As to why the results show Cable interference but not DSL…

As early as 2003, Prof. Tim Wu noted in his paper “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination” (Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law 2: p.141 with article copies widely available on the net) that Cable and DSL were on two different tracks: Cable was heavily use-restricted (e.g. “no servers, no VPN, no fun, etc.”) while DSL was not.

Five years later, this is still the case. Verizon is on the record that they do not discriminate, they do not throttle, (but they are keeping open their options to do so).

But your larger conclusion is right on — with sufficient competition, ISPs can throttle anything they want and freedom is not impaired. Take dial-up, for example. There are hundreds of choices — many who proudly filter connections AS A FEATURE.

The FCC applied the same thinking to broadband and “hoped” that competition would show up. Well, “hope” is no replacement for a strategy as it turns out.

We’ve grown accustomed to the illusion that the internet is this free, open thing. For all intents and purposes it has been and is for many people. Becoming aware that the internet probably isn’t as pure as we’d like is a harsh reality to face, but that knowledge will change how we approach it as a tool. Hopefully we can get to a point where we needn’t worry about the integrity of our telecom providers. Europe seems to have figured something out judging by the lack of red on the map from the second link of the original post:

(link)

Sure, there are really only two “real” options, but broadband over power line? C’mon. We here in Silicon Valley sometimes forget that we’re not average tech consumers. The vast majority of consumers expect to get their telecom services from telecom providers. That’s just how it is. BPL might be a nice idea, but let’s get real. It failed and will continue to do so for many very good reasons. Also, don’t forget that there are satellite data options out there too. Sure, it’s expensive and not a great service, but it’s still competition.

Bottom line… cable and DSL are the best two alternatives until WiMAX/LTE or HSPA become real alternatives. The business model and subsequent demise of Metro WiFi is proof that some alternatives aren’t even viable. Cable and DSL (as much as folks might hate the power they have) have built a business model that works and they have every right to maintain that business model.

The public will speak with their pocketbooks. When they stop spending or find a “real” alternative, the evil Telco/MSO duopoly will have to do something. Until then, it’s hard to blame the FCC or the providers for providing a service people are willing to pay for.

Your choice if you’re AT&T, Comcast or others: Spend a couple billion on an established IP-based media, com or combo alternative (If you can - Skype is probably available, YouTube is gone, Facebook’s too expensive), spend a couple hundred million to build your own and probably fail (think Hulu), or spend 10-30 million for a good chance to control Congress, probably with all your peers pulling in the same direction instead of wrestling with you (as they would in the first couple of options).