It's a nightmare scenario: One day, you log on to the Web, and only 20 or 25 Web sites built by brand-name Net companies fire up quickly. Everything else -- all the mom-and-pop sites, all the niche retailers, all the alternative blogs you read -- dribble out onto your screen like it's 1996 all over again.

But this is a nightmare, too: You log on to the Web after work, and nothing seems to be working. That's because the people living in the three other apartments in your building are busy downloading one pirated Blu-ray movie while watching another. Or spammers have taken control of your neighbors' machines and are pumping out millions of e-mails, totally clogging your Internet pipe. You call your ISP and complain. An operator there says, "Sorry, those pirates and spammers have just as much right to the network as you do."

The important debate on net neutrality is perhaps the most misunderstood technology argument of our time. Sure, neutrality is good and discrimination is bad. And of course, it's terrible that companies like Google and Verizon seem to be holding secret meetings that will decide the future of our beloved free Internet. It's a shame that this important debate has been dragged down by sloganeering and extremism.

Here are two important points everyone should understand about this fight:

---

1. This is not the fight of big companies vs. little people that it has been cast to be. It is big companies vs. other big companies. It's Web content suppliers like Skype and YouTube vs. Web bandwidth suppliers like Comcast and Verizon. You, dear reader, are a pawn.

2. "Net neutrality," as described by its extreme supporters, does not exist today, and that's a good thing. Internet service providers "de-prioritize" certain kinds of traffic already, such as spam or denial of service attacks. And in an even more subtle way, network neutrality cannot exist in the Internet's current architecture. By its nature, the system itself is kinder to some kinds of communication over others. The TCP protocol used to move packet traffic around the Web favors latency-tolerant applications, such as e-mail, over real-time communications, like video chat. That's just the way the technology works.

For regular readers of this column, you know I love a good chance to express outrage at companies like Verizon. There is a lot going on here that smells bad. No one should trust Google and Verizon -- or the other members of the telecom-and-Internet cabal that's been holding secret meetings with the FCC -- to settle this issue in a way that benefits consumers. They will not. This is the real shame of the net neutrality debate. Neither the agency nor those companies have any good will with the American public that would create a trusting enough environment that might enable a sensible debate. I fear this works to the advantage of companies looking to exploit consumers even more for profit.

Back when the general concept of equal access was first applied to the Internet, consumers were happy to push around e-mails and short instant messages to each other. The idea that you might be able to watch full-motion video of a baseball game on a cell phone while driving in a moving car had not yet been imagined. Consumers who watch such video for hours per day have so far expressed outrage any time a bandwidth supplier has tried to cap that usage. That's silly. Is it fair that someone who reads 50 e-mails per day on their phone and nothing more would pay the same as someone who streams a gigabyte's worth of video? Is it fair that your phone might not work for phone calls because 12 other people nearby are watching "Lost"?

On the table is the notion that bandwidth hogs like Google's YouTube might be asked to pay a larger share of costs, at least when delivering content over newer networks like wireless broadband. If YouTube or Major League Baseball paid extra, it would be able to guarantee non-jittery viewing to its cell phone users. On its face, that doesn't sound like such a non-starter, but it does violate the notion of net neutrality.

I get the slippery slope argument. I get fears that allowing such charges could lead us down the road to a two-tiered Internet, with first-class service for a tiny few and coach class for the rest. I understand even more the corporations involved here, if they win the right to charge in tiers, will overpromise and under-deliver. Instead of investing in new, better service, they will just take the money and downgrade most service. And then there's the biggest fear of all: that cable companies will turn the Web into, well, cable. It is possible that Internet-delivered television running over a first-class Internet pipe could lead to marginalization of the rest of the Web.

That's why I'm afraid we are all taking up the wrong fight. The fight should involve the real problem, rather than the buzzwords. It should involve guaranteed minimum service levels, and a real government resource for complaints. (The FCC is awful at directly helping consumers -- just read this column.) It should quickly investigate and fine misbehavior by ISPs, such as throttling service or misleading consumers about available bandwidth. It should protect small-time Internet users while allowing early adopters and early innovators the choice to spend more and get more. Is a proclamation of absolute net neutrality the best road to a fair Internet? I doubt it.

I understand that the cast of characters lining up on the side against net neutrality have a terrible reputation. Groups like "Hands off the Internet" are simply regurgitating buzzwords about less government regulation and more free speech. It's the same crowd that wants to privatize all American highways with the idea that this would remove potholes, when we all know it would just mean higher tolls. I'm not on their side.

More important, if companies like Google and Verizon are allowed to have a lovely private dinner and set telecommunications policy for the rest of the country, we might all be better off moving to Canada.

But some of the net neutrality proposals floated so far would actually make it harder for Internet service providers to filter out Internet traffic that degrades service, such as hacker attacks. And virtually all of them would make a winner out of bandwidth hogs.

I'm not sure how hard consumers should fight to prevent AT&T from charging YouTube more if its users are clogging up Internet pipes. Instead, we should be fighting to make sure AT&T and other ISPs don't give us less, and that requires a more subtle touch than the religious war that's unfolding right now. Network neutrality is much less desirable than enforceable regulation which states that common efficiency practices like "network shaping" are deployed only in the best interest of consumers.

But that would require an FCC that does more than simply act as messenger between the titans of technology as they divide up the big pile of money sitting on the table. Right now, I'm afraid that the battle over buzzwords is distracting us from the real problem, and giving companies an even easier time taking advantage of consumers.

Become a Red Tape Chronicles Facebook fan and follow RedTapeChron on Twitter.

What do you pay to watch television every month?  Are you really getting what you pay for?  How much do fees from set-top boxes add to your costs?

Earlier this month, we asked Red Tape readers to post details of their monthly bills, with a special focus on those tack-on fees. The response was overwhelming. There's a lot of money to be saved in making sure you aren't overpaying for cable or satellite TV -- one Red Tape reader described his annual cable bill at $1,995 per year. After the mortgage payment and auto loan payment, television might be your largest annual budget-eater. With an investment like that, it's really worth spending time to get it right. This piece is designed to help by making it easier to see what your neighbors are paying.

---

While pay TV companies are offering unprecedented levels of service -- hundreds of channels, better HD signals, digital video recorders -- consumers are frustrated about the methods used to charge for them. For many, deciphering the monthly bill is like searching for buried treasure using an old, faded map.  In just about every case, the provider charges one price for the service and then a host of other fees for tools needed to use the service -- fees so high they can double the cost.  Imagine if a rental car company charged extra for the license plate on the car! (Wait, some do just that.)

On a basic level, these fees are annoying. But the damage they do to the marketplace is much more significant. Hidden or tack-on fees obscure the true price of the service, thereby wrecking an essential tool in a free market.  Because it's so hard to determine what your monthly cost will be until that first bill finally comes, it can be nearly impossible to do honest comparison shopping when it comes time to pick a new service.  In the end, it's very hard for consumers to decipher which company provides the best service at the best price.  That leads to all sorts of market distortions.

There's only one way to attack such a problem -- with information.  The more you can learn about the price your neighbors pay for television (the price they really pay, not the monthly rate quoted in an ad), the more intelligent a choice you can make.  Pay TV firms, like all modern corporations, devour extensive research about you and your family in an effort to extract the highest price possible. Why shouldn't you do the same -- devour data to help you get the lowest price? So here's a set of market research provided by Red Tape readers all around the country summarizing what they pay for tack-on fees. Compare your bill to these, to make sure you're not overpaying.

Before we get to specific provider prices, displayed alphabetically by provider, here's some general observations.

1) Many consumers are getting killed in fees for second, third, and fourth set-top boxes.  Consider paying for service only on the family TV, and use rabbit ears to pick up over-the-air HD channels on the other sets in the house.  The savings can easily add up more than $500 per year. If you can't imagine going without cable in the bedroom TV, scale back to basic boxes on your secondary sets and you'll still save a bundle.

2) While we're on the subject of rabbit ears, an increasing number of consumers are cutting pay TV service altogether, and using a combination of over-the-air signals and TV-over-Internet programming -- using Netflix or Hulu.com, for example -- to fill the void. You might still want to pay for service, particularly if you are a sports fan. But you can use the option of over-the-air TV as a bargaining chip to get a lower rate from your provider.

3) When lease rates for set-top boxes go up, many consumers report great success by simply complaining about the increase. Dish Network, for example, is handing out service credits that negate a recent price hike. But watch carefully -- the credits are usually temporary, while the increase is permanent. That's a smart way for firms to ease the blow of price hikes. You'll have to stay on the company to make sure you keep getting the discount as time passes.

4) Different firms charge for different services in different ways.  Take DVR service: Some charge a lease-fee for the DVR box; some charge a service fee. Some charge both. That's why, when comparing services, the only price that matters is the bottom-line, what-number-will-I -write-on-my-check-every-month price.

Now, here's a sample of the fees reported by Red Tape readers.

AT&T U-verse

Readers from Wisconsin and Michigan chipped in to share that they pay $10 extra each month for HD signal, and pay $7 for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th DVR box.  Peter Fritz of Franklin, Wis., for example, was paying $21 every month for his four DVRs until recently, when he dumped the service for over-the-air TV.

Bresnan Communications

In Montana, Rachel Hofferman said she pays $6.50 per month for a DVR with a remote, and $11.99 for DVR service.  There's also a 25-cent broadcast TV surcharge.

Bright House Networks

From Orlando, Fla., a consumer wrote to say he pays $7.95 per month for his DVR.

Cablevision

Erin F. in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. says she spends $13.50 for two cable boxes ($6.51 for the box and 24 cents for the remote) each month.  She also pays $9.95 for DVR service, and a $1.50 "additional outlet" fee.

Charter Communications

Sean Ferguson of Wenatchee, Wash., says he pays $10 to rent his DVR box, and pays $29 to upgrade to HD signals.  Because he lives in a housing association, he had no choice of provider.

Comcast

Consumers from all corners of the country wrote in about Comcast rates.  They vary slightly.

• In Deerfield, Ill., a consumer said he pays $15.99 each for two dual tuner DVRs.
• In Elk Grove, Calif., a consumer says he pays $8 per month for HD and $1.45 for a mandatory service plan.
• In Denver, a consumer says he pays $15.95 each for two DVRs and $10.45 in additional service fees, for a total of $42.35 per month.
• In Corvallis, a consumer who has two basic boxes reported paying nothing for the first box, and $3.40 for the second box and remote.
• In a Philadelphia suburb, a consumer said he pays $5 for an HD box, and $16.95 for DVR service.
• In Chelmsford, Mass., an HD-DVR costs $14.95 per month, according to a consumer there.
• In Gaithersburg, Md., a consumer named Walter lamented that he pays $496.80 in equipment rental fees every year.  He pays $28.45 to Comcast: $9.25 Comcast for an HD box, $15.95 for an HD-DVR, a $3 "digital additional outlet" fee, a 25 cent "digital remote rental fee," and then $12.95 to TiVo.

Cox Communications

Pam Hall of Las Vegas said she pays $7.50 per month for an HD converter, and $15.99 for a digital TV gateway box.

In Broken Arrow, Okla., Bruce subscribes to the least expensive level of service he can. He pays $5 to rent a basic digital cable box.

DirecTV

A wide range of consumers wrote in explaining their DirecTV box fees, but they were consistent around the country.  The first basic set-top box is free, and each additional box costs $5. The DVR fee is $7, and HD service costs $10 per month.

Dish

Dish consumers also reported consistent rates from around the country. The network recently changed its set-top rental fees. The first box is free. Additional boxes cost $7-$17, depending on capabilities.  For more, see this piece.

Insight Communications

Carl Pahler says he pays $15 monthly for the first HD-DVR box and $15.95 for the second, along with a $7.95 HD service fee.  He also laments that he can't get HD service without also paying for a DVR.

Knology

Brian in Montgomery, Ala. says he pays $12.95 monthly for his TiVo service.

RCN

Jinesh in Queens, NY. says he pays $8.95 per month for his HD converter box.

Time Warner

Customers who wrote in shared a variety of set-top box prices.

• In Austin, Texas, a consumer said she pays $7.99 per month for an HD-DVR and $10 for DVR service,
• In Winston-Salem, N.C., a consumer reported paying nothing for the first digital cable box, and $8.95 per month for the second.
• In Charlotte, N.C., a consumer says he pays $10.95 for DVR service and nothing for the 1 box he uses.
• In Brooklyn, N.Y., Aaron says he pays $10 per month each for a regular HD box, and $20 per month for a DVR box.  "We pay $40 just to keep the boxes...it's ridiculous."
• In Los Angeles, a consumer reports paying $7.99 monthly for their first set-top box, $8.99 for each additional box, $10 for DVR service, but nothing extra for HD service.

Verizon FiOS

Most Verizon customers say they pay the same amount to rent their boxes: $5 per month for a basic box, $10 for an HD box, and $20 for an HD-DVR. But in Rockaway, N.J., Nik said he pays only $5.99 for HD boxes and $14.99 for his DVR.

As mentioned in the recent column on this topic, Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have been trying for more than a decade to change the market dynamics for set-top boxes by encouraging the appearance of third-party alternatives.  There's a new push to create a new kind of gadget, called a gateway, that will make it easier for consumers to combine TV and Internet-based video watching.

While that debate drags on, and the high cost of box rental is still on your mind, here's some parting food for thought: An anonymous comment left by a Red Tape reader who claims to work in the set-top box industry.

"I manage the building of set top boxes every day and it's a crime to charge rent for them," the source writes. "The most expensive cost less than $200 in most cases with some even less than $100. In addition the companies that procure them usually will not even (return) them back to manufacturers if they are defective. They will either return to a service center or simply get tossed. You should be able to easily work your way out of these fees especially after 10 - 12 months because anything beyond that and they are making money."

Become a Red Tape Chronicles Facebook fan and follow RedTapeChron on Twitter.

It took Mary Schreiber about an hour, and just a little moxie, to save $300. You can do it too.

After reading about the Red Tape Fight Pledge last month, Schreiber took a hard look at the $129-per-month cable and Internet bill that had been nagging at her, and decided it was time to do something about it.

"The Comcast bill was crazy expensive, and I have really just basic TV and Internet," said Schreiber, 58, a technical writer who lives near Denver.

Saving money has become a top priority for her since she was laid off 11 months ago.

---

Her string of bad luck actually began 10 years ago, when she thought she'd found her niche as a technical writer for a high-flying telecom company named MCI WorldCom.   But by the time MCI WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers took the Fifth before Congress about accounting irregularities, Schreiber was unemployed.

Finding a job at age 50 can be a challenge, but Schreiber landed on her feet, this time with a multinational software firm named Mincom, based in Australia.  As a single woman, the $3,000 in take-home pay, along with decent benefits, provided her with a good living.

Then, the floor fell out from under her again. Last May, Mincom laid her off. Now 57, she knew her prospects were dimmer than last time. The $1,700 in monthly unemployment checks she began to receive would be considered generous by many state standards, but she still needed to learn to live on about half the income she previously had.  And she needed to find health insurance. So she started doing a series of small things to lower her monthly bills.

Still, finding a job "is a full-time job," she said, filling out applications, keeping up with government paperwork, applying for various insurance subsidies, etc.  So while she did some things to cut back on costs, others were neglected.

When she read about the Red Tape Pledge last month, she realized she had let her TV and Internet costs soak up too much of her budget for too long. So she used a technique we've talked about a lot in the Red Tape Chronicles:  She called competitors and got bids for her business.

First stop -- Qwest, which had been mailing her promotional offers for months.  A Qwest operator told her she could get Internet access for only $35 per month. Then, she called the Dish satellite TV network, which offered a comparable television package for about $30 a month.  She knew there would be extra taxes and fees, and that these were promotional offers that would expire. Still, she now had hard evidence that she was overpaying, and she had a backup plan when she began her negotiations with Comcast.

Her intention all along was simply to talk Comcast into giving her a better deal. Switching services can be a hassle -- users often need to change e-mail addresses, for example, and sometimes have to wait for installers and so on.  But Schreiber was staring at $50 or more in savings each month.  So she placed the best kind of phone call any consumer can -- the no-lose phone call.

"I told Comcast I would rather stay with them, but I had to do something. The bill was just too high," she said. Then, she rattled off the offers she had in hand.  It worked like a charm.  The operator offered her TV and Internet service for $77 per month for six months, and she accepted on the spot.

"I could have saved a little more, but really I'd rather stay where I am," she said.

Comcast spokeswoman Jenni Moyer said the firm's prices are "competitive," but added that it will work with customers on an individual basis "to make sure our customers are getting what they want."

"The key thing is we do offer a range of choices for customers so they can find thepackage and level of service that works for them," she said.

Schreiber says her job prospects still aren't good, even though she said she's willing to move for a good job.  In fact, she suspects she won't ever work again as a technical writer, because many firms have learned they can outsource technical writing tasks to low-wage overseas employees.

"Like any classic unemployed person, you have to force yourself to get up every day and go out, even if it's just to walk around the mall, as long as you don't spend any money, you have to get up and go somewhere," she said.

But she did put that Internet access to good use.  She recently learned about a program that will help pay for her to go back to school, and help pay for her health insurance.  In July 2009, Congress expanded the eligibility for Trade Adjustment Assistance, a program that helps U.S. workers whose jobs are shipped overseas.  Schreiber will start school next week with the intention of earning system administrator certification for Microsoft products.

"You just really need to spend time exploring what's available out there, but you have to put in the time," she said.

Sounds like the same challenge consumers face who want to save money and beat back hidden fees and unfair charges. There are ways to save money, they just take some time.

But unemployed or not, can you afford to pass up a chance to make $300 with one hour's work?

You too can make the Red Tape Fight pledge by joining this Facebook group, where you can discuss the progress you are making or the obstacles you are encountering with other members.

Become a Red Tape Chronicles Facebook fan and follow RedTapeChron on Twitter.