Mobile/PDA About Us Advertise here


		User name	Password

		Not registered yet? Register here. Lost your password? Click here.

Browse by topic

News

DoJ says net neutrality is a bad choice for consumers

7 September 2007 5:25 by Rich "vurbal" Fiscus | 19 comments

The US Justice Department suddenly feels the need to weigh in on the net neutrality debate. In short, they're against it.

In comments submitted to the Federal Communications Commision in that agency's official discussions, the DoJ said net neutrality "could deter broadband Internet providers from upgrading and expanding their networks to reach more Americans." This raises many questions, not the least of which is whether this is a false crisis caused by greedy ISPs marketing their networks beyond capacity.

As broadband connections become the norm among residential broadband customers, those customers want to make use of applications like Streaming video - the same applications broadband internet providers use as selling points. But the fact is many ISPs don't have enough available throughput to handle a large percentage of their customers streaming reasonable qualtiy video. Another fact is that most people are paying for a maximum speed that their connection may not actually achieve.

In order for large scale consumption of high quality video and audio to become a reality it's fair to assess whether existing internet connections are capable of handling it. It's also fair to ask what needs to be done to get the network ready. But painting ISP's as victims of greedy internet companies is simply ludicrous.

If you download a video from some website, they've already paid for enough bandwidth to transport that video to the internet backbone. At your end, your ISP must also provide that amount of bandwidth. If you aren't paying enough for your ISP to provide that bandwidth it's not because the online store you purchased from didn't pay enough. It's because your ISP has built a network that's not designed to handle that kind of throughput.

If they can't provide it for what you're paying them, they should come clean with their customers and say "we need to charge you more." instead they, and apparently the DoJ, prefer to complain about online retailers who are assumed to have the money to pay for it. But of course in the end that cost will be passed on to their customers.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to charge customers more for using more bandwidth, but that doesn't require singling out specific web services or online merchants to blame. In the end, would it be that hard to just be honest to consumers and sell them a plan that gives them what they think they're paying for?

Sources:
Reuters
The Register

Permalink to this article

DOJ not happy about proposed IP law (15 December 2007)

Pirate Act makes yet another appearance in the U.S. Senate (10 November 2007)

Japanese firm to offer priority access to new data network (8 October 2007)

Ex-Comcast customers just want to know what the limits are (9 September 2007)

« Previous news article
Apple offers $100 credit to early adopter iPhone buyers

Next news article »
Universal Music files infringement suit against Veoh

Post your comment

Discuss this article!
nobrainer (Inactive) 7 September 2007 8:07
Prepare for a two tier internet, those who can afford an extortionate amount to surf and those who get very little. and this is good for the public how exactly, other than a list of pages that are blocked as you ain't a premium user. i suppose all those anti gov and free press pages can be blocked out easily from the masses this way! [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 7 September 2007 11:46
*Originally posted by nobrainer:* Prepare for a two tier internet, those who can afford an extortionate amount to surf and those who get very little. and this is good for the public how exactly, other than a list of pages that are blocked as you ain't a premium user. i suppose all those anti gov and free press pages can be blocked out easily from the masses this way! is not a 3 tier more likely you have the ultra basic where half the net is blocked for the poor populaces protection ya know free infermaiton is bad for them and all, then you have the premium where if you have money you can buy your connection and enjoy most of it leaving the goverment to keep its kiddie porn(cuase you know thos rich old bastards get off on it) and to filter out anythign it dislikes, hiel mein goverment heil! [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7 September 2007 11:52
Unfocused (Junior Member) 7 September 2007 16:18
*Quote:* Another fact is that most people are paying for a maximum speed that their connection may not actually achieve Didn't AOL go through something like this a few years back? I seem to remember a situation where they were not signing up new users because their network could not handle them. [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 7 September 2007 16:25
*Quote:* *Quote:* Another fact is that most people are paying for a maximum speed that their connection may not actually achieve Didn't AOL go through something like this a few years back? I seem to remember a situation where they were not signing up new users because their network could not handle them. Statlie internet company's live by throttling consuemrs to death. [ + quote]
CTerrian (Newbie) 7 September 2007 16:45
Regulating the internet by the government is a bad thing. You get what you pay for. [ + quote]
akaangus (Member) 7 September 2007 20:55
This already exists, at least in Canada. The Rog throttles BT and other P2P traffic like crazy. Since people started encrypting their connections to get around it, they throttled encrypted connections too. Shaw for awhile was throttling other companies' VOIP to make it unusuable, and sold for an extra something a month a VOIP option for Vonage. This debate is already over, and the ISPs have won a long time ago. [ + quote]
RNR1995 (Inactive) 8 September 2007 8:53
Don't worry the government will ruin the Internet too they always bleep everything up they touch Bunch of old fat ass suits, just lining their own pockets HMM was it the giant douche or the turd sandwich this time????? [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13 October 2007 6:44
duckNrun (Member) 8 September 2007 11:49
The REAL question is: WHY is the department of justice (a law enforcement agency) commenting on the benefits of a certain structure of the internet? As a law enforcement agency they should ONLY be commenting on the legal/illegal aspects of said structure but not on 'what is best' for the interent. Just a thought guys. [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 8 September 2007 15:59
*Originally posted by duckNrun:* The REAL question is: WHY is the department of justice (a law enforcement agency) commenting on the benefits of a certain structure of the internet? As a law enforcement agency they should ONLY be commenting on the legal/illegal aspects of said structure but not on 'what is best' for the interent. Just a thought guys. Information is power and they dont like their masters power in this case the media mafias power being messed with ^^ [ + quote]
DXR88 (Member) 8 September 2007 20:57
Bring it on. im getting bored with the internet its so basic. yes lets be like china split the internet into provences great idea that way i can just bleep up whatever the goverment has planned. yes such is the life of a hacker. What ever happend to the american goverment. After the great depression the goverment aligned it self with power and money, and a power hungry economy was born. the digital age is not fair but there are few who will stand against the goverment in it. these people who stand up against them are called Hackers. Hackers was a name given to the people who ruined every attempt to make the internet secret in the first place the internet was born in the late 40's and it was never mentioned on the outside intill the 60's [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13 October 2007 6:44
jacsac (Member) 8 September 2007 22:35
Are you telling me Al Gore didn't invent the internet? [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 8 September 2007 22:41
*Originally posted by jacsac:* Are you telling me Al Gore didn't invent the internet? Yes that is true he didn't invent hipacritisisim either but dose it well :X [ + quote]
DXR88 (Member) 9 September 2007 5:01
Thats funny ... All your internet now belong to U.S.! set us up the ISP! HAHAHA! [ + quote]
borhan9 (AfterDawn Addict) 11 September 2007 1:10
they can jump if they are going to try and create a division, its already divided as it is. [ + quote]
xhardc0re (Senior Member) 9 October 2007 2:48
pay for broadband, get dialup. with Spam at no extra charge. [ + quote]
hughjars (Inactive) 9 October 2007 4:49
The genie is out of the bottle. They can make as many of these noises as they like but they won't attract the numbers they need. 'The people' won't go for it in a million years & these day-dreams of a controlled, certificated & DRM infested internet are just straws & mirages that right-wing control freaks clutch at. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9 October 2007 4:50
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 9 October 2007 8:31
*Originally posted by hughjars:* The genie is out of the bottle. They can make as many of these noises as they like but they won't attract the numbers they need. 'The people' won't go for it in a million years & these day-dreams of a controlled, certificated & DRM infested internet are just straws & mirages that right-wing control freaks clutch at. Don't forget the Dim nanny nazis will not like anythign for adults and only wish the net to filled with things only children can understand! [ + quote]
nobrainer (Inactive) 10 October 2007 1:21
The american government saying this is truly worrying, when they are handing power over to the companies that they are in bed with for illegally wire-tapping citizens and the powers that be lobbying for immunity for the crimes they committed. Then you have the bill that went through without much of a whisper that secretly allows companies to use rootkit drm with phone home abilities without facing prosecution. in the name of piracy and terrorism they are creating a global monitoring system that reports back to the media companies that are owned by the likes of rupert murdoch, daviarockefeller, warren buffet, jacob rothschild, ect. READ LINKS! MPAA to FCC: Net neutrality could kill a cornucopia of content (monitoring) Media companies want to take advantage of laws designed to counter terrorism. Giant coalition opposes Broadcast Treaty sifting through many links bare with me! Track What Companies Have Edited Wiki http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ (very heavy load atm) [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10 October 2007 1:37
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 10 October 2007 1:32
*Originally posted by nobrainer:* The american government saying this is truly worrying, when they are handing power over to the companies that they are in bed with for illegally wire-tapping citizens and the powers that be lobbying for immunity for the crimes they committed. Then you have the bill that went through without much of a whisper that secretly allows companies to use rootkit drm with phone home abilities without facing prosecution. in the name of piracy and terrorism they are creating a global monitoring system that reports back to the media companies that are owned by the likes of rupert murdoch, daviarockefeller, warren buffet, jacob rothschild, ect. and to think soon these companies will be "helping" the nation vote with paperless untraceable digital voting machines ^^ HEIL!HEIL! to the corporate machine! [ + quote]