• The Four Hundred
  • Subscribe
  • Media Kit
  • Contributors
  • About Us
  • Contact
Menu
  • The Four Hundred
  • Subscribe
  • Media Kit
  • Contributors
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Whatever Happened to Net Neutrality?

    September 10, 2007 Timothy Prickett Morgan

    The U.S. Department of Justice has weighed in on the debate on Net Neutrality, having last week filed an ex parte brief to the Federal Communications Commission concerning prospective laws governing traffic on the Internet.

    While Senators Byron Dorgan, Democrat from North Dakota, and Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, co-sponsored a bill to preserve the neutrality of Internet traffic in May, the bill has not come out of committee and the FCC seems to be in no big hurry to encourage Congress to legislate on the matter or to make rulings of its own that might affect how Internet traffic is routed and the performance that is guaranteed–or not–by the Internet. The bill was introduced two months after the FCC got into the debate in March, asserting that it was the proper government body to determine rules for traffic on the Internet.

    A year and a half ago, Net Neutrality was on the lips of a lot of people in Washington, of the big telcos, cable companies, and service providers, and the modern Internet companies that are based on the Internet more than they are in a physical location on the planet. As you might expect, the telecom and cable companies that provide the backbone of the Internet and, for most of us, the links to our companies and homes, want to be able to shape traffic and charge a premium for premium service. This runs counter to a law dating before the Civil War in America ensuring that telegraph traffic would be transmitted without delay or any other kind of prejudice in a national telegraph network, regardless of who owned the wires. The common good, in that case, reined in the corporate greed. Net Neutrality advocates see the potential for the powerful communications companies to shape traffic away from parts of the Internet, which has happened on a number of occasions already, and they want laws to ensure absolute neutrality, as in the telegraph a century and a half ago. Some lawmakers in Congress want to meet somewhere between, allowing quality of service traffic shaping for a premium.

    In the Justice Department brief filed last week, which you can read here, the DoJ is essentially backing up the position of the Federal Trade Commission, which also has a say in the Net Neutrality debate (until Congress creates a law saying otherwise). Both government agencies, not at all surprisingly, say that laws protecting the neutrality of Internet traffic or access are not necessary.

    “The FCC should be highly skeptical of calls to substitute special economic regulation of the Internet for free and open competition enforced by the antitrust laws,” the Justice Department briefing declares. “Marketplace restrictions proposed by some proponents of ‘net neutrality’ could in fact prevent, rather than promote, optimal investment and innovation in the Internet, with significant negative effects for the economy and consumers.”

    Heaven only knows what the FCC will do, and how Congress will react.

    It is hard to say what is fair, and it is as hard to argue against Net Neutrality as a private citizen as it is natural for corporations, who have paid some of the cost of building the Internet, to want to maximize the revenues and profits they derive from it. The Internet is rapidly becoming the backbone of communications, but that is only true because American taxpayers paid for the initial development through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and then again as Internet technologies were extended and perfected in academia and then moved into private and public companies. The telcos and cable companies did not pay very much to license the public spectrum they use, both in wired, wireless, and cable networks, and they often behave as if they were the public, not us. As far as I am concerned, I pay for the use of the airwaves every time I pay taxes and every time I pay my cable and phone bills. It is a simple, basic assumption that most people have.

    Maybe the answer is to reckon exactly how much of their money the telcos and cable companies have pumped into building out the Internet, how much they paid for their spectrum rights, and how much it costs to do billing for such services. Then, maybe Uncle Sam should buy the Internet back after subtracting the amount of money we, as taxpayers, put into the Internet. Having done that, it can set up a public company–in the ideal sense of that word public–to build out and maintain the Internet, and charge a reasonable fee for access to telcos and cable companies that reach to our doors. Let Uncle Sam be the backbone, and telcos and cable companies can be the fingers and toes. Given that the telcos and cable companies want to have their little monopolies, this scenario seems unlikely. But this would perhaps be the best way of guaranteeing Net Neutrality.

    RELATED STORIES

    New Congress, AT&T Revive the Net Neutrality Issue

    Federal Trade Commission to Weigh In on Net Neutrality

    Google to Defend Net Neutrality with Antitrust Lawsuits?

    As I See It: Net Reality



                         Post this story to del.icio.us
                   Post this story to Digg
        Post this story to Slashdot

    Share this:

    • Reddit
    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Email

    Tags: Tags: mtfh_rc, Volume 16, Number 35 -- September 10, 2007

    Sponsored by
    New Generation Software

    Free NGS-IQ Webinar: A Better Way to Connect IBM i Data and Microsoft 365 Users.

    Business users rely on Excel, SharePoint, Access, and other Microsoft tools to view, analyze, and share data. But what if your data is too sensitive and complex to simply open up to non-technical users via ODBC and Microsoft 365’s query functions?

    Attend our webinar on June 22, 2022, and see how you can make the people you support smile even as you centrally manage and secure IBM i data access.

    www.ngsi.com– 800-824-1220

    Share this:

    • Reddit
    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Email

    SugarCRM Delivers ‘Landmark’ Release Sentillion Aims for Low Cost, Ease-of-Use with SSO Product

    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

TFH Volume: 16 Issue: 35

This Issue Sponsored By

    Table of Contents

    • IBM Cuts Price Tags on i5 550s and 570s, Tweaks Canadian Deal
    • Power6 Blades Finally Come to Market from IBM
    • Vision Solutions Says Business Is Better Than Expected
    • Power Systems Division: A New Unit, i5/OS and iCluster Included
    • Eclipse IDE Study Shows that Standards and Community Work
    • System i VIP Initiative Boosts Sales, Says IBM
    • ASNA Pushes More Than 1 Million DataGate Licenses
    • As I See It: The Paradox
    • Aldon Extends Partnership with SOSY, Launches IT Action Hero Contest
    • IBM Cuts Price Tags on i5 550s and 570s, Tweaks Canadian Deal

    Content archive

    • The Four Hundred
    • Four Hundred Stuff
    • Four Hundred Guru

    Recent Posts

    • IBM i 7.3 TR12: The Non-TR Tech Refresh
    • IBM i Integration Elevates Operational Query and Analytics
    • Simplified IBM i Stack Bundling Ahead Of Subscription Pricing
    • More Price Hikes From IBM, Now For High End Storage
    • Big Blue Readies Power10 And IBM i 7.5 Training for Partners
    • IBM Delivers More Out-of-the-Box Security with IBM i 7.5
    • Groundhog Day For Malware
    • IBM i Community Reacts to IBM i 7.5
    • Four Hundred Monitor, May 11
    • IBM i PTF Guide, Volume 24, Number 19

    Subscribe

    To get news from IT Jungle sent to your inbox every week, subscribe to our newsletter.

    Pages

    • About Us
    • Contact
    • Contributors
    • Four Hundred Monitor
    • IBM i PTF Guide
    • Media Kit
    • Subscribe

    Search

    Copyright © 2022 IT Jungle

    loading Cancel
    Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
    Email check failed, please try again
    Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.