Why Is The Justice Department Commenting On Net Neutrality?
from the not-really-their-area-of-interest dept
There's been a fair amount of chatter over the Justice Department's decision to comment to the FCC about network neutrality, but there's been almost no discussion as to why the Justice Department should be involved at all. It's true that the DOJ covers anti-trust issues, but this isn't about a merger or the potential to create a monopoly. While I'm not in favor of regulating network neutrality, there are a bunch of really questionable statements in the DOJ's filing that simply don't make much sense. Take, for example, the following statement: "Regulators should be careful not to impose regulations that could limit consumer choice and investment in broadband facilities." If the DOJ really feels that way, then shouldn't it have also come out against the FCC's decision to do-away with line sharing rules that actually did allow for competition? Does the DOJ not realize that the market for broadband is already heavily regulated, which is why most consumers here only have one or two choices -- compared to other countries that have created more open markets on top of the infrastructure, allowing for competition, faster speeds and increased innovation? Does the DOJ really not realize how many gov't subsidies and handouts have been given to the telcos so that they could build networks where no one else could enter the market in the same manner?The DOJ also makes the bizarre argument that without breaking net neutrality, broadband providers will never make enough money to upgrade their networks. It's a dumb argument for the same reason that it's a dumb argument to claim that without network neutrality, it'll be too costly for certain sites to make enough money to offer cool services to users. Both arguments are ridiculous because they focus on the specific benefits to one private party and not how they impact the rest of the market -- and the DOJ shouldn't have any interest in focusing on the benefits of a single private party (and it's even worse for the DOJ to do so under the false guise of "free market" economics). Sure, without network neutrality telcos might be able to make more money in the short term. But you could just as easily argue that if network neutrality remains, it'll be easier (and cheaper) to create the next generation of killer apps that will make more bandwidth more valuable (allowing the telcos to profit handsomely). And, it's not even worth going into the DOJ's use of the thoroughly debunked claim comparing network neutrality to different delivery speeds at the post office. Basically, the DOJ brief (and, again, it's still not clear why they even have an opinion on this) repeats a bunch of the misleading half-truths that the telcos have spouted for months. Yet, it doesn't touch on the really key issue: there simply isn't real competition in the broadband market. Allowing the telcos to break network neutrality doesn't change that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, fcc, net neutrality
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The whole reason the justice dept is commenting is
Simple....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you're a bit late
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The whole reason the justice dept is commentin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing link
As far as the DoJ's involvement, it's purely political, paybacks to the telecomms for their donations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would you do with a 100mbs connection anyway? Most servers wouldn't deliver anything on that scale anyway.
Om Malik wrote a good article on this topic, he tried one out and found that what he has now isn't any different than if he were on 100 mbs. Granny doesn't need 100mbs to check her email once a week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I want faster speeds. I live in London and have a 24Mbit connection syncing at 16Mbit. That effectively gives me a download speed of approximately 1.5MB per second. Now that is definately fast and I do appreciate the speed. But the reality is even at that speed it will take several hours (longer than real time) to deliver a fully fledged HD movie.
The UK may only have started to offer online, on demand content and admittedly the quality is no where near high enough to require fast speeds, but I want the day to come when I can get an HD subscription from BT, the BBC or whoever is offering on demand content online and I want it at the very least in real time.
Now scale that demand up to a household running 2 TVs or 3 all watching multiple HD channels. Then BAM there's where you need phenominal speeds. Even if you seriously compress the HD source.
As for Grandma, frankly I don't care what she wants I care what I want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your talking about leaving the system the way it is even if more and more people are realising how slow they are forced to go. More and more people are getting online witch causes the rest to slow down along with them. More people are being introduced to YouTube and others every day. How many Xbox 360s, Wiis and PS3s are out there right now downloading vary large files? (Filled my 12G HDD in 5 days and didn't pay for any of it)
The image of the granny that checks her E-Mail only once a week is dying. Even mine, who was one, is starting to complain that her dial-up is too slow. I told her to go to broadband but no one offers it in her aria. NO ONE.
Having 100M down isn't to get one download going at the full 100 but to have several while one is streaming or video chatting with a friend. Even with my Comcast running at 20-24M down and 1.5M up it's really hard to do video chat. I have a security cam running at my place to let me monitor it from work. How many live web-cams are out there. Damn, I could go on forever.
Don't let the cable or DSL companies tell you that no one needs any more. Don't let them show you the granny who only goes online for 5min at a time and tell you it's the norm. Definitely don't let them tell you that if you download more than 5G a month it must be for illegal things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NetNeutrality is Lies, Lies, Damned Lies
All the bandwidth in the world exists, but it's not in the hands of AT&T or Verizon... They have to partner with Level3 or Qwest or another major backbone provider.
This whole debate is nothing more than the outcome of good lobbyists, by a company that decides to compete through legislative action, while hiding the core problem behind a very thin veil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video Over IP.... Maybe sometime
Sounds like U-Verse.
Of course, the Country's Telecom Monopoly also owns the backbone.
Below is a piece of creative they are using to advertise the service.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhpuKxOWIac
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I have a problem with is abuse of this technology, which would allow businesses with the biggest bank account to try and squash out the competition. If and when that actually happens, then the need for legislation will be revisited. Until now, it's best to leave it alone. I am always in favor of fewer laws and smaller government. After all, everybody is human, and if we (humans) can't control our own lives, what makes you think the government (also composed of humans) can do any better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Intertubes are overflowing.
Sure it would only be fast on the downlink, but for example, the iPhone could use terrestrial connections for requests. It's also in a MEO or medium Earth Orbit so the latency isn't too bad.
CableLabs just ratified DOCSIS 3.0 which enables 160MBps, which is hawt.
Point is that there wouldn't be anything to fight about if it was available in excess. Instead of controlling the scarce resource, be it Oil, internet, or civil liberties (Shameless plug- Yes, Ron Paul would be a breath of fresh air), we should probably look at solutions that flood the market with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ideas...
But I agree with the above posts. The solution to increased usage is not restricting usage. The solution to increased usage is increased infrastructure.
Who you cater to is very easy to understand by which side of the issue they are on, and yes it smells like a bribe to me. The sooner the telecoms wake up and realize that they are a utility just like water, gas, and electric, the better.
http://tubesdance.ytmnd.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who needs bandwidth anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After everyone gets on board, and sets up shop, switch to oh sorry we think we will now charge you on whatever we feel like based on whatever else we feel like.
Bend over America, and thank GWB for the priveledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net neutrality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government backing
The flunkies in the Justice Department need to realize that they are NOT in the legislative branch. At no time do I want the Justice Department to decide what is (and what isn't) law. I want them to FOLLOW the law. Period. End of story. Shut up, go about your business, and don't "comment" on what you think. You're not paid to legislate.
As for AT&T and their business model, at no time do I trust any of the big telecommunications carriers. They are not looking to serve us. They are looking to separate us from our money. They have very little concern for providing a quality product. They cherry-pick. They abuse the system. They do whatever they can to influence and interpret the rules to benefit themselves and no one else.
If AT&T and the other carriers had their way, we'd get a low-priced AWFUl service, and an extremely over-priced "better" service, and a high-priced "best" service.
If you think you want disparity between rich and poor people, wait until AT&T has their way. The rich will have fantastic connections. The poor will be left with the crumbs.
We already have an FCC that kisses AT&T's ass. Let's not get a Justice Department (or any other department) that does too. Can we impeach the Justice Department?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what a sham
[ link to this | view in chronology ]