The U.S. Department of Justice officially spoke out against net neutrality this week, in a filing with the FCC that says such regulations would “prevent, rather than promote, optimal investment and innovation in the Internet, with significant negative effects for the economy and consumers.” The department says the free market has done just fine so far, and that “precluding broadband providers from charging [content providers] directly for faster or more reliable service” could shift the burden of cost directly onto consumers.
The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the department’s Antitrust Division added, “Consumers and the economy are benefiting from the innovative and dynamic nature of the Internet.” The department also said that its antitrust enforcers will take action when necessary to allow broadband competition, which removes the need for net neutrality regulation.
“DoJ Opposes Net Neutrality Rules” [InformationWeek]
More From Consumerist
-
Barnes & Noble Says Government’s Proposed Settlement Would Hurt E-Book Buyers
-
Feds Charge 18 People With Ringing Up $200 Million In Fraudulent Credit Card Charges
-
Report: BP Will Be Hit With Record Fine In The Billions Over Deepwater Horizon Spill
-
Penguin Group Reaches Settlement With Justice Department Over E-Book Pricing
-
DOJ Reportedly Investigating Cable Companies For Squashing Online Competition
I laugh at technically illiterate people frothing out telecom propaganda that makes no sense.
If a site has heavier traffic (youtube, say), they PAY for hosting.
Consumers viewing the files also PAY for web access.
What the net bias people want is to layer on additional payments on top of that. They want to pick winners and losers (actually, they want to drive innovators out of the US since no one else will stand for this, so the Web 3.0 companies will all be creating jobs and GDP for others besides the US – but telecoms are too stupid to see this).
Or, did you think the telecoms give free hosting to youtube, myspace, apple, etc., because… they’re nice? Of course not. They pay already. Enough for great profits and reinvestment.
Really, you guys look VERY foolish. Or shills.
@trai_dep: “I laugh at technically illiterate people frothing out telecom propaganda that makes no sense.”
Then you must be laughing at yourself pretty hard right now. Explain this one to me, genius. Google pays Company X for hosting and bandwidth. Does the traffic and file sizes magically disappear when it moves off Company X’s network and on to whatever network you use at your house?
“Web 3.0″? “creating jobs and GDP”? Someone is shooting buzz words and propaganda out of their ass, that’s for sure.
@trai_dep:
Okay, so what if some little guys page becomes the next “Best Page in the Universe” and gets millions of hits, your saying that the telco companies should charge him just because he was popular for a while? How is that fair to him?
“This is EXACTLY what is being proposed. No one is talking about allowing anyone to block anything – the deal is that if you want to make SURE your traffic gets through no matter what, then you CAN, if you like, pay extra for that. If you don’t, then depending on how busy the internet is that day, your site may load slowly. If the network isn’t busy, then things go fast for everyone.”
When is the internet not busy? “You can if you like, pay extra for that” How is that in ANYWAY fair? So some little start up organization with a message to get out, needs to pay so that people can see what they have to say? Tell me, should George Bush be canonized too? You remember McLibel? What if they had to pay so that the thousands of people who wanted to see their site could do so? If what you are proposing existed when they were fighting their case in the courts their message would have NEVER gotten out.
@swalve:
Totally agree.
But what was he covering up? Nothing.
So I do place the blame on him and the Bush administration’s seemingly intentional cover ups when nothing wrong has been done.
Simply put – the USA’s who were fired, were fired properly. Had he just come out and said “These are political appointees. They can be fired by the President for any reason. I could have fired them all, just like Janet Reno was in my position did, but we didn’t.”, I think things would be different.
It seems to me the BDS and the investigation loving democrats on the hill have created a weird culture in DC of practicing CYA theory even when there is nothing to cover up.
@wessev:
I’m afraid we have to agree to disagree.
The free market has worked well to regulate the industry so far. The less the government touches the internet, the better off we are.
Simply put, keeping decisions in the hands of the consumers will ALWAYS work out for the customers over allowing the government to influence the market.
The problem with net neutrality is that it would result in the opposite of what you want to happen. As it stands now, the first ISP to restrict bandwidth will lose customers to a different ISP that won’t.
Had the federal government taken control, ALL isp’s would be denied the ability to operate as they see fit. They would raise rates and we would all be in worse shape.
As it stands, the free market is working. This decision about net neutrality DOESN’T change anything from the way it is being done right now. It appears to me that putting restrictions in government hands protects the consumer from one problem, while introducing them to far more.
Let’s see what happens. If in five years, ISP’s are ruining the net experience, a new bill can always be introduced. Until that time, find out what your ISP is doing and see what the competition offers. A free market is just as important economically as a free nation is politically.
If/when an ISP starts limiting bandwidth and charging for access to certain sites, SWITCH. It gives the market a chance to be truly competitive.
@trai_dep:
WHAT?
Here’s what those of us who ‘get it’ don’t understand about what those of you who oppose what just happened.
Essentially, NOTHING CHANGED. Not one thing. Exactly what could happen yesterday can happen today.
SO why to opposition exactly?
Net Neutrality would have been the ‘new’ thing, not what happened.
The DOJ basically just said “What has worked until now will continue to work”. They didn’t CHANGE anything.
Why are you folks so upset?
Are you unhappy with your current internet experience?
I’m certainly not.
I have comcast broadband.
I could easily switch to DSL, Satellite, or another companies broadband cable internet.
It would LITERALLY take me 5 minutes to sign up for a new service and a few hours of a window for an installer to show up.
Settle down, tin foil hatters. Nothing changed. Stop operating under the assumption that things are magically different now than things were before.
@Mr3vil:
“Right now with local franchise laws you only have ONE cable company. Nobody else can come in and give you TV and internet via Coax.”
Not true. At all.
There are two coax cable companies in Chicago and at least 3 choices for satellite based cable.
Evil – NOTHING CHANGED.
The DOJ simply said that there is no reason anything should change in the internet business.
That’s it.
They didn’t create a new law, change the way an ISP operates, or create any loopholes. They simply said that the free market is working just fine.
Why the knee-jerk reactionism?
Guys -
Look at your ignorance as a good thing. It’s a signpost saying that you have an opportunity to learn (this is the good thing). I’ve stumbled over the same situation many times, and I’m a better man for it.
I suggest using Google or Wikipedia (both relatively new companies that, if they came out in a regime where telecos get to pick winners and losers, either wouldn’t exist or be some stunted, underperforming shadow of their glorious selves that we know of today). Have questions? Find answers. Preferably before you spout off ill-informed opinions (why would anyone do otherwise?)
I’ll pencil in the basics as they exist today, in our net-neutral, capitalist, free-market environment. As far as the basics of backbone economics, look it up yourselves. It’s not my job to school you.
Visitors, consumers – us in other words – pay the telecos for net access. As an aggregate, we provide them with substantial revenues that allow us to go wherever we damn well please.
Providers ALSO pay telecos, for hosting. Servers are bought, intermediaries are involved, traffic is pushed. The more traffic a site generates (the higher their bandwidth), the more they pay. It scales, though. So a small company hopefully generates revenues to offset these costs proportionally.
Telecos have two huge revenue streams that bathe them in cash, enough to post record earnings, dividends AND monies for reinvestment. They also have other revenue streams if they decide to provide services (server farms, analysis…) as a value-add.
There’s no mediation between supply and demand. Pure, rational, liberal economics. A hothouse of beneficent capitalism that warms our hearts. Everyone benefits, from the garage startup guy, to the established companies to the huge multinational behomoths. A virtuous circle. Puppies rejoice.
What the net-bias people want to do is break this. To have a select few companies (AT&T, etc) to discriminate, to pick winners and losers. It’s unheard of (no Asian or European companies would dare do this since it’s so hostile to the broader economy). And it breaks a model that’s brought us tremendous growth, jobs and GDP. All so AT&T gets to be gate-keeper over who gets to succeed online.
It’s that simple. Don’t be fooled.
@trai_dep:
I still fail to see what you are saying.
By LEAVING THE FREE MARKET ALONE, what ill did the DOJ undergo?
Simply declining to regulate an industry that is working just fine doesn’t allow anything to happen like the scenario you suggest.
ALL THAT WAS SAID was the no law needed to be put in place. Period. Nothing else was authorized. No loopholes were created.
NOTHING CHANGED.
So why the panic?
Explain it to me, because I’m just not seeing it. If things were fine yesterday, and they are fine today, and nothing changed, where is the down side?
It’s working fine NOW. The telecos want to make a power grab because they’re angry that they’re “mere” bandwidth providers. Instead of creating compelling products to fairly compete with the Googles – and gods know what other innovators want to change our lives that are in the garage stage – they want to use their sanctioned monopoly power in one sphere to control – curtail – another.
Net neutrality IS the status quo ante. It IS “leaving things alone”. Got a great idea – bring it on! Let the market decide. No barriers. I’m stunned that there’s argument on something this fundamental.
What they want to do is erect a toll booth. A significant CHANGE. From there, they’re be able to give pass/fails on companies far more innovative than they.
“Nothing’s changed” solely because they’re in the planning stages. Facing significant pushback from consumers, from innovative companies, from the wealth-providers. It’s like defending Microsoft’s early attempts at “removing the oxygen” from Netscape: no harm. Yet. Until it was too late.
No one is stopping them from competing. Nor should they. Net neutrality ensures they do so fairly. That’s all.
@trai_dep: “Net neutrality IS the status quo ante. It IS “leaving things alone”. Got a great idea – bring it on! Let the market decide. No barriers. I’m stunned that there’s argument on something this fundamental.”
So let me get this straight: There is no law now, and telcos CAN pick winners and losers if they want. And that system is working. So you think we need a law to fix what isn’t broken?
Maybe you should see if Google or Wikipedia have entries on “insanity” before you “you spout off ill-informed opinions”. That way, you’ll know how you sound.
On top of that, no one believes that telcos have the right to pick “winners and losers”. Wouldn’t hold up in court, and ISPs know that. What net-neutrality is about is whether or not telcos have the right, on their own networks, to give certain traffic priority. Does Comcast have the right, if the network is congested, to give their Comcast Digital Voice traffic a priority code so that people that have it can still use the phone. Well, why shouldn’t they have that right? If you have one person that has Vonage, which pays no money to maintain and build out the network, and another person that is paying more for Comcast Digital Voice because Comcast has additional expense that Vonage doesn’t, how is it “anti-competitive” that Comcast offer their customers something Vonage can’t? Which is the priority on the net to keep their service clear.
Now, if we were saying they were BLOCKING Vonage, or limiting the “free” bandwidth to the point nothing could get through, then yes, it would be a problem and there would need to be legislation to “fix” it. But that isn’t happening, and there’s no reason that the ISPs would do that (because the lawsuits would get expensive fast, and the legislation that DID pass as a result would likely be punitive in nature).
@trai_dep: “No one is stopping them from competing. Nor should they. Net neutrality ensures they do so fairly. That’s all.”
How is it “competing fairly” when the people that build and maintain the network, and therefore have higher costs, have to compete against a company like Vonage, which doesn’t have that extra cost, and as a result can offer the service for a lower price?
God are you f*cking stupid or what?
Look up net neutrality on wiki. You’re a misinformed, blathering idiot and I’m tired of explaining what the basics are. Learn them then feel free to join the debate.
@trai_dep:
trai – settle down champ.
Net Neutrality is a subject people are at odd’s about.
I don’t think you are ‘f*cking stupid’ because you think government regulation of a perfectly functional internet is a good thing.
Calling other people stupid because they disagree with you doesn’t help your cause one bit.
Insulting others because they think differently than you isn’t a good idea.
You seem to believe that government regulation of net neutrality is a good thing – the government will make sure that competition is available and that through regulation, we will have a neutral net.
Others, including myself, think we don’t need the government to get involved when there is absolutely no problem with the way things are.
And we aren’t alone, many experts on the subject believe that the idea of regulating net neutrality would be far more harmful than good.
For instance, (from wiki)
Bob Kahn, one of the fathers of the Internet, has said net neutrality is a slogan that would freeze innovation in the core of the Internet.
Dave Farber, Michael Katz, Chris Yoo, and Gerald Faulhaber — Farber, known as the ‘grandfather of the Internet’ because he taught many of its chief designers, has written and spoken strongly in favor of continued research and development on core Internet protocols. He joined academic colleagues Michael Katz, Chris Yoo, and Gerald Faulhaber in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post strongly critical of network neutrality, stating, “The Internet needs a makeover. Unfortunately, congressional initiatives aimed at preserving the best of the old Internet threaten to stifle the emergence of the new one.”
These people, I assure you, are not idiots.
It’s okay to disagree. It’s not okay to assume you know better than everyone else.
@mac-phisto:
to be blatantly off-topic
that sucks for you. i have charter, 10down/1up. i regularly hit speeds of 7000 kbps on speed tests and torrent speeds of over 1100 kbps.
i also have charter telephone and tv, and pay 180 a month for everything. long distance, all premium channels, and my internet.
its odd that charter is so bad there, and so good here in TN.