Gonzales resigns and the department of justice says something intelligent for the first time in 7 years. Coincidence? You decide.

I'm just waiting for the outcry about "It's WRONG! It means things I have to PAY for will work better than things I can get FREE!"

Um....duh?

@dbeahn:

It means things you get for free will be deliberately degraded, so they don't have to upgrade pay service.

Next they should deal with our crappy net service in general. We pay more then twice as much per month and get 1/4 of the speed other countries get...and we invented the damn internet!

Comcast...I hate you, verizon..hurry up with the FIOS for the love of god hurry up.

The problem is consider the United States population-wise is not nearly as dense as Japan or South Korea so getting super fast internet here is way tougher than over there purely because of distances. But ya hopefully the freemarket will solve this problem and we reach their speed.

Do you realize everyone who uses the internet pays for it already? Doesn't matter if you're a large corporation or a guy at a coffee shop surfing the web on a "free" wireless connection (that's one of the reasons why the coffee is so expensive)?

Companies pay for their use of the internet to a connection provider just like you pay for your dialup or broadband connection. Most pay based on the amount of traffic that flows to and from their connection.

Allowing "broadband providers" to put another charge on top of what "content providers" already pay is just a way to increase their profits without adding benefit to anyone. It is essentially a form of protection payments similar to what the mob used to do: "Youse wants your packets to get there safely and on time, dontcha?" The extra fees will be passed on to YOU, the consumer, by the "content providers" so they can maintain their bottom line.

Thank you DOJ....
Been waiting for this for a while now.
Too bad Congress has been too busy undergoing witch hunts to find out that no law was broken and there was no wrong doing to allow the DOJ to operate properly.
Just in case you think that Gonzalez retired because he did anything wrong, the reality is that Congress had made him a distraction and thus limited his ability to accomplish anything since they started their little witch hunt into a non-event.
Thanks Congress! Don't work FOR us, work against the Bush administration. That'll end well...

Clearly the American gov't takes consumers for a bunch of morons.

I am extremely interested in knowing why various government agencies have recently come out against American consumers and have issued reports that do nothing but protect and ensure the continued monopoly that the various telecommunications providers have over this market. What ever happened to requiring telco's to provide greater and more equal access to the internet, especially to the poor and people in rural areas?

I do not mean to come off as sounding a bit like a conspiracy theorist here, but a part of me can't help but wonder if these reports by agencies such as the Justice Dept (and also the FTC) that do not favor net-neutrality are somehow linked to the telecommunication providers' very willing participation in illegal domestic wire tapping programs. The gov't has already come out strongly to try and have legislation passed that would grant immunity from lawsuits for violating your privacy. So, its not too far fetched for me to think the gov't would also be willing to throw another bone out to them by helping their business interests, for their continued cooperation.

I can't think of too many major telecommunications companies that has suffered financially over the last decade that the internet has really taken off. The only ones that have done poorly have been brought down from within, and not because of the burden of consumer growth and demand.

Whatever the case may be, I find it really disturbing to see that our government would rather act to protect corporations before consumers time and time again.

@aixwiz: I agree with what you say- was it the Sprint guy that went nuts because Google was making money off of his pipes? Doesn't he know that he already charges everyone that connects to his company's network?

However (for example), why shouldn't Vonage be able to pay Verizon for better QoS, and then advertise that fact?

I almost think that it's fine because a fair market would break out and it would all work out in the end, as long as it's not OK for ISPs to intentionally cripple certain traffic, only to improve other traffic. And that all traffic shaping agreements must be made public.

@killavanilla: It's not the crime, it's the coverup. Gonzalez reacted badly to the situation, and the US needs someone who can perform better under a little pressure running the Justice department.

Also, wasn't GOnzalez one of the clowns trying to get drugged up Ashcroft to authorize something illegal? Talk about low.

@swalve: What do you mean, "So long as it's not OK for ISPs to intentionally cripple certain traffic, only to improve other traffic?" When you're dealing with a pipe, it's the same damn thing. If you provide priority access to one netblock, you're automatically slowing the rest down.

Now, if an ISP ran dedicated fiber to a media provider to speed up video downloads, that's one thing. Problem is, everything I've heard about this issue revolves around ISPs who just want more money and figure they can cripple access to any site that doesn't pay up. That's a big load of bullshit and, quite frankly, I'm surprised the DOJ is refusing to get involved.

This sounds like something that will work about as well as deregulating the electrical grid. Take a look at the countries that have better broadband performance and you'll find that they did go and squash net neutrality to accomplish it.

...and how could anyone back-up "I don't recall" Gonzalez? Especially after watching any of his testimony and the comments made by democratic and republican senators?

@wessev:
Your interpretation of the report is completely wrong. This report simply reinforces the idea that any gov't mandate of net neutrality is a tacit acceptance of the monopolies current ISPs have. It's net neutrality that gives the telcos more power since they can affect legislation. Forcing an open market solution and making ISPs compete at the last mile of access would put consumers in control.

You mean the DOJ is supporting the companies over the consumers? *gasp* Next you'll be telling me we have a Republican president. It's not surprising that the usual band of sheepumerists are backing the DOJ decision.

@dukrous: Actually, judging from other countres, having the Gov't subsidize the lines for any provider instead of having only one company own it would probably be better ... that way, the Gov't could take care of creating access in rural areas, instead of relying on "it won't generate profit so fuck you" Conglomo Corp.

But, then again, this is mostly based off of memory of articles I've read recently, so there are bound to be errors.

@dbeahn:

I don't know about you, but I pay plenty to my ISP every month. So I'm supposed to put up with them degrading the accessibility of most of the content I receive because they get what amounts to a kickback from large content providers.

Fine... I receive less value, they should decrease my monthly fee. Fat chance. The Telcos and cable companies have local monopolies in almost every market. Where I live, my only broadband provider is Time Warner. They've been engaging in monopoly pricing for years. All of a sudden they are going to turn into nice guys because the can charge content providers???

And the innovation argument. What a bunch of bullsh*t! The internet has developed because the cost of entry is low. By charging content fees, the cost of entry becomes significant and gives the big guys -- the non-innovators -- a leg up in the market place. So, no new E-Bays, new Facebooks, new Youtubes, new Googles even. If there had been a content fee in the '90's we'd all be doing our searches through MSN and buying online from Walmart.

Wow, what a surprise. The bush justice department comes out in support of big businesses over what is best for the country.

But to the people here in favor of this...Are you people morons? I'm not trying to be insulting, I honestly can see no other reason why you would support this (unless you are either a large telco, or a representative paid to astroturf this debate, which has been the main tactic so far).

Capitalism NEEDS regulation. Yes, it can be manipulated for ill, but all you have to look at is ANY industry that has been deregulate to see the desperate need for at least some level of it. If large telcos are allowed to do anything they want, they will do what ever is best for their profits, NOT what is best for consumers. Since consumers want the most for their money, and telcos want to give the least, it should be obvious to even you supporters of this who wins when big companies are given free reign. Don't buy into this 'free-market' BS, there's no such thing. Our market is an artificial construction based on rules, a 'free-market' would be one without rules, where only those already wealthy would benefit. That is capitalism as a cancer. A market that benefits everyone, is REGULATED to do so. The economy what eat itself alive otherwise.

Here's what will happen without Net Neutrality. Telcos will offer higher speed services to companies and individuals. To do this, and make it more attractive, they will throttle down the speed of 'regular' service, which will cripple companies who can not afford the higher premium. (Reduced competition is BAD for consumers, in case you forgot) They can also affect the content on the net through restrictive user agreements for higher service tiers, by denying the use of the service to whoever they want, and by outright censorship. (We already saw how Pearl Jam's online concert was censored for political content.) Once this is the norm, they will reduce the bandwidth given to the 'free' portion of the net more and more, until they eliminate it, leaving only their own private tiered services. Which they control completely.

That means this ends free speech on the internet. It means the end to anyone being able to have their own website, where they can say and do anything within the confines of the law. It means the end of the internet as a public domain. It means nothing less than the end of the internet.

Do you want the net to be ONLY businesses and advertisements? Because that is what is profitable, and that is all you will get if profit is the only driving force. Do you like being forced to use only one provider? Regulations, such as anti-trust laws, could force telcos to allow multiple providers to use the communication infrastructure, giving you actual choice, and lowering prices through competition.

Or you could not have Net Neutrality, and pay $100 a month to surf the DRM loaded, government surveyed, McWeb. A sterile marketplace, where you will never see a post like this speaking out against corporate america, or a site like this that benefits consumers over businesses.

@LordKanchi:
Amen.
Just how long does anyone think a site like The Consumerist would last in a world where Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, etc. get to control the content of the intertubes?

I think crap hits the fan within a few weeks, they'll start degrading things slowly so people won't notice it. Just like crapware.

@aixwiz:

And then there are those of us who live near a starbucks, ihop , or a neighbor who has an unsecured wifi connection.... who pay NOTHING for internet! :D

@TechnoDestructo: No, it means that things you get for free will have to live in the "left over" space. Bandwidth costs money to provide, period. Cables, fiber, nodes, servers, hubs, gateways, etc etc etc - this stuff doesn't grow on trees.

Do you provide whatever professional services you make a living from to your employer for free? No? They why are you so gung-ho that people that work for internet providers work harder for less money (yes, with many companies, when they make more money the employees get better raises, profit sharing, stock plans, etc etc) just so you can have "free stuffs" from their work?

@msthe8r: "Amen.
Just how long does anyone think a site like The Consumerist would last in a world where Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, etc. get to control the content of the intertubes?"

There's a checks and balances there We'll assume Time-Warner, at very least, learned the "trying to control internet content = bad business" when AOL was driven straight into the ground because they tried to do exactly that.

You people DO realize that 100% net neutrality would mean that spam, viruses, and botnets would, by definition, ALSO be entitled to the same bandwidth?

No one is suggesting that each company be allowed to control content. Although TECHNICALLY there is no "net neutrality" NOW, and this site seems to be doing fine. Why is it not blocked now, if that's "what would happen if we don't pass a law forbidding it"? By your logic, we shouldn't be able to see this site right now.

Internet providers understand that the ONLY way they can NOT have regulation is if customers are happy with the service they get. It's when people are pissed about it (AT&T break up anyone?) that the Government steps in and makes things even worse.

Seriously, do you REALLY want the same people that screwed consumers over with the DMCA writing a law about this?

There's been so much hype and fear mongering, mainly by people that are making a profit from not having to pay for the bandwidth they're using, that most people haven't actually stopped to think what it would actually mean to pass this law, when there doesn't seem to be any problem right now, when we don't have it.

OK, everyone call me a shill and an astro-turffer and all that. After all, I couldn't POSSIBLY just believe that if there isn't a problem now, then there's no reason to pass a law to "fix" the no problem, right?

*sigh*

i'm confused. half of us in here are speaking as if there is already competition in the broadband market. as far as i see it, the only competition that exists is between which cable carries the signal. the assumption that the "free market will prevail" is bullshit b/c the free market doesn't exist. if it did, i would have a dozen vendors to choose from instead of two (one cable, one dsl).

now, i have cablevision, which effin rocks. but if i lived 5 miles west, i'd have charter which effin blows. for $50/month, i get 15Mbps down & 5Mbps up. in charter territory, that $50/month buys me 3Mbps down & 256Kbps up in charter territory. even charter's "gold package" at $80/month doesn't compare to what i pay. & we all know that DSL doesn't compare at all.

if you want to let the forces collide, for god sake, let them collide. break the franchise monopolies so we can see the true effects of competition. we should all have pick of the litter when it comes to the last mile.

I have too many cars.

I demand "garage neutrality."

I want you to build a garage and then let me park my car in it.

@dbeahn: How do you not pay for the bandwidth your using? I pay timewarner X dollars a month for a X Kbps stream down and up. I'm sure google pays somebody for their X kbps stream down and up and most likely total bandwidth. Don't really understand who is getting away for free

@forgeten: No one is getting free bandwidth now. ATT et al simply want to charge organizations more for priority service. Pay X dollars to have your site's traffic prioritized over other sites. Organizations who don't pay the premium will have their traffic relegated to the general traffic lanes which, with congestion, and lack of capital investment, could definitely become degraded and slow. An side consequence could very well be censorship. Possibly not intentional, but if say organization A paid for premium service, their message would become prioritized over those who can't afford to pay (organization B and C), which ends up being de facto censorship, even if organization A didn't intentionally seek to censor B or C.

Sounds like our government. Always for the big guys, never for the little guys. Something has to be done its like the big corporations are the ones really running the show not the people.

@killavanilla: Amen.

@Mojosan:

If we were talking about storage you might be making a point.

As it is you're just making a fool of yourself.

@forgeten: So do you support net neutrality? If so, why is what you're getting now so bad we need it?

@dbeahn:

Regardless, it isn't FREE now anyway. It's "non-premium." And if non-neutral net traffic comes about, it'd be a fool who bets on that "left over" space being large enough to accommodate even today's traffic.

Nevermind that this is just another anticompetitive move in the US telecom industry. Don't think for a second that this won't result in companies attempting to damage their competitors, and prevent new players from entering, by selectively throttling traffic, say, from servers they host to subscribers on their competitors' networks.

I think we've seen ample evidence that the big ISPs cannot be trusted.

@hypnotik_jello:

Oh, I doubt it will be a lack of attention that makes traffic slow. It'll be deliberate. All sites not paying a premium (or subscribers if they go that way too, in a more active way than simply paying for higher speed caps) will see have their performance deliberately degraded and the telcos will be all like "gee, we just can't keep up with demand." And without an internal whistle blower, no one will be able to prove it.

They are lying about the state of broadband in the US. They are lying about net neutrality holding anything back. They WILL lie about their actions if they are allowed to go down this path. LIES, LIES, LIES.

@dbeahn: For some people in certain universities net neutrality is already a topic of the past.

I do understand that basically being the ISP of s small town full of more or less children is a high cost operation... However, as a researcher and an avid internet user, I hated the throttled down protocols, ports, and websites. Such actions clearly focused activities to certain sites, applications, and similar; though often seemingly at random and unintentionally.

I have a significant suspicion that a strongly for profit firm will not act with the same benevolence (enlightened self interest) as many universities.

@TechnoDestructo: Except that we don't have anything that requires "net neutrality" NOW. I personally have "non-premium" service, as does anyone else with basic cable internet or basic (1.5mbs) DSL. And the point is THERE ISN'T A PROBLEM.

So please, explain to us as you see it, what exactly the problem is with the current non-neutral net we have. While you're at it, explain what possible reason "the telcos" would have to upgrade the network if they have no chance of making any addition money off of that investment. Do you think they'll continue to upgrade their networks out of the goodness of their hearts, without ever having any hope of making that money back? And you say they're LYING about it? I think they're being brutally honest - they're TELLING us: "Hey, if we can't make that money back, we're not going to spend it to keep upgrading the networks. You can just use what's there and when it's gone, it's gone."

Even a child can understand that idea. Go find a 5 year old with a lemonade stand, and explain that they should practice lemonade neutrality, where they pay for the lemonade mix, cups and water, then give it away without getting to make their money back or make a profit.

@dbeahn: From a technical traffic QoS prioritization perspective 1.5Mbps basic DSL and 6Mbps premium DSL are identical right now. Non-neutrality which ATT is lobbying for is to charge Content providers more for serving data. It has nothing to do with end users service charges.

Why do you think Google is opposed to it?

@hypnotik_jello: That's kind of my point. From a consumer perspective, nothing will change. The people that make the heaviest use of the networks will have to kick in more to keep the network upgraded enough to handle the services (video, for example) that they want to provide.

So is it "net neutral" that the ISPs have to constantly upgrade the network to handle that extra load amd the people getting the most benifit (and making the most money) from that investment in upgraded networks doesn't have to shoulder the cost?

@dbeahn: Well, why couldn't the telcos simply charge the content providers more money to cover the costs of investment? Why create a tiered system which introduced inequality and prioritization of packets and information?

If ATT is worried about infrustructure investment can't they simply raise the price without segmenting the Internet?

@jimconsumer: Problem is, everything I've heard about this issue revolves around ISPs who just want more money and figure they can cripple access to any site that doesn't pay up. That's a big load of bullshit and, quite frankly, I'm surprised the DOJ is refusing to get involved.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Ha. Gawd, your humor is spot-ON!

Oh wait, you're serious. It's the BUSH administration. Anything good for intrenched, well-lobbied interests is for "us". Anything that's entrepreneurial, innovative and relies on unmediated, fair capitalism is bad. That's how they play.

If this came into being ten years ago, there'd be no Netflix, Google, Facebook, Myspace, Gawker/Defamer/Consumerist/Wonkette, Youtube, iTunes Music Store, any of it. Because they couldn't afford the toll road charges that the wires guys would have charged. Hundreds of billions of dollars of our GDP - poof - gone. Let alone the kewlness factor and how they've impacted lives.

Kiss off the disruptive techs, such as VOIP (Vonage...) or bittorrent, or whatever transformative technologies are on their way.

It's a way to strangle innovation and for politically-connected quasi-monopolies to pick our economy's winners and losers. Which is simply anti-American.

On the bright side, Comcast and AT&T stock would be SUCH a good buy!

>> We pay more then twice as much per month and get 1/4 of the speed other countries get...and we invented the damn internet!<<

Not sure what "other countries" you are referring to, but I assure you that ~$45 a month (which is what I paid for Roadrunner and Cox on two different occasions between 2002 and 2005) for cable internet connection is among the world's lowest in relation to the speed you get. Roadrunnr and Cox offered me much more reliable and faster speed than in two different countries I have lived (one in Latin America and the other in the Middle East). I have family in Europe that pay as much for DSL as Americans pay for a faster cable connection.

Rates for 512 DSL in many countries is much higher than $50 a month, esp. in countries without a solid cable infrastructure. Satellite internet is much higher (the only alternative sans phone line DSL in countries without a large network of coaxial cable) and WAY slower unless you pay well over $200 a month.

@hypnotik_jello: "If ATT is worried about infrustructure investment can't they simply raise the price without segmenting the Internet?"

Why should Donald Trump pay more taxes than you? Shouldn't the IRS just collect money without segmenting the taxpayers?

Where Would be the best place to find the major arguments advanced both for and against net neutrality?

@dbeahn: Uhhhh, way to go with an analogy which doesn't come close to comparison.

This article is not even giving half the story. They don't want net neutrality because they want a two-tiered web. Here's a snip from bbc news:

The web should remain neutral and resist attempts to fragment it into different services, web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee has said.

Recent attempts in the US to try to charge for different levels of online access web were not "part of the internet model," he said in Edinburgh.

He warned that if the US decided to go ahead with a two-tier internet, the network would enter "a dark period". Sir Tim was speaking at the start of a conference on the future of the web.

"What's very important from my point of view is that there is one web," he said.

"Anyone that tries to chop it into two will find that their piece looks very boring."

Full story here: [news.bbc.co.uk]

Who here trusts ::ANYTHING:: coming from the U.S. government? Protector of all things corporate, particularly the bottom line. If you believe this load, I've got some waterfront property in New Mexico to sell to you. Contact me at 1-800-CHUMP

btw: Thats straight from Tim Berners-Lee, father of the World Wide Web. I'm sticking with him on this one.

Tim Berners-Lee: [en.wikipedia.org]

Explain to me oh supporters of no net neutrality. How this isn't a goddamn protection racket? It seems to me that the Backbone ISPs want to go to Google and basically twist their arms into coughing up money so that they can guarantee people can use their search engine. If they dont, well they're going to have some "problems" I want an explanation as to how this differs from the mob coming into someone's little grocery store and saying "If you don't pay us, your store might suffer a little disaster." Nobody is freeloading on the internet. Google pays their phone company for their connection. And the end user pays for theirs. Costs of transporting data across other lines across the world are covered in the fees paid at both ends.

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. Things are a bit better with telephone service, at least in my area. However, the problem is the little phone companies are just re-selling you an account with AT&T (or whomever owns the lines). So if you get DSL through a small ISP you're still stuck with AT&T or Verizon. There is no free market in broadband these days. The bigger companies just buy out anyone with a modicum of success or they cripple any less-desirable upstarts.

@Mr3vil:

Your comment about cable is >99% wrong. In the vast, vast majority of the US, if you want to start your own cable company, you certainly can. All you need to do is show the municipality that you have the financial backing required so that you don't go broke halfway through your buildout, leaving torn-up streets in your wake, agree to pay the franchise fees (about 5% of revenue) agree to provide free service to schools and municipal buildings, and agree to provide some public access channels, and you're all set. Problem is, the economics suck. RCN tried it, focusing on very high-income areas (the most attractive markets), and went bankrupt. Cable's a great business if you can get 50% of the households in your footprint as customers. It's a terrible business if you can only get 25%.

Market forces keep alternative cable operators away, not cable monopolies.

@jimconsumer: What I mean is that "premier" traffic gets priority, but that non-premier traffic gets whatever is left.

What I'm advocating is that ISPs are NOT allowed to intentionally cripple unwanted traffic. They don't like bittorrent, fine. Put it at the bottom of the priority chain. But if the pipes are wide open, then bittorrent gets to use them. There is a difference.

@hypnotik_jello: It's an imperfect perfect comparison. The jist is: Shouldn't the people that benefit the most also contribute the most?