The US Justice Department has said that internet service providers should be allowed to charge for priority traffic.
The agency said it was opposed to “network neutrality“, the idea that all data on the net is treated equally.
The agency submitted its comments to the Federal Communications Commission, which is investigating net access.
The Justice Department said imposing net neutrality regulations could hinder development of the internet and prevent ISPs from upgrading networks. “Regulators should be careful not to impose regulations that could limit consumer choice and investment in broadband facilities,” said Thomas Barnett, the department’s antitrust chief.
The agency’s stance is contrary to much of the internet community that believes in an open model for the internet.
What keeps the Internet from expanding in the US at a global rate is the country club fraternity of Telcos and politicians – and their willing flunkeys. The thing they fear most is equal opportunity and equal access.
What I thought Net Neutrality was really about was that the major players, media giants using the internet, did NOT get a free ride (or relatively cheaper rate) than all other customers. The implication was that some of them might unfairly receive cheaper rates, compared to their competitors,
which might be charged much higher. Thus constituting an unfair trade practice. Such as what Anti-Trust laws are supposed to protect us from. The sort of thing Standard Oil once did, enfluening the railroad carriers to charge competitors more to transport oil, than Standard was being charged. This may explain why the Justice Dept. is interested here. This will eventually involve Anti-Trust sometime in the future. So they would like to have “past practice” to fall back on, as to why their corporate friends should continue to get away with it.
In essence what is happening is that our nation’s (and world) assets are being “privatized”. And the new owners are attempting to call the shots as to who pays how much, for its use. And for who gets to pay very little, because they’re an associated asset. IOW, big trucks owned by US Highways Inc, get their own fast lane for practically no fee. And the rest of us get the slower lanes at a steeper toll. Citizen visiting US Parks Inc, pay more than those associated with US Parks Inc. These companys don’t as yet exist. I use these names as examples. Not to be taken literallly. But the way things are going, I expect it won’t be long before they do exist in some form. And the internet as the digital form of these assets (highways and parks), would suffer the same fate if Anti-Trust or Net Neutrality did not exist (or politicians ignore it).
Glenn,
“The implication was that some of them might unfairly receive cheaper rates, compared to their competitors, which might be charged much higher. Thus constituting an unfair trade practice. Such as what Anti-Trust laws are supposed to protect us from.”
How exactly is it unfair trade practice for an ISP to offer QoS to its customers, as long as it’s open to anyone who can pay?
Also, those pipes are already private! I work for the coalition on the NN-skeptical side of this debate, Hands Off, and I’m surprised how often these little things get overlooked. People on one side of the debate accidentally argue the other side’s points, and so forth.
Obviously, it’s really complicated. So mark that down as another reason why we shouldn’t be asking the government to regulate here — Lord knows they’d get it wrong for sure.