Justice Department Opposes Net Neutrality 292
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."
Bravo (Score:3, Funny)
You're doing a heck of a job, Roberto.
Re:Bravo (Score:4, Insightful)
Like, maybe, cutting out copper infrastructures when installing FiOS, locking the current and any future customers in to one vendor?
Antitrust lost its fangs under Clinton and the rest of its teeth under Shrub. It's not even bother to gum corporations anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't net neutrality, (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Tax Incentives / Breaks.. Spend 30 minutes poking around on google you'll be sick.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Who paid for it? Lolcats?
Re:This isn't net neutrality, (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An 'SLA' is simply a Service Line Agreement [wikipedia.org], which when it comes to the Internet and Internet traffic, to properly provide means that the SLP (Service Line Provider) must not do anything to control traffic on that line - they're right under an SLA is to make sure the traffic gets to where it is suppose to go.
While the road analogies are bad, they are the closest. But think of it this way - you contract an 'SLA' t
Re:This isn't net neutrality, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Also, you might want to see just how companies like UPS and such do their 'batches' as you call them. They provide several pickups for packages depending on the priority (oops, pun there!) of the package as well as dispatches of majo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean like how I pay Comcast through the nose so I can get legal downloads like Zelda Retrospective DVD [wiinintendo.net] (alt link [thepiratebay.org]) NOW, but instead I'm plodding along at 30KB/sec because Comcast is throttling me?
:-)
Sorry, poor torrent service is a pet peeve of mine. Otherwise I agree with both of you completely.
Re:what the internet needs (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And when pray tell, was this?!?!
I wonder what the first porn on the internet was...and when was it posted?
Re:Here's a better analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what things like PROXY SERVERS were invented for.
Re:Here's a better analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Here's a better analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course my analogy was a bit flawed - most analogies are flawed at least a little. I went along that route because the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You've saved Slashdot!
Re:Here's a better analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Here's a better analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
ISP's should be tightly regulated in favor of the consumer, at ANY cost
The problem is regulation in the first place. Subsidies and tax breaks.
What the fuck is wrong with us?
You have faith in politicians.
100mbit broadband in Sweden is a myth
http://radiowood.com/2007/01/swedish-broadband-not -as-wonderful-as-advertised/ [radiowood.com]
Given that you believe what the politicians tell you and whatever rumours abound, I would say you're credulous. Just the way they want you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The best analogies come from ninjas! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit more like -- the Internet (capital I) is made up of a lot of separate entities connected together. Let's call one of these sub-networks an "internet" (small i). Given that capacity can be expressed in a metaphor of bandwidth as "diameter" of the conduit, it's clear that you could express the relationship as a series of differentially-diametered cylinders that provide communication for these sub-networks in a continuous flow, rather than the batch-burst of mo
I feel humbled... (Score:2)
Re:This isn't net neutrality, (Score:5, Insightful)
Without net neutrality, the "seller" (the content provider) is the one getting the bill. And yes, that is a competition issue. Large corporations will most certainly not have a problem paying for the "premium" service, while it could be a real problem for small startups which can now easily compete with established companies if they provide a better service. Without NN, it takes a lot more money to get into the content game.
This already happens! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Consider this: If the "seller" (or "content provider") is e360, do you want a law in place that says I can't discriminate against their traffic?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This isn't net neutrality, (Score:5, Insightful)
The headline should have said something closer to "DoJ opposes new Net neutrality *laws*."
One additional word. But a big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
According TFA, this IS net neutrality. (Score:2)
The Justice Department on Thursday said Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic.
This is not the same as charging more for a bigger pipe, this is charging based on *what* you down/upload.Yes it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
content-determined speeds (Score:3, Insightful)
Speakeasy is of course the google of ISPs, but don't be surprised if you start to see abuse of this system. AT&T has a deal with myMusic? Wow, my iTunes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Comcast starts filtering Fark and Slashdot, I'll move to Verizon.
Subscribers only (Score:5, Informative)
ok (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ok (Maybe) (Score:2)
THEY care because they are told to care. Law enforcement agencies (FBI, DIS, NIS, CIA, you name the rest) care because in their deepest nightmares, a service provider might go outside the known, standard protocols and en
Re:ok (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah! I'll take my expertise and authority from a bunch of armchair economists on Slashdot, thank you very much!
so $500M (Score:3, Interesting)
My brain asplodes. -OJ
Re: (Score:2)
Why exactly should I as a taxpayer subsidize some guy's 100 GBytes/month consumer cable traffic that he gets for peanuts? No, you do not have a constitutional right to discounted "moviez" and porn.
it is about wiping out the "consumer surplus" (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
The fix to all bandwidth issues is to have a true level of competition in the market place. The issues of pricing/availability/speed would fix themselves if this were truly encouraged by the government.
I can see the need to have temporary monopoly power in the sense its a price to pay for growth. But when better tech exists else
Same justice department that let Microsoft go free (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Same justice department that let Microsoft go f (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Have any more information on this? This is the first I've heard that claim against ICANN.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are several indicators that suggest that the actual cost to provide a domain name registration at the registry level is only a few cents per year (I estimate that it is less than $0.03).
ICANN requires that Verisign receive more than $7 for each name in
Of course they do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like patents, we in America need a profit-making monopoly to encourage progress in the useful arts and sciences. Because, everyone knows that businesses won't invest in technology unless they can turn it into a profit-making monopoly and shut out the competition. ;-)
Some people think of progress as something that enriches all of humankind. Obviously, these people don't work for the Justice Department - whose notion of progress is measured by how much money is being made from things formerly given away for free. Apparently, progress isn't progress unless you can put a dollar value on it and sell it. It's called Market Creation(TM), and it is considered a Good Thing(TM) by those who believe Corporate America(SM) is the savior of the working classes.
After all, every politician drools at the prospect of creating jobs out of thin air. The rights of the consumer, OTOH, don't seem so important.
Now is the time for us to raise our concerns with our elected officials. Write or call a senator. Send them an email before it becomes "premium content" and subject to an additional surcharge.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, the whole 'net neutrality' debate is descended into the heights of ideological idiocracy. I would swear listening to the two sides that taking a s
This is what we get . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's unfair - I'm a technical person, and I am against *legislation that forces net neutrality.* Here are different reasons why:
From a theoretical point of view, a non-neutral network has more POWER than a neutral one. It is, by definition, more flexible. In other words, it reduces to neutral network if no actual action is taken.
From an economist's point of view, a non-neutral netw
I trust them - don't you? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a side note... Windows 98 was $89 in 1999... Now... converting to 1980's dollars... that $89 in 2000 was about $186 (1980) dollars... Which equates to about $75 (2006) dollars... Which is fairly close to the price of Windows XP Professional currently... And you can easily find Vista Home for around $110 (2007)... so while the price has gone up (about 55% based on inflation)... it's only gone up about $20...
Now... comparing Windows 98 to XP Pro a couple of years ago you would see a much bigger differe
What (Score:2)
I'm not here to argue economics but the simple fact that you are comparing a full version to the crippled version makes your argument nul.
There are so many flaws in your statements and in your math... what gives? Inflation averaged 2% per year at most. Compound it. 9 years. Where do you get the 20? Then compare full version with full version or home version with
You are a Microsoft apologist.
If you take all factors in consideration Window
Re: (Score:2)
Well... You generally choose one year to base the estimates on... the current year that most estimates are based on are 1980's dollars... Compare the buying power of the dollar between the years...
All of the numbers used were based on wikipedia's current figures...
And I compared Windows 98 with both XP Professional and Vista Home...
Mind showing the flaws in my math? Again, I based the purchase price of Windows '98 in the year 2000, and compared it to the price of Windows XP Pro now, and the price o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what the hell is the Microsoft sidebar with live/msn search integration you're talking about? That doesn't ring a bell for me, where exactly is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am saddened to see non-open content on slashdot (Score:3, Informative)
Mesh networks will fix their little red wagons (Score:5, Interesting)
,
http://sf.meraki.net/overview [meraki.net]
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.
What choice do we have? (Score:2)
DOJ? WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
so how's that freenet coming? how about ad hoc? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not Your Job (Score:2)
If Net Neutrality has any bearing on isues such as bank fraud, identity theft, etc. (I really doubt it), then they have something to say. Otherwise, shut the hell up! They are having enough trouble doing their own job, let alone sticking their nose into other people's business.
Kill off competition (Score:2)
Scum (Score:2)
Open competition means nothing when you have one cable ISP monopoly and one telco DSL monopoly who has yet to drop a DSLAM anywhere nearby, and no other options. The DoJ is Scum here, when it comes to protecting the citizen against predatory big business.
hamper development? (Score:2)
Ya. If it weren't for Neutrality this Intar-web thingy would be *much* more popular by now.
monitor my butt (Score:2)
justice department is definitely on the list of public enemy institutions list. bought out by mafiaa.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You're being an idiot (Score:2)
Half of Net Neutrality is precisely the "strawman" you deride: I pay my ISP for high speed internet access, owners of the computers I access pay their ISPs for very high speed internet access, those ISPs negotiate peering agreements with each other... but some ISPs hope to get away with double-billing everyone by fr
You're being rude (Score:2)
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.
This is precisely what they have not said they were doing. Had they said such a thing, it would be trivial to show this was racketeering. And this is typical "the sky is falling" mania. Someone makes a false allegation and y'all jump around saying how bad the idea is, then when it is revealed that the allegation is false you continue to jump around saying how bad the idea is.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's precisely what the Norwegian telco "Telenor" did, by withdrawing from the country's open access peering agreement and sending huge bills to content providers who used that peering agreement, claiming that they from now on had to pay for the content they provided the telco's customers with.
(Luckily, this attempt fell flat, as Norwegians are NOT willing to play by market rules, but are strong proponents of net neutrality.)
I'm hoping to get through to you (Score:2)
Unfortunately, your ignorance is still showing. For years ISPs have been blocking and banning their users' legal applications (usually starting with "server applications" as the thin end of the wedge, with P2P applications currently on the chopping block), and blocking based on content [www.cbc.ca] isn't off limits either. What do you think SBC is threatening to do if Google and friends don't pay up, anyway? Send them a nasty letter?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if rudeness is what it takes, I apologize, but it's worth it.
Ok, fine, idiot - THINK.
Ya know what happens if an ISP blocks "Google and friends"? They get a phone call from every single one of their subscribers asking why they can't get to Google. If the ISP lies and claims that it isn't their fault? The customers say, yes, it is their fault, their friend with another ISP (or their connection at work) has no problem getting to Google. If the ISP still refuses to remove the block? The customers quit and go to another ISP.
You are living in a fantasy land.
And befor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The customers can't leave. (Score:2)
In most areas, there are exactly three broadband services available: cable, DSL and satellite. Satellite sucks, and cable and DSL are only available from the single local company that has a monopoly.
Cable and DSL are "natural monopolies": it would be very inefficient to have competition
Re: (Score:2)
If you really think that there is "competition" among ISPs or a free market in this industry, I've got a bridge to sell you.
And what if the local NSP with a monopoly decides to throttle stuff going to all the local ISPs? What "competitor" are you going to go to?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1) without an even playing field
2) in the presence of a monpoly
Broadband internet is a regulated monopoly. And without network neutrality, the ISPs can perform subtle slight-of-hand making it appear as though one web site is too slow while another is fast. Or make it appear like you need more bandwidth for your VOIP when you really have plenty. This distorts the reality of the market unto the consumer.
A libertarian should support network neut
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
A libertarian should support network neutrality because the minimal government intervention necessary to enforce the rules is required for capitalism to function. Libertarianism without this principle devolves into a corporate oligarchy.
A libertarian would do no such thing. Enforcing net neutrality laws in fact supports entrenched economic rights (i.e. de jure monopolies) rather allowing a free market system to work. Maybe people actually WANT a non-neutral system. They should be allowed to choose it if that is what they want. A libertarian would work to remove the regulatory barriers that give incumbent ISPs an economic advantage. With a proliferation of ISPs there would be a choice of carriers to use, and people would pick the service model they want.
This link illustrates the principle as applied to another famous monopoly.
http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/microsoft_monopoly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Take a lesson from history, drop blind ideology because there are no ideal fixes. Sometimes government intervention is good, sometimes bad. A blanket statement or position that ignores all variables is not a productive socio/political philosphy but so many Americans/slashdotters seem to take it because it's simplistic and appeals to the "KIS" side of you. Unfortunately people aren't simple.
Re: (Score:2)
and if all (in most cases, the word would be "both") of the providers in the area decide to throttle stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter, anyway. I don't seriously believe that even if legislation allows it, the majority of ISPs would do this; they know how important flat rate access is to people. If this gets done at all, the only way it will be is if the ISPs who implement it can somehow enforce that everyone does, and I'm not sure how that is going to happen.
I thank God that people
Re:Arguments against net neutrality (Score:4, Informative)