AP/FreePress zeroing in on bandwidth usage caps

Here we go again. The AP (Advocacy Press?) is focusing on its latest perceived Internet crime against humanity -- bandwidth usage caps -- while FreePress is busy megaphoning the AP story to the rest of the media they think needs reforming.  

• Free Press' Media Reform Daily service highlighted the AP story: "Internet provider's usage cap raises questions" by Peter Svenson, the AP technology writer who carried FreePress' water in launching the investigation of Comcast's network management of p2p.

This signals that the neutralism movement is taking aim at opposing any ISP effort to use free-market-based mechanisms to address network congestion issues or bandwidth hogs' effect on the quality of service of others.

• It appears that they believe net neutrality means not only means freedom to access the content or applications of their choice, but also means unlimited usage subsidized by others. 

It will be interesting how FreePress plays this issue given that the FCC has already signalled in its recent Comcast order that usage caps are a legitimate network management tool/approach for ISPs to take in addressing network congestion and quality of service. 

•  From the order para 49: "Comcast has several available options it could use to manage network traffic without discriminating as it does.  Comcast could cap the average users’ capacity and then charge the most aggressive users overage fees.[1]  Or Comcast could throttle back the connection speeds of high-capacity users (rather than any user who relies on peer-to-peer technology, no matter how infrequently)." 

Just what is the AP and FreePress objecting to?

• A free-market Internet?
• A fair system where the heaviest users pay more than lighter users?

Bottom line: All the net neutrality rhetoric is a smokescreen for those who feel entitled to get a free lunch at others' expense.