Bush opposes Net Neutrality, giving proof that GOP free-market stance is a cynical lie
Via the Associated Press:
The Justice Department on Thursday said Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic.
The agency told the
Federal Communications Commission , which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to “Net neutrality,” the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user.Several phone and cable companies, such as
AT&T Inc,Verizon Communications Inc . andComcast Corp , have previously said they want the option to charge some users more money for loading certain content or Web sites faster than others.
The Justice Department said imposing a
Feh.
This means that any of the ISPs providing service to Peorians could decide that any Web site owner that pays them cash will load quick any easy onto your computer. Silly little start-up Websites — like blogs that operate on shared servers, or even small start up companies — will be as slow as molasses. In other words, entrepreneurship will be stifled. The power of the Internet to level the playing field will be lessened. Why? So the Big Media companies can make deals among themselves and the the little guy out of the game because they cannot afford the sort of bribe that the Bush administration makes to make legal.
Feh.
UPDATE: Thanks to Rob Nesvacil at the progressive Illinois Reason blog for pretty much taking my side on this. My politics are hardly “progressive” by the definition most people associate with the term these days. But as a libertarian, I am resigned to the fact the both of the Big Two parties are right roughly half the time.
I’m not in favor of government creating an agency of a bureaucracy regulating the Internet. But I do favor a law forcing those who do what little regulation there is to prohibit what the telecoms are up to.
The telecoms say they want free markets so they can do business anyway they want. Fine, I’ll go along with that — exactly one second after every single government-sanctioned monopoly and franchise agreement that protects cable and telephone companies vanishes.
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
I don’t think that’s really what it means but whatever trips your trigger…
I like the idea of net neutrality (as it’s always been). The only hesitation I have is the more the government meddles in free markets, the bigger mess they end up making in the long run.
All the talk of keeping up with demands, etc… is coming from the big carriers, which I don’t trust much further than I can throw them.
Isn’t this rooted in promises that the carriers made but didn’t deliver on?
It’s been a while since I read up on it…
Bill:
Net “Neutrality” won’t do anything that you’re talking about, and is unnecessary government interference.
As for the market issue, there’s a short podcast from CATO (cato.org) on net neutrality where it’s argued that no matter which way it works (yes or no “neutrality”), the market will likely work out the bandwidth issue in time.
You should take a listen there–he doesn’t take sides on the issues but describes how the market might work it out either way.
James: If I thought for a second that ISP’s like the Verizon and At&T invented the Internet, I’d be inclined to sit back and let the market decide. But these companies are using a system developed with public money and private money. And if you can prove to me that AT$T can send their preferred sites to MY house without going through one single node that wasn’t paid for with public money, then I also would agree.
The Internet is either a common carrier or it isn’t.
There is really nothing different about this approach to internet service than there is to cable service. Those willing to pay more get a premium service level. OK – I guess the difference is that the control is coming from the business rather than the consumer but in practice, not all that different.
I would wager that if this goes into effect and your perceived result occurs, there will be a large market for ISP that don’t approach internet services this way and consumers will migrate to them. It may actually end up developing a new powerhouse in ISP providers that take a different approach.
BUT.. Bill wants the gubmint involved in internet if he can use it for free wifi….
Peo Proud,
I see the internet more as a multi-lane freeway. What the ISPs (telcos and cable especially) want to do is create express lanes that are paid for by content providers. Which all sounds fine n nice.
But what is missing from the picture is that traffic keeps growing n growing. Telcos have to keep upgrading to pay it off. Problem is laying wire is expensive and the returns on that investment keep getting lower and lower if not downright negative. Telcos don’t like laying wire that doesn’t increase the bottom line. So… all that increased traffic gets routed to the slow lanes, you know the far right lanes with the slow trucks. Now the telcos are going to argue that the money paid by content providers is going to pay for more wire but most of that is just going to go to supporting express lanes. If you think the telcos, once they can do away with ‘neutrality’, are going provide more bandwidth for the slow lanes, I got some real estate on the moon to sell you. Telcos invest where there is the most profit to be had.
So yeah the little guy with his innovative new search engine is going to get screwed because Google can pony of the millions AND insist on exclusivity which the telcos will be allowed to grant.
The way the the communications infrastructure is set up in this country, the Telcos have a point: It’s their wire and fiber.
The reason the U.S. has middling broadband speeds and poor penetration compared to the rest of the civilized world is the regulatory morass in Washington, perpetuated by lobbyists and a lack of leadership.
Lobbyists and a dearth of government leadership are also apparent in our dangerous lack of an energy policy and a health care industry that is slowly bankrupting the country.
This has NOTHING to do with improving speed and everything to do with shutting out competition. Look at the history of this country and see that the railroad companies did the same thing.
[...] September 7th, 2007 in President George W. Bush by robnesvacil The Peoria Pundit Billy Dennis points out the latest hypocrisy served up by Republicans as Pres. Bush ignores the supposed preference for “free” markets by coming out on the [...]
Billy,
Progressive or libertarian or whatnot has nothing to do with it. Honesty has everything to do with it.
“Free” market shouldn’t mean “freedom to extract money”. It should mean “freedom for all to do business”.
The Internet is one of the few entities which fits the bill of both a “free” market and a “fair” market. (It’s my opinion that the concept that has come to be known as “fair” markets are what most people think “free” markets ought to be. Big Biz conservatives will quibble with me on that, as Greg recently did regarding cable monopolies.)
Peo Proud: You are attacking a common straw-man. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with the relationship between dollars and bandwidth. NN proponents have no problem if MTCO charges $X for Y Mbps bandwidth and $2X for 2Y Mbps.
Net Neutrality simply says that an ISP can’t discriminate based on the source or destination of the data packets. NN proponents are trying to keep the monopoly/duopoly ISPs from forming anti-competitive walled gardens.
Note that Net Neutrality legislation probably wouldn’t be necessary if there was actually a free market for broadband Internet access. No company should be allowed to both own the pipe and sell the service when there are only two gov’t-allowed pipes (cable & phone).