DOJ on Net Neutrality: Trust Us

New wrinkles forming in the net neutrality debate, with the Department of Justice filing a brief with the FCC. Ars has a solid analysis:

The basic arguments that relate directly to net neutrality are twofold. One, the DoJ points out that there have so far been few real violations of the neutrality principle in the US. When egregious examples have come to light (rural telco Madison River was smacked down by the FCC when it began blocking VoIP calls), they have been handled quickly. Rather than lay down a "prophylactic" system of regulations, the DoJ believes it would be better to leave the market unregulated and deal with problems as they come up.

The second major argument is that network operators need to massively expand their capacity and consumers will be stuck paying the bill if network neutrality is enacted. "Several studies have noted," says the DoJ, "that prohibiting broadband providers from charging content providers directly would lead consumers shouldering a disproportionate share of the costs necessary to upgrade network infrastructure."

Left unexplained is exactly how a network infrastructure has been paid for over the last 15 years as Internet traffic as exploded. Here's a hint: it hasn't been done by forcing every website to pay every major network operator if said website wants to reach customers a little faster.

The real chiller, though, comes at the end:

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.

And, of course, let’s not forget that the most US consumers have only two choices (if they're lucky): cable and DSL. "Voting with your dollar" can be tricky or even impossible in many areas. Regulation may not be called for, but the DoJ report seems rather light on solid arguments to support that claim.

What can I say, big business owns the government, including the so called "impartial" justice system. The worst part is the apathy of the American public in general to this, so long as they have their god, NASCAR, and Bud Light.

Net Neutrality doctrine: A solution looking for a problem- still.

It's no surprise that content providers come down squarely in favor of it, and similarly, it's no surprise that hardware makers come down squarely opposed- both trying to protect their business interests.

For my part, show me an actual problem and show me the damage that it's causing before you try to convince me of the need for government intervention.