Justice Department Nixes Net Neutrality

(AP) The Justice Department on Thursday said Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic.

The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to "Net neutrality," the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user.

Several phone and cable companies, such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp., have previously said they want the option to charge some users more money for loading certain content or Web sites faster than others.

[LSB: Saw this comment from Plisko on another site and thought s/he had a great anaolgy. "If AT&T started giving people busy signals when they called one business and let them straight through when they called another business that payed for “premium phone connections” the country would freak out; if the power company started giving regular brownouts and blackouts to businesses who didn’t buy premium power service the country would freak out. I don’t know why the internet is any different."]

The Justice Department said imposing a Net neutrality regulation could hamper development of the Internet and prevent service providers from upgrading or expanding their networks. It could also shift the "entire burden of implementing costly network expansions and improvements onto consumers," the agency said in its filing.

Such a result could diminish or delay network expansion and improvement, it added.

The agency said providing different levels of service is common, efficient and could satisfy consumers. As an example, it cited that the U.S. Postal Service charges customers different guarantees and speeds for package delivery, ranging from bulk mail to overnight delivery.

"Whether or not the same type of differentiated products and services will develop on the Internet should be determined by market forces, not regulatory intervention," the agency said in its filing.

The agency's stance comes more than two months after Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras cautioned policy makers to enact Net neutrality regulation.

Such a regulation could prevent rather than promote Internet investment and innovation and have "significant negative effects for the economy and consumers," the Justice Department said in the filing.

Supporters of Internet regulation have said that phone and cable companies could discriminate against certain Web site and services. However, the agency said it will continue to monitor and enforce any anticompetitive conduct to ensure a competitive broadband marketplace.

LSB: So, Gonzo's "Justice Department" opposes net neutrality. That must be the ISP payback for allowing the "Justice Department" to get a sneak peek at the websites its customers are viewing. Gonzo is the gift that keeps on giving! And PLEEEEASE! Does anyone seriously expect this administration and its FCC reps to enforce any "anti-competitive conduct" against any of its major funders? The telecommunications industry, like Halliburton, gets a free pass and anything they want from this administration.

The quote for the FCC stooge also hinges on a bogus postal service example. The USPS is an agency of the Department of the Treasury. "The USPS does not receive tax dollars for operations and is a self-supporting agency;" however, they are also a not-for-profit organization and, therefore, their operations do not have to provide a return to any investors. Since the FCC is supporting the interests of the for-profit telecommunications industry (rather than consumers), let’s look to the example of for-profit mailing services – FexEx, DHL and UPS. I regularly mail a 9”X12” envelope of sales receipts to Chicago: the postage cost for a 3-day, first class mailing from the USPS without any of the frills is about $1.50; mailing the same package three-day, ground service from DHL would be $4.60; FedEx Express Saver (3-day) is $13.63; and the least expensive UPS option is a 2-day air service for $14.20. None of these three mailing services offers the full-service delivery of regular letter-sized mail, magazines or the dreaded bulk (“junk”) mail. Higher costs, limited services – that’s why the spokesman focused on the USPS charging different rates and not mailing services in general.

While not wanting to be a Chicken Little here, does anyone see the potential free-speech dangers that eliminating net neutrality may mean: to businesses that don’t pay “protection” money to telecommunications companies that host ISPs; to political action groups that are not in goose-step with the current administration; to religious communities that are not in sync with James Dodson, Don Wildmon and their ilk; and to hundreds of other groups and associations that fall outside the mainstream of American culture.

Besides, the FCC has already allowed the telecommunications industry to add enough fees to equal the amount of my monthly calling charges. The telecommunications industry is returning a healthy profit to their investors while I’m running out of pockets for them to pick. I pay an astronomical amount to my telecommunications company for phone service, cell phone service, long distance, DSL connection and cable connection. Restricting (or slowing) my access to certain website in the face of all these charges is akin to robbery.

Allowing free and fair access to ALL website is in the best interest of consumers - AND for the marketplace. "Big brother" and his corporate sponsors are afraid that the marketplace of ideas is simply getting away from them. It’s time for voters to let Congress know that this chicanery must be stopped; alternatively, voters should demand a net neutrality pledge from their candidates before the 2008 vote.