political surprise by Senator Dodd, the FCC has revealed that they are highly interested in regulating the telecommunication industry, with a great focus on the Internet, as well as opening it up to true competition – Net Neutrality would inevitably be a part of such regulation. This action isn’t a surprise to those that have been paying attention to the political climate surrounding ISPs since President Obama entered Office, but it will no doubt surprise, frustrate, and anger Republicans that devoutly oppose what they perceive as unnecessary intervention in the private sector, such as John McCain, despite the multitude of failures by the market to regulate itself.

From Congress itself comes an interest in reforming tax regulation to simplify the tax code to close loopholes, remove deductions, and make understanding it easier – potentially reducing taxes for certain income brackets while increasing tax income from those that weasel out of paying what is simply due to the Federal Government. This move, while potentially politically painful, would satisfy both Republican interests in cutting taxes and the Democratic wish to have corporations play fairly with others, bringing about a rare moment for bipartisan legislation in an era of extreme partisanship. Ironically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has just produced stern words for the selfsame Republicans that have been stalling any and all attempts at forward progress, a well-timed jab likely intended to scare up legislative support.

What does this signify as a whole? The underlying message of this may be that the Democratic majority have grown tired of the obstructionist tactics of the minority party full of bravado, not brains, and is preparing to move forward with or without them. An important part of this decision may include not only the abject legislative failure of 2009, but also the upcoming midterm elections in November: if Democrats can show that they passed significant and meaningful legislation almost entirely on their own, they have a greater political advantage than if they were to lay claim to thin bipartisanship. The central strategy of Republicans has been to “break” both President Obama and his Congress by preventing progress, in order to retake the majority come election time – a prospect that seems bleaker for them by the day.

Whether or not these specific instances of Democratic showmanship turn into actual legislation is an entirely different matter, but the words themselves have signified a change from even just a few weeks ago – a change that is more than welcome.

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.

An Open Letter to Senator Diane Feinstein [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:23 +0000

I recently participated in a petition website that sent out letters to the Congressmen for our individual states on the issue of Net Neutrality and its importance – I’d like to it if I remembered what site it was. One of the Senators that received the letter from my California location was Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who sent me an unexpected email reply, albeit a form letter.

I don’t have a problem that she sent me a form letter, and am actually glad she acknowledged my existence – my problem is in what, exactly, she said and what that means. To that end, the following is an Open Letter to Senator Diane Feinstein…

Dear Senator Diane Feinstein,

Thank you for recognizing my existence, even if it was via a form letter – it makes me feel as if I can, as a citizen, have an effect on our modern political battlefield in the age of corporate interests and corrupt legislators.

I do, however, have a problem with your response: within the same breath, you claim to support the principles of Net Neutrality, but immediately question the need for regulation and indicate that the interests of ISPs are potentially more important than those of their customers, which just happen to be the entire population of America.

Internet Service Providers, on the whole, have long since proved they have no interest in the privacy or equal treatment of their customers, with behaviors that run the gamut from traffic filtering/shaping/blocking to warrantless wiretapping. Other utilities companies in America, whether they are private, public, or a coalition project with the government, are heavily regulated and carefully monitored so as to not disrupt the daily activities of the country – in the age of the Internet, connectivity, and an increasing dependence on all things digital, why is Internet access treated any differently than electricity, water, waste management, or various other services?

You see, Internet access has become the next modern utility service. It has crept up on the country and taken both the people and the legislature by surprise, but it has arrived at this status nonetheless. Would it be acceptable for a power company, such as PG&E, to cut off power to homes that it felt weren’t using its electricity properly, or in a manner they ethically approve of? Would it be acceptable to selectively provide water to households that only use their product in amounts less than an arbitrary and unreasonable threshold on a daily basis? Or perhaps local trash pickups should only occur when the waste management company feels that your trash has appropriate ratios of paper, plastic, and biodegradable?

The answer, quite obviously, is a resounding ‘no’.

America was founded on the principles of individual rights and freedoms, and has since grown substantially to support and enhance these initial values, but it is time to take another large step in the process of liberty: a Digital Rights and Freedoms Act must be had for the American people, lest the nation devolve into unrepentant digital battles for civil liberties.

The national bandwidth has yet to approach capacity, despite what network providers will tell you, and there is much more ‘dark fibre’ to be found and used, left over from the dot-com boom, for further capacity. The problem is that for ISPs to provide the bandwidth and speeds that they advertise to their customers, essentially anything labeled as 'broadband', they would have to distribute customers more intelligently and appropriately across networks, rather than continue their current habit of overloading – this means less profits, because of the associated network costs. To accomplish this process of overloading, they employ tactics of filtering, shaping, and blocking traffic, often citing bogus claims of “network overload” or “unacceptable traffic”.

Finally, an underlying issue that will undoubtedly arise is that of copyright – the MPAA and RIAA would love for nothing more than certain types of traffic, usually classified as Peer-to-Peer, to be blocked from all networks. The honest truth, however, is that these protocols are copyright-independent, and are often used for entirely legal purposes. Yet the ISPs use these claims to shut off customers’ access, or heavily filter it, because of the occurrence of a supposedly illegal activity. Deciding whether a P2P traffic stream is legal is severely work intensive, and not something that can be accomplished by a piece of software – traffic source (such as The Pirate Bay) is not related to its legality, filetype (such as MP3) is independent of copyright, and original source (such as Shakespeare or Nine Inch Nails) is often, and rightly, ambiguous.

The point that I’m trying to make, and that you hopefully understand, is this: Net Neutrality is neither optional nor negotiable. As an AT&T customer by default, I have experienced heavy traffic filtering and corporate lies for the last three years, and I can personally tell you that it occurs when I am doing nothing even approaching illegal, yet it interferes with my productivity and workflow. If America, as a nation, is expecting to be a competitive and connected force on the global scale in the coming years, then federal legislation must be passed in order to secure the Digital Rights and Freedoms of the American people.

A lesson learned from the last two years of banking and investment institutions’ abhorrent behaviors should be that markets absolutely will not regulate themselves in a manner aligned with proper ethics, or the betterment of their customers, when there are higher profits to be had. Comcast and AT&T are both tangible examples of ever-higher prices for ever-degrading service, and such a trend will likely only continue – it is up to Congress, along with the FCC, to ensure that it definitively does not.

The battle for Net Neutrality in America is no different than any of the prior battles for Civil Liberties, as it is about the ability of all citizens to work and live in a manner that they are fundamentally entitled to. Anything short of a complete and uncompromising suite of regulations to place what has been previously unwritten into explicit law will be perceived by a large subset of the country as a failure of Congress to both understand the fundamental issue and act on behalf of the people.

Do not let corporate interests, or the Congressmen they control, sway your opinions or influence your decision.

Sincerely,

Kyle Brady

Correspondence

From: Senator Diane Feinstein

To: Me

Date: 10/29/2009

Dear Mr. Brady:

Thank you for writing to me about open access to the Internet and network neutrality. I appreciate hearing from you.

I agree with the general principles of network neutrality that owners of the networks that provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network and should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.

As Congress debates changes to our telecommunications laws this year, many different proposals have been offered regarding network neutrality. The question arises whether or not action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. I believe any workable solution must balance the needs of the network, service and information providers. Please know that when legislation regarding network neutrality comes before the Senate I will be sure to keep your specific views in mind.

Again, thank you for writing. If you should have any comments or questions, I hope you will feel free to contact my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.

Do Not Allow A Distraction From Net Neutrality [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:05:23 +0000

It was inevitable, and rather predictable, that the FCC would announce interest in Net Neutrality regulation, with Congress scheduled to be close behind, since copyright law is being used as an offensive weapon towards ISPs and their customers, ISPs feel they can throttle user’s connections at will, many network managers have strange ideas about their equipment, and the same ISPs tend to disconnect users they consider troublesome as a matter of normal practice. All of these issues, and a few more, make up the core of Net Neutrality, which remains a fundamental digital freedoms and rights issue that must be addressed in the near-term for continued modern growth.

However, all of this has been said before.

What has not been said before is that while the upcoming fight was known to be difficult, thanks to the obvious self-interest of the ISPs and deep-pocketed interest groups like the RIAA, it will now be considerably harder – the political willpower that should be interested in the rights of the American people is demonstrably weaker than the nation previously believed. The “healthcare debate” may be almost over, but the last six months has proven that this specific American flavor of democracy is highly partisan, filled with misleading propaganda, easily influenced, and often irrational or childish. The issue of Net Neutrality will be no different.

In fact, Republican Senators have already moved to protect their campaign financiers before any official action or legislation has even been proposed. It should come as no surprise that elected officials hell-bent on preventing regulation of any sort and downsizing government, while contributing to Big Government themselves, would take such action. What is surprising is that members of the minority party would take a stand on what amounts to merely a speech by another official, even as their current partisan behavior lands them in further trouble with the nation-at-large.

Assuming for a moment that these Senators actually understand the issues surrounding Net Neutrality, and were not simply reacting to the idea of increased regulation by a Federal agency, it presents a worrisome reality: no matter the issue, its public support, or the need for legislation, the Republican Party is going to automatically object to any and all actions by President Obama, his Administration, and any Democratic politician. On the issue of Net Neutrality, it is very clear that regulation is not only necessary and practical, but would serve as a formal recognition of the fundamental digital rights that American citizens hold – the only parties that contest such a regulatory need are those would actually be regulated. And yet, just as in the issue of healthcare reform, it is being fought against for vague and highly suspect reasons that do not echo the beliefs of the People.

The FCC, along with President Obama and the intelligent portions of Congress, must not allow the issue of Net Neutrality to degrade in the manner in which healthcare reform did – this would result in unnecessary compromises and extended debate, both of which are entirely unacceptable in this issue of digital rights and freedoms for American citizens. Besides undermining the Obama Administration by sandbagging the issues with all their might, while destroying their own party from the inside, Republicans absolutely cannot be allowed to hijack American politics for their own selfish and childish goals.

The needs of the American People must come before those of self-serving, partisan Congressmen who cannot fully comprehend most of the issues on which they legislate, and Net Neutrality is too important to fall prey to such political machinations. Digital rights and freedoms must be officially recognized by the Federal Government in order to move intelligently forward as a connected nation – to ignore, write off, or otherwise sidestep addressing this issue would be nothing short of Unconstitutional.

A phrase with which the Republican Party should now be intimately familiar.

AT&T’s Local Monopoly Continues Unabated [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:05:54 +0000

I’ve already written extensively about how bad AT&T’s Internet Service is (background: [1] [2], offsite: [1] [2]), but new developments have prompted me to add to the already-epic saga…

After the blocking of 4chan by AT&T earlier this summer and their continued filtering/throttling of my traffic, I decided it was time to find a new ISP. I’d had Comcast before and left for reasons of ethics and principle, and I wasn’t going back. Verizon and other major providers are not available in the South Bay area for some reason – so I went hunting for local providers that probably wouldn’t have the legal departments necessary for the corporate doublespeak of filtering/throttling customers.

But a problem came up pretty quickly: while there are a number of local ISPs for the South Bay, none of them were feasible. The only company that uses ADSL for residential purposes is north of San Francisco (too far), and the rest, both cable and DSL, were more than happy to offer their services, so long as I had an AT&T phone account.

So, just to clarify: if I wanted internet service that wasn’t from AT&T (who I currently have ADSL with, no phone number necessary), I’d have to get phone service (at $14.95/mth) with the very same company I’m trying to leave. Either that or become a customer of Comcast again, for $33/mth that would double after a few months to $66/mth – more than I pay now for “Elite PRO DSL” ($45/mth) and with worse speeds.

I was pretty angry, and set out to find out why I had to have AT&T phone service to have plans with these local ISPs – even those that were providing “cable” or “fusion” network connections. The answer was pretty simple, and I didn’t have to do much digging: AT&T owns almost all of the phone lines in the South Bay area. They don’t rent them, monitor them, or manage them, but own them, and for consumer traffic to cross their lines they require a phone service account.

There’s a number of issues with this, but the first that comes to mind is pretty basic: why is Verizon nowhere to be found within the Bay Area? Their FiOS program is exploding to the point that they’re giving up the landline phone service business, and yet the company that is known for providing the fastest, best, most reliable next-generation broadband services cannot be found within Silicon Valley. How is that a good business decision? As a company, Verizon would stand to easily make millions from the countless rich nerds that populate the Bay Area who would love to have fiber-to-the-home. But even if Verizon seems to think it’s in their best interest to ignore Silicon Valley, where is Time Warner? Or Earthlink? Or even Covad, with a residential offering? These large companies are the kinds of corporate behemoths that would force AT&T to make concessions, so consumers wouldn’t have to have dual accounts.

The second major issue is pretty obvious as well: why does AT&T own all the phone lines in the Bay Area? This is obviously not something that’s going to benefit the general public, and doesn’t seem like the sort of power governments (local, state, and federal) would want to give to a breakup child of the Bell monopoly. In many areas, phone lines are owned by the state, and companies rent or “pay to manage” these lines – the only time a line is owned by a company is when it’s long-haul or a line to a residence. But California chose, in all its magnificence, to let AT&T own the phone lines and essentially stifle local competition.

Finally, the other, and most important, issue is one of monopoly. The sort of de facto local monopoly that AT&T has on DSL and landline phone service in the South Bay is not a unique case, similar to how Comcast is the only provider of cable. All across the country, consumers have no choice when they want DSL, phone, or cable service, and instead have to use the only offering available – this results in higher prices, corporate indifference, and unnecessary corporate growth. At a minimum, there should be two major offerings for all services in any given urban/suburban area, which the FCC seems to realize with the cap of Comcast’s nationwide customer base.

But, somehow, they have ignored the local monopolies that develop either out of coincidence, intent, or collusion - even while customers continue to be ignored, lied to, and overall screwed. Does anyone really wonder why both AT&T and Comcast feel that they can lie to the FCC - about numerous issues, on varied occasions - and get away with it? When you have a large customer base that will never significantly shrink, you can depend on certain levels of income year after year – certainly more than enough to pay for litigation and the FCC’s fines.

I’m disgusted that I’ve been put in such a corner, but I truly have no choice. Comcast is the one true Antichrist, so I will not be their customer again – and yet AT&T is the Antichrist’s First Disciple. When faced with the choice of a $15/mth phone line plus $40/mth internet service, or $45/mth internet service, which option does a poor college student take? The least expensive one, of course.

Which in this case means I’m continuing to support the very company that hates my existence, proven by the double-billing, lying, traffic filtering, and overall poor customer service I’ve received since I became their customer two years ago.

What a load of crap.

The Upcoming Regulation of American Telcos [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:05:40 +0000

Look out, telecommunications industry – you’re about to be regulated.

Perhaps better phrased as “reregulated” or “further regulated in an industry previously left to regulate itself”, but the sentiment is the same. Phone, cable, and other telcos are not happy with what appears to be Federal regulation of broadband services coming in the near future, as the FCC, FTC, and even Congress itself take an interest in the practices of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Net Neutrality. The next few years may do for broadband in America what the early years of the millennium did for the cell phone market: expand and encourage competition, enforce customer rights and protections, and establish a baseline of acceptable/expected practices.

As the use of and dependence on the Internet has increased, so too have the problems associated: sporadic availability, variable connection speeds, filtered traffic, misleading sales packages, and overall corporate lies about services. The customers that have noticed the shady practices of these companies are a growing, very vocal minority that experiments with bleeding-edge uses of their broadband connection for rich media content delivery, high resolution multiplayer global gaming, remote data archiving, and as a replacement for many applications that have previously been limited to the local machine.

Both the Department of Agriculture and the Commerce Department recently announced the availability of $4 billion in stimulus funds to interested parties for broadband-related projects such as infrastructure growth, marketing, and rural expansion. There is, however, a catch: there are Net Neutrality restrictions. These requirements don’t equate to anything groundbreaking, since they merely reference a duty to follow predetermined regulations and guidelines set by the FCC, but it is a promising first step, if only because the industry fought so hard against it. Even more promising, however, is the newly approved Chairman of the FCC and his comments on the future of broadband in America.

Julius Genachowski was sworn in as Chairman of the FCC on June 29, 2009, and within three days set the tone for how strong he intends the organization to be in the coming years. In a July 1st speech at a Pennsylvania high school, Genachowski notes that the broadband infrastructure of America is sorely lacking and that he wants to have an overall plan to accomplish many goals, not the least of which is to “spur innovation”. On July 2nd, an FCC meeting was held, that included comments to “provide a detailed strategy for maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure and service by the public” – essentially stating that the public needs not only access to broadband, but the ability to actually utilize the services they pay for, ostensibly by the providers appropriately provisioning their networks.

These initial statements coincided with the launch of Broadband.gov, an FCC-sponsored website tasked with handling details in the public eye on the “FCC National Broadband Plan”. Most interestingly, Genachowski made comments in a July 2nd speech about the need for “universal broadband that’s fast, affordable, and open” while recognizing that other countries have eclipsed our network capabilities. The FCC’s plan is, according to him, going to “complement” those announced by the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce. Futhermore, Michael Copps, FCC Commissioner, made remarks on July 2nd on the need for “value-laden broadband” – combine this with the Chairman’s comments and the newly released outline for the Broadband Plan, and a picture begins to emerge: enforced Net Neutrality and service delivery.

The telecom industry has long fought against the need for internet services regulation because they profit best from overselling networks, underproviding to customers, and filtering out traffic they deem unwanted – in addition to the usual practices of large corporations such as customer service incompetency. The last year has seen discussions, and test implementations, of tiered broadband access, bandwidth caps, and traffic-type restrictions by ISPs, all of which are likely to be deemed unfair practices by even the weakest of Net Neutrality legislation. The FCC has already committed to distributing stimulus money, in the near future, tied to restrictions on network operations – if the next year and a half goes smoothly, and intelligently, companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Time-Warner will have no choice but to provide viable broadband services without unnecessary limitations.

America is potentially on the cusp of a new and glorious era of unfettered broadband, where everyone has access to the global network and customers actually receive they services they pay for. As the FCC is aware, there is only one chance to proceed correctly, and that requires looking to the future of the American people than to the modern profit margins of large corporations. The upcoming regulations of telcos in the United States is necessary to ensure a solid, free digital future, and the new Chairman seems to understand this – the growing vocal minority will be cheering the Federal Government on as this battle of wills begins.

U.S. Broadband – A Call to Arms [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:08:29 +0000

Broadband providers seem to be in the news every week for one reason or another, but an important issue is arising in New York: companies are finding they have to compete with each other for customers, which really just means they can't sell "we're going to screw you over" packages anymore, and they actually are being forced to deliver on their promises.

Despite the many hopefuls out there, I'm skeptical. I've had problems with AT&T and them lying before, and the situation isn't getting any better.

I'd love to have a blindingly-fast internet connection that's not filtered, shaped, or anything else... just a raw pipeline. Some people seem to think this is coming. I would willingly pay $99/mth for consistent 50Mbps download speeds, and I would jump on Verizon's FiOS bandwagon the minute it's available in my area (if ever). But keep in mind that lots of small and random countries, like Estonia or Japan, have much better connectivity than we (the U.S.) do - and they continue to stay one step ahead of the game.

There is really only one hurdle to achieving high connectivity: corporate reluctance and profit margins.

Until a few years ago, American ISPs were relatively normal companies- they provided a service that customers paid for, end of story. But wave after wave of corporate lies and greed [1] [2], copyright abuse [1] [2], and traffic filtering/shaping [1] [2] are quickly proving that these companies don't have the best interest of the customers in mind - they're interested in obtaining maximum profit for minimal work, usually via overloading their networks or blocking/filtering/slowing certain kinds of traffic.

Where are the regulators in all of this? Where is the heavy-hand of the government that is supposed to defend our freedoms and liberties? They spend huge amounts of time, money, and effort defending our physical freedoms, but what about our intellectual and digital freedoms?

The RIAA is breathing down the neck of copyright law, trying to use it in ever more creative ways for destruction, all while looking to have the terms of copyright (and punishment for violation) extended to new heights. Lobbyists in Washington, in tandem with their corporate sponsors, are in a frenzy to prevent any sort of telco regulation related to their activities - even if the point is to protect their customers. Large portions of Congress are even in the telco companies' pockets, and are defending them voraciously - which includes the takedown of competition via government friends.

If the Internet is going to survive in any freedom-having format, then a few key events need to occur: Net Neutrality needs to be established in the U.S., setting a standard for other countries to follow; the FCC needs to heavily regulate what telcos can and cannot do regarding their broadband services/customers; and inquiries into the delivery of said services (connectivity, downstream, upstream, persistence, filtering, etc.) need to begin within the highest levels of government possible.

We already have countries clearly violating their citizens' rights (like Sweden), but the problems in America stem from corporations, not the government - do you really imagine Time Warner or Comcast would refuse to collect data on their users for the government? They already participate in shady activities, what's one more?

America could be turned into a highly-dense checkerboard of fiber, creating massive pipes to every home, and it wouldn't matter. What good is a fast connection when you can't use it? Or when you do, it gets downgraded, blocked, filtered, or otherwise interfered with?

American citizens need to stop sitting quietly in the background, and make it widely known such practices are not only despicable, but need to be flat-out illegal. For far too long these companies have operated on a policy of "screw the customer, they have no control" and the situation continues to quickly degrade in the absence of action from a slow-to-care government.

When the Internet becomes only a small conglomeration of sites you're allowed to visit, then will you (both the American people and the Federal government) care? That day is fast approaching - but don't depend on the Internet to find out about it.

It's probably blocked.

--- --- ---

Update (5/9/2009 11:55pm PST): It appears the EU has beaten us to the punch. While I applaud this and wholeheartedly endorse the movement, it's embarrassing that we didn't approach the issue with legislation first.