The Google-Verizon proposed compromise is based on good faith on the part of both companies but it falls short in some key areas. It takes the extreme position that paid router prioritization and that broadband providers are presumed guilty. It also defers the important debate on ISP differentiation while ignoring the will of the end user.

Net Neutrality advocates have this fantasy that all websites are supposed to run at the same speed and they want to “preserve” the equal-outcome Internet of their fantasies even if it changes the actual Internet into something it never was. Based on this equal-outcome premise, a differentiated equal opportunity but unequal players Internet is against the “freedom” of “the people” as defined in Free Press guide to public debate and “differentiation” is now replaced with the word “discrimination” with all the accompanying evil connotations.

Free Press and other strict Net Neutrality advocates have their facts backwards. The router prioritization that they claim is harmful to others is actually not harmful and the CDN “geographic prioritization” that they claim is harmless is actually the most harmful. Not only does it cause a lot more jitter, but it hogs bandwidth at the expense of other applications.

Edward Wyatt has this sesational headline on the New York Times reading “F.C.C. Chief Opposes Fees for Internet Priority.” and it’s caught massive traction in the blogosphere.   But there’s one huge problem: Chairman Genachowski never actually said that.  The exact quote that Genachowski used was: “Any outcome, any deal that doesn’t preserve the freedom [...]

Edward Wyatt of the New York Times has sounded the alert to a possible deal on Net Neutrality between Google and Verizon and many in the blogosphere including GigaOm is decrying this as a betrayal of Net Neutrality. Aside from the fact that this story is based on many vague and undisclosed sources, the story is wrong on the facts, self contradictory, and incoherent.

Mike Masnick argues that because the broadband networks operate on public right of ways and because the Telcos took lots of subsidies like the Universal Service Fund (USF), these networks aren’t private. But the reality is that the Telcos pay a lot more into the USF than they actually receive.

Before the iPhone 4 with Apple’s FaceTime application was released to the public, I estimated 667 Kbps to 2000 Kbps based on the assumption of full screen quality at 960×640 resolution.  It turned out that my assumption that Apple would opt for full screen resolution would be wrong and the actual resolution looks to be [...]

The media keeps perpetuating the myth that there are “seven key holders to the Internet”. The reality is that those seven people don’t actually hold recovery keys to DNSSEC much less the Internet or the World Wide Web, and those seven people couldn’t just waltz into the secure facilities to grab a copy of the recovery keys.

I’ve stated before that “The real barrier to innovation isn’t the cost of bandwidth” and it looks like Netflix’s 10K filing confirms this.  Despite a huge increase in online content and users, bandwidth costs have barely risen.  However, it would seem that the US Postal Service is a significant and increasing cost to Netflix’s bottom [...]

Earlier this week I pointed out how absurd it is whenever Net Neutrality advocates claim that the Internet is a place where all websites should load at the same speed. Sen. Al Franken (D.-Minn.) bemoaned that Foxnews might load faster than DailyKos without Net Neutrality. For fun, I decided to actually check if Foxnews loads faster than the DailyKos and found that the opposite was true! Is there a conspiracy going on?