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."
This is already the case with a lot of webhosting providers - many run two networks, one with quality bandwidth blends that cost more for them to operate and result in lower ping times and higher throughput, and one with inexpensive (read: crappy) Cogent bandwidth.
This whole price to performance thing has been around forever - there are already massive tiers of quality built into the internet, both on the consumer end and the content provider end. Take a look at Akamai and Limelight - you'll pay absurd amounts of money to have your content hosted on their CDN - sometimes several dollars per GB transfered.
Then take a look at a webhost like Colo4Dallas, Voxel, or The Planet and you'll find that they as well offer expensive fast bandwidth, or cheap slower bandwidth. Also keep in mind that you can pay Time Warner, Optimum Online, or Verizon an extra monthly fee to bump up your speed. Should that be against the rules?
Prioritizing web traffic isn't really the major issue. I think your original analogy doesn't apply to this particular article, however it's a good analogy which hits on another core issue of "net neutrality" - ie the type of filtering that Comcast has been caught doing over the last few days. I think the headline is a bit misleading, as the DoJ isn't coming out against Net Neutrality - they're coming out and saying this is already how shit works, and there's nothing wrong with it. Now if they came out and said what Comcast is doing is alright, that would certainly justify the headline...
You probably want the ap.google.com version instead.
Who the hell cares? They shouldn't even have an official position on this; the Justice Department has certain specific duties and interests, and setting communications or commerce policy is not one of them. They have neither the expertise nor the authority to even contribute to the debate.
This is the same justice department that eviscerated the anti-trust judgment against Microsoft that the proceeding administration worked so hard to obtain.
And this is the same justice department that can't seem to see that ICANN is a combination in restraint of trade on the internet that is costing domain name consumers something on the order of $500,000,000 per year in excessive fees for domain names.
So I wouldn't expect to see this Justice department to notice even the total destruction of the end-to-end principle.
My prediction: The internet will soon resemble the US cellular phone system - a system of provider shaped lumps of good connectivity, for paid-for applications, and only enough free inter-provider HTTP/HTTPS connectivity to keep the level of customer complaints manageable.
And perhaps we might even see mandatory provider-centric, provider crippled user software, just like we have provider centric, provider-crippled cell phones.
A poster (above) has commented that this is analogous to UPS charging more to deliver your package faster. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ISP's et. al. want to be legally permitted to throttle or block traffic based not only on how much the consumer pays for internet access but also upon whether or not the web content provider has ponied up for "express lane" service. Also, the ISP's want the authority to block certain types of content from delivery altogether (gnutella, bittorrent, audio/video streams). A better analogy would be UPS refusing to give me priority delivery because the recipient on my package isn't on their preferred list - and letting UPS determine that the content of my package is not merely safe for transport, but doesn't contain anything which UPS might consider bad for their business (say, fliers and advertising materials for the USPS).
My local cable company shamelessly blocks all gnutella and bittorrent traffic (when they can identify it), and throttles audio and video streams regardless of source. My perception is that they don't want guys like me getting their audio or video unless it comes down their designated pipe - after I pay them for it, that is. Now, my ISP is a telco. I can stream/download anything I want, but I suspect that any attempt on my part to set up a VOIP solution is doomed to failure. Funny, when I was using the cable company for internet, they encouraged me to use VOIP, bundling their own telephony technology up with my cable and internet access. Hmmm . . .
Back to my point - this kind of decision is what we get when we let non-technically oriented people make fundamental, binding, long-term decisions about consumer rights vs. corporate rights with regard to technology. I suspect that the justices under discussion have the same understanding of net neutrality that the UPS poster does - and that understanding is inadequate to the job.
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
It only specifies 'users'. It doesn't specify whether the users are end consumers or not.
A better analogy would be:
"Should Intel be able to pay UPS to look inside your packages, and if it contains AMD chips, sit on the package for an extra day or two?"
Your analogy applies to the current situation, where ISPs already charge different prices for different bandwidths. So this DOJ thing can't be about that, since it's about preventing something that doesn't already exist.
It's about enabling ISPs to require end-consumers to pay more for faster delivery of content. The only way that can work is if at least some content is intentionally delivered SLOWER than the user's paid-for bandwidth.
paintball
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.
God damn people like you piss me the fuck off.
Internet is not a private road. Internet was built on lots and lots of public funds, and lots and lots of private funds. Likewise the physical cabling runs across all sorts of land, most of it public right of way, granted to the telcos to use for what amounts to in the end, a bribe to governments.
So you analogy has a fucking hole right in the center of it like akin to 'hello.jpg', fingers digging in and pulling it open and all.
And what YOU are proposing is not just a fee to get on this "private highway" but also the private highway gets to steal paint, concrete and exit/entrance ramps from the public highway. Unless you are talking exclusively about point-to-point lines, you are a fucking liar. ALL of it connects to the same public network one way or another. And allowing priority this and QOS will fuck it all up. You think the telcos get in pissing matches about peering points now, just wait until they can charge everybody by the packet/hop and oh, if you leave the network thats x10.
The ONLY question is do the carriers have a right to charge content provider A to content consumer B as well as charge content consumer B for the bandwidth.
In other words, can we extort and double dip or not?
Nobody with any goddamn brains thinks that's a good idea. Nobody that doesn't stand to get RICH while doing it as well anyway.
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?
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.........
But your analogy is a bit flawed. The UPS consumer who will receive the package is like you or I at home at our computer; we know not nor care what UPS had to do to get it to our doorstep, as long as they charge us the amount agreed upon. How do you fit that into your Internet analogy? I suppose you could say UPS is like your local ISP, whereas the trunk providers are the toll road owners.
And here is where it boils down to: assuming there isn't a local monopoly* on high speed Internet access in your area, your ISP is going to do whatever it is they can to please the consumer; if the consumer wants non-tiered** Internet access, they will either a) demand it and get it, b) go to a provider who will meet the demand, or c) do nothing because non-tiered access isn't, for whatever reason, enough for them to complain or switch providers.
*More often than not, competition is forbidden due to the local government giving a local company, or a "city-owned" company, a monopoly on high-speed Internet access. Don't like the service? Tough shit--get satellite or go without.
**Non-tiered from the end-user's perspective. If you're capped, and you most certainly are, it doesn't matter if access is tiered at a higher level than the cap your provider imposes on you, so you'll have virtually non-tiered access.
Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
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?
Problem with this: AT&T and others were given tax breaks and governmental funding to build their infrastructure. THEN, they charge the consumers to use it after having been granted an essential monopoly by the government. THEN, they continue to receive tax revenues and government subsidies to operate it (Universal service fund). NOW, they want to be able to charge Google to give their content to you, as well as charge you to get Google's content.
I don't know why you all want to use analogies, because this genuinely isn't hard to understand.
But, if it were your road analogy, it would be more along the lines of: The road builder spent $X billion of his own money, along with $Y Billion government subsidies to build the road. Now he has been granted exclusive rights to high-speed traffic, and the only other routes from anywhere to anywhere else are 2 lanes and filled with traffic 24/7. Oh, and he owns that route, too, by the way. So, he charges people a fee to use the highway, while the government is still paying him to maintain the road.
Now he wants to charge you not only to get ON the toll road, but to get OFF the toll road, and charge more, based on how fast you were going. Also, the road builder is ugly, and wants to have sex with your sister.
Whatever. ISP's should be tightly regulated in favor of the consumer, at ANY cost. It helps our case that our fucking tax dollars built their infrastructure in the first place, and that the companies have been granted a virtual monopoly over what *should* be publicly owned infrastructure. I dunno, man, sweeden seems to be headed for 100 Mbit internet for $30/month in the next year or three. What the fuck is wrong with us?
~Wx
sig?
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