Justice Department Opposes Net Neutrality

thornomad writes "I was saddened (though not surprised) to read that the Justice Department opposes net neutrality saying that it could 'hamper development of the internet.' While it may seem counter-intuitive to me, they argue that allowing ISPs to provide different levels of service/speed for different content will benefit consumers. They did promise to 'continue to monitor and enforce any anticompetitive conduct to ensure a competitive broadband marketplace' — not that anyone was worried about that."

Comments

Subscribers only

[Timothy Brownawell]

You probably want the ap.google.com version instead.

Re:This isn't net neutrality,

[farkus888]

there is a HUGE difference between allowing me to pay more for higher bandwith to my house so I can download your website as fast as the bandwith you paid for allows and both of us getting charged to get the bandwith we already paid for prioritized so we can actually use it. they want to charge you so that once it gets past your link and on to the backbone of the net it doesn't get the brakes slammed slowing it back down. basically this is a chance to make us pay twice for speed. I don't mind paying but I think its a ripoff to make me pay twice for one service.

Re:Why?

[arth1]

Once you put up a blog or small store, and it becomes popular, and you suddenly get a bill from a large provider who's not even your provider, saying you either pay, or they'll block all their customers from visiting you, you might get it.

Re:Arguments against net neutrality

[bl968]

Because I purchase bandwidth from my ISP for a set amount of money to be able to use with any site on the internet that I choose to visit. I should not then be penalized because X site does not pay my isp to allow my traffic to go to them or visa versa.

Re:This isn't net neutrality,

[jcr]

The sticking point is most of the current infrastructure the government and indirectly we paid for.

That hasn't been true for at least a decade.

-jcr