WaPo Accidentally Says Net Neutrality Necessary

Whoops, because the Washington Post Editorial Board doesn't follow the news, today's editorial against net neutrality actually shows it is necessary:

The weakest aspect of the neutrality case is that the dangers it alleges are speculative. It seems unlikely that broadband providers will degrade Web services that people want and far more likely that they will use non-neutrality to charge for upgrading services that depend on fast and reliable delivery, such as streaming high-definition video or relaying data from heart monitors. If this proves wrong, the government should step in.

Well, I guess it is time for the Washington Post to correct their editorial and demand congress do the right thing and save the interent, as the case for internet freedom isn't speculative, with Cox Communications blocking the super-popular craigslist (a competitor for classified ads):

Back on February 23rd Authentium acknowledged that their software is blocking Craigslist but it still hasn't fixed the problem, more than three months later. That's a heck of long time to delete some text from their blacklist. And this company also supplies security software to other large ISPs.

Craigslist has approached Authentium several times to get it to stop blocking access by Cox internet users but it has been unresponsive. Jim wasn't aware that Cox had its own classified ads service. "That changes things, " he said.

This situation does not look good in the context of the net neutrality debate. This is exactly the kind of scenario that many people are concerned about, that the cable companies and the telcos will make it difficult for their internet users to access competing services.

There might be more to come with this story, it would be nice if a publication like the Washington Post would investigate, instead of lying on the editorial pages:

Here are Craigslists' system reports: If you scroll down you can see the Cox problem, and there are quite a few problems with others too: email with SBC, and also with Yahoo and BT Internet. Are those problems also related to the telcos using software that discriminates against Craigslist?

Some more related links:
From Newspapers and Technology: Cox papers adding interactive features to classifieds Sept 2005

Take a look at this story about Cox refusing to run AP video. Is it fighting for open standards are is it fighting off a competitor with a poor revenue split?
From Mark Glaser's MediaShift: Cox Newspapers Says No to AP Video

Are the telcos funding an online campaign against net neutrality? Take a look at this recent post from Mark Glaser's MediaShift: Bloggers Must Be Vigilant Against Astroturf Comments

Yet again, the Washington Post editorial board proves they have no clue what is really going on.