But then again, it’s not the most aggressive move Reed Hastings could make. Note that the chart Netflix provides makes it quite difficult to really evaluate broadband provider against broadband provider, without doing a whole lot of squinting.

And even then, I can’t tell which light-blue line represents CableOne and which one represents CenturyTel.

We do know, because Netflix already told us, that Charter gets the best marks. And it appears that Clearwire, the wireless service co-owned by Sprint and some of the big cable companies, ranks dead last.

The news that most of you care about: Time Warner Cable and Comcast, the nation’s two biggest cable companies, appear to be in the top part of Netflix’s rankings. I’m asking the company for clarification for those of us with decaying vision.

And here it is, via CNET–a top-to-bottom ranking:

1. Charter
2. Comcast
3. Time Warner
4. Cox
5. Suddenlink
6. Cablevision
7. Cable One
8. Verizon
9. AT&T
10. BellSouth
11. Embarq
12. Windstream
13. Qwest
14. Century Tel
15. Frontier
16. Clearwire

You can click on the chart below to see a larger version, and you can read a technical explanation of what it measures over at the official Netflix tech blog.

In comments delivered to the Federal Communications Commission yesterday, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division warned that imposing Net neutrality regulations could hamper development of the Internet and prevent service providers from upgrading or expanding their networks. “Precluding broadband providers from charging content and application providers directly for faster or more reliable service could shift the entire burden of implementing costly network expansions and improvements onto consumers,” the agency said in its filing. “If the average consumer is unwilling or unable to pay more for broadband Internet access, the result could be to reduce or delay critical network expansion and improvement.”

And, in the end, creating different tiers of Internet service is really no different than the Postal Service charging different rates for shipping varying classes of mail. “The United States Postal Service, for example, allows consumers to send packages with a variety of different delivery guarantees and speeds, from bulk mail to overnight delivery,” the agency explained. “These differentiated products respond to market demand and expand consumer choice. No one challenges the benefits to society of these differentiated products; nor does anyone seriously propose that the United States Postal Service be banned from charging different fees for next-day delivery than for bulk mailers.”

Right. And like BellSouth CTO William Smith has been saying for years now, providing Internet service is the shipping business of the digital age.

Internet advocacy groups were predictably peeved by the Justice Department’s filing. “It is at odds with reality for a Justice Department that approved the largest telecommunications merger in history with a mere press release to now claim that market forces and antitrust enforcement will be able to protect the free and open Internet,” said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge. “Perhaps the DoJ does not recall that there is very little in the way of market forces to protect consumers. Perhaps the department has forgotten that many consumers have little or no choice at all for their high-speed broadband services. A more vigorous antitrust analysis would have recognized there is a market failure and would have resulted in conditions on the AT&T takeover of BellSouth that would have benefited consumers and Internet companies.”

In comments delivered to the Federal Communications Commission yesterday, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division warned that imposing Net neutrality regulations could hamper development of the Internet and prevent service providers from upgrading or expanding their networks. “Precluding broadband providers from charging content and application providers directly for faster or more reliable service could shift the entire burden of implementing costly network expansions and improvements onto consumers,” the agency said in its filing. “If the average consumer is unwilling or unable to pay more for broadband Internet access, the result could be to reduce or delay critical network expansion and improvement.”

And, in the end, creating different tiers of Internet service is really no different than the Postal Service charging different rates for shipping varying classes of mail. “The United States Postal Service, for example, allows consumers to send packages with a variety of different delivery guarantees and speeds, from bulk mail to overnight delivery,” the agency explained. “These differentiated products respond to market demand and expand consumer choice. No one challenges the benefits to society of these differentiated products; nor does anyone seriously propose that the United States Postal Service be banned from charging different fees for next-day delivery than for bulk mailers.”

Right. And like BellSouth CTO William Smith has been saying for years now, providing Internet service is the shipping business of the digital age.

Internet advocacy groups were predictably peeved by the Justice Department’s filing. “It is at odds with reality for a Justice Department that approved the largest telecommunications merger in history with a mere press release to now claim that market forces and antitrust enforcement will be able to protect the free and open Internet,” said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge. “Perhaps the DoJ does not recall that there is very little in the way of market forces to protect consumers. Perhaps the department has forgotten that many consumers have little or no choice at all for their high-speed broadband services. A more vigorous antitrust analysis would have recognized there is a market failure and would have resulted in conditions on the AT&T takeover of BellSouth that would have benefited consumers and Internet companies.”

Well, turns out that criticism was undeserved because, according to AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, no one really wants $10 DSL anyway. “We haven’t made it difficult to find,” Stephenson told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “To be honest with you, that’s not a product that our customers have clamored for. We still have $15 offers out there in the marketplace, even $20 offers, for 1.5 megabit speeds. Those are really kind of the minimum speeds that give a good user experience. So I don’t want to necessarily offer up a product where the user experience is not what I would consider really state of the art. That $10 product is kind of in that mode.”

Over the weekend, the company began offering high-speed Internet service for about half its normal price in some states. The $10-a-month-deal was among the concessions AT&T agreed to in exchange for approval of the merger with BellSouth:

Within six months of the merger closing date, and continuing for at least 30 months from the inception of the offer, AT&T/BellSouth will offer to retail consumers in the wireline buildout area, who have not previously subscribed to AT&T’s or BellSouth’s ADSL service, a broadband Internet access service at a speed of up to 768 Kbps at a monthly rate (exclusive of any applicable taxes and regulatory fees) of $10 per month.”

A fairly straightforward directive, but one lacking the specificity that would have made it truly effective. Because while it might require AT&T to create a $10 DSL offering, it doesn’t say anything about publicizing it. And AT&T, which presumably didn’t care much for any of the concessions it agreed to, seems to have seized upon that fact and hasn’t really announced the $10-a-month-deal, let alone promoted it. The plan wasn’t mentioned in a Friday news release about AT&T’s DSL service and a page on the AT&T Web site describing DSL options doesn’t list it. To find it, you’ve got to click on the “Term contract plans” link at the bottom of AT&T’s residential high-speed Internet product page. Here’s a direct link.

Apparently there wasn’t enough money in AT&T’s multimillion-dollar “Need Something?” advertising campaign to promote low-cost Internet access.

Over the weekend, the company began offering high-speed Internet service for about half its normal price in some states. The $10-a-month-deal was among the concessions AT&T agreed to in exchange for approval of the merger with BellSouth:

Within six months of the merger closing date, and continuing for at least 30 months from the inception of the offer, AT&T/BellSouth will offer to retail consumers in the wireline buildout area, who have not previously subscribed to AT&T’s or BellSouth’s ADSL service, a broadband Internet access service at a speed of up to 768 Kbps at a monthly rate (exclusive of any applicable taxes and regulatory fees) of $10 per month.”

A fairly straightforward directive, but one lacking the specificity that would have made it truly effective. Because while it might require AT&T to create a $10 DSL offering, it doesn’t say anything about publicizing it. And AT&T, which presumably didn’t care much for any of the concessions it agreed to, seems to have seized upon that fact and hasn’t really announced the $10-a-month-deal, let alone promoted it. The plan wasn’t mentioned in a Friday news release about AT&T’s DSL service and a page on the AT&T Web site describing DSL options doesn’t list it. To find it, you’ve got to click on the “Term contract plans” link at the bottom of AT&T’s residential high-speed Internet product page. Here’s a direct link.

Apparently there wasn’t enough money in AT&T’s multimillion-dollar “Need Something?” advertising campaign to promote low-cost Internet access.