Thoughts on DoJ’s Opposition to Network Neutrality Regulations
The Department of Justice yesterday submitted a filing to the FCC regarding that body’s ongoing consideration of Network Neutrality regulations. I’m not quite clear why the DoJ is in fact commenting on this issue at all, but the department made it very clear that they oppose network neutrality regulations. Here are my thoughts after reading the filing:
First, two somewhat valid points they make:
+ The DoJ says that no evidence has been shown of “systematic or widespread” abuse in the USA that would require a remedy. They are ignoring abuse outside our borders as “irrelevant”, and they say that abuse in the states was quickly remedied by reactive steps. This seems like a somewhat legitimate point, but only if we can actually trust the government to step in effectively when abuses do occur.
+ They say that not everyone agrees on exactly what network neutrality regulations should entail. That may be a valid point.
And now their two nonsensical arguments:
- They pull out the entirely irrelevant comparison to the USPS. It’s difficult to tell if they’re being intentionally dense or if they are actually that confused about the topic. They say that, like the USPS, ISPs should be able to charge differing amounts to end-users based on how fast they want their connection to be. I agree, of course. No one is saying that ISPs shouldn’t be able to offer differential pricing to end-users based on speed / bandwidth!
- And the DoJ suggests an absurd concern that if we don’t allow end-user ISPs to charge various content providers, then end users may be footed with the entire bill for network upgrades. They fail to note that the current network has in fact been built without end-user ISPs charging content providers, and yet the entire bill has not been footed by end users. Because content providers already pay their own ISPs lots of money for a fast connection, and that money filters down to the end-user ISPs (broadband providers) via peering arrangements, etc.
Nate Anderson, on Ars Technica, describes the actual issue best:
“Companies and consumers both currently pay to access the Internet; the money comes from both ends of the connection. And both groups are paying for complete access to the “cloud.” If network operators attempt to go after extra revenues from web operators, it would create a huge group of people “inside the cloud” that want to be paid. Instead of setting up a hot new web site, paying for plenty of bandwidth, and launching your business to the public, web site operators would need to pay not only their hosting provider but also Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and a gazillion other networks that sit between them and their potential customers. Getting on the information superhighway thus becomes only the first stop on a very long toll road.”