Slashdot Mirror
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."
My brain asplodes. -OJ
sig sig sig siggy sig
and not about the consumer, or the "development of teh internets".
when a company charges consumers different prices for the same thing (bandwidth) based on usage patterns (and not some characteristics of the service), that strongly implies the company is using (in)elasticity of demand to extract larger profits than a competitive market would allow them to. that implies monopoly-like power and, while is good for the company, it is bad for everyone else.
the real question is why then would the government propose laws that will encourage monopoly and enhance profits of the few large players in the game. what is the deal -- more control over internet usage? easier access to information about users of the internets? both? more?
They did promise to "continue to monitor and enforce any anticompetitive conduct to ensure a competitive broadband marketplace"
It kept Microsoft in check. Why, in 1999 Windows was $89 and Microsoft Windows was pretty much a monopoly, and the users had no real choice in the marketplace, and the bundled MSIE was being forced on users, knocking competitors out of the market - they were leveraging a monopoly to gain market share in another market. It was choose Windows, or you couldn't interoperate with anyone.
Now, thanks to the harsh antitrust rulings against Microsoft, Windows is now only $299, MSIE comes bundled with the OS, and you get the Microsoft sidebar with live/msn search integration whether you want it or not, and Windows is hardly the only choice for the average consumer.
Of course I expect the DoJ to monitor broadband providers to ensure they play fair.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
like this one in San Francisco, California:
,
http://sf.meraki.net/overview
I mean really. It is deplorable that the product of a publicly funded project (ARPANET) could be privatized in this fashion. So if the big telcos and cable companies think that they can eat our lunch, just let them try. Hopefully, the more they try to lock it down, the faster their business models will be commoditized by mesh networks.
Here is the question: Should the road builder be forced to open up his private roadways to the public, at no cost, even though he spent $X Billion of his own money building the roads?
That's about as far off as you can be. To go along with your original UPS/FedEx/etc idea...
You order a package from Amazon. Amazon ships it to you via UPS. Along the way, UPS takes your package along a toll road. The toll operator looks inside the truck, sees an Amazon package, wants to force the truck to take the slow lanes unless Amazon pays a toll in addition to the toll UPS is paying. Should that be allowed?
The DoJ seems to have become and arm of corporate america. Freedom was nice while it lasted. Bye!
And when pray tell, was this?!?!
I hate to feel the trolls, but, then again I think.....some people might actually believe this shit.
Get it straight...the internet was not developed for, nor designed to be there for business, nor family safe entertainment. Perhaps you are thinking about AOL before it was on the internet? That was not the internet...that was a private network....
The internet is not for business....business, like anyone else is welcome to use it, but, it is something that is and should remain a way for everyone connected, to be a true 'peer' to every other user with a computer hooked to the network. The little guy needs the same voice as the big guys.....and when you do this, well, chances are you might hear, read or see something you don't agree with...
It is a tool for the adult world...it is a freedom that must be preserved to give people a free voice to express themselves. If you don't like little Johnny seeing some parts of it...it is up to YOU as a parent to regulate their access. It is not right to muzzle the adult world for your lack of desire to police what your kids see and do on it.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Indirectly like the fact that Verizon got a huge tax windfall in PA for signing a contract to lay fiber to distribute internet to 98% of the state by 1998. Wait.. what year is it? I don't think verizon should have to do anything you ask them to as a consumer, if you don't like the service, don't buy it; however, they do have a contractual obligation, and they did sign up for that, so they had better either deliver, or pay the price, somehow. I actually had to MOVE so I could get broad band, and I lived only 2 miles outside of a moderately sized 'big-small-town.' I don't think as a rule they should be required to lease lines out in general to last miles, but given the circumstances of their contract with PA, I think they should in those cases have to sign at least someone up for a last mile in 98% of the places they have a mainline, if they don't want to carry it themselves I mean. If it wasn't feasible, they shouldn't have signed the agreement. End of story. I do think that it is their own right to regulate their own traffic if they are indeed providing the service. You can't have any such thing as an SLA without being able to somehow control the service... I'd pay a tax for government internet, as long as I get what I paid for. I somehow don't see them being able to do it though, so lets just make sure the private companies do what they say they'll do like any other business.
Speak for yourself.
well said. I'm glad my little post has been able to get this discussion rolling.
The fact that the ISP sector has received all these Billions in tax breaks and cash supplements, and then produced nothing near what they promised, is a travesty. That they are not being brutally legislated against is criminal.
Japan is one of the most successful 'privatized broadband' countries in the world. Japanese netizens have enough bandwidth (this is a normal home connection) to watch high-quality, streaming TV. Not some crappy youtube stream either; but stage6 HD at full stream. They built a very strong Copper framework originally, using government and private funds. It started out very much like how the US system was put together. BUT, Japan has laws are in place that force the ISP's to share access over their networks. The ISP's have to share at reasonable and useful rates, not some exorbitant rate that kicks out competitors. We've tried to get this allowed in the US, but the laws have been seriously lackluster.
These laws are considered the key reason that Japan has been so successful in spurring competition in it's ISP sector. It's also considered the key reason that there is so much Fibre infrastructure being laid down. Companies want to compete, so now that everyone has crazy-awesome DSL, and the multitude of competitors have dropped prices to their bare minimum, the ISP's are laying down Fibre-to-the-Home. But the issue is not cut and dry... completely privately-owned Fibre infrastructure isn't covered by the 'full competition' laws, so there is a big legal battle going on right now in Japan because all of the ISPs that lay down the Fibre want to keep that investment for themselves. They don't want to let competitors onto their wire... They paid for it, why shouldn't they get to be the main profiteers of it?
Ultimately, it's really a moral question. Trying to equate it to economics merely gets in the way. Should we, consciously and forcefully, tell these ISPs to take a hike? Should we tell them, as a country, that if they want to play the ISP game, they much be willing to share the wires at commodity rates?
I personally feel that the benefits of all should outweigh the benefits of the ISPs, which is why I support Net Neutrality. I come to this decision because I firmly believe that competitive environments are more important that the property rights of ISPs, and I willingly choose that helping spur the benefit of American internet companies is more important that keeping high the profits of American ISPs.
- DaftShadow