In another blow to the concept of Net Neutrality, the US Department of Justice filed a brief yesterday with the Federal Communications Commission opposing the imposition of Net Neutrality provisions.
Net Neutrality is the concept that all information transmitted across the Internet should be treated as equal by data-transmission companies such as the telcos and cable providers.
Supporters of Net Neutrality legislation suggest allowing the transmission companies the right to charge premium fees for certain types of data will decrease creative access to the Internet by leveling extra expenses on content and application providers and/or individual users. They also argue that the major telcos and cable companies could in effect become virtual gatekeepers by stopping data they deem inappropriate to cross their networks.
Opponents of Net Neutrality say that regulation will stifle the development of Internet infrastructure and technological innovation. They suggest the Internet is growing rapidly but that Net Neutrality would limit any incentive to invest in and build more robust data-networks.
Using priority overnight delivery fees charged by the US Postal Service as an example, the D.o.J. brief suggests ISPs and web transmission companies should be able to charge premium fees for priority or increased access to information via their services. Many of the large telcos and cable companies including AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have lobbied against Net Neutrality arguing that such laws would hamper future development of Internet infrastructure.
The D.o.J. took that argument a step further in its brief, suggesting a flat-fee internet would shift “… entire burden of implementing costly network expansions and improvements onto consumers.”
“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 Department said in its filing. “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.”
The statement comes two months after a Federal Trade Commission study urged lawmakers to proceed slowly on Net Neutrality legislation. “In evalutating whether new proscriptions are necessary, we advise proceeding with caution before enacting borad, ex ante restrictions in an unsettled, dynamic environment.”
Though there is no timetable set for debate around proposed legislation, US Senators Byron Dorgan (N-ND) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) tabled a bipartisan bill favouring Net Neutrality called the Dorgan-Snowe Internet Freedom Preservation Act in January 2007.
Net Neutrality is an important issue for everyone involved with the Internet. As with all important issues, there are dozens of worthy arguments both pro and con.
For small businesses, content creators and aggregators, along with many consumers, a non-neutral net will present them with a multi-tiered fee structure for access to full broadband transmission. A non-neutral net will create higher overhead for search engines and other information distributors, which is why companies such as Google have lobbied so hard to preserve Net Neutrality.
For the data-transmission companies such as the major telcos and cable companies, a non-neutral net will allow them to charge higher fees for certain content such as movies, audio content and other bandwidth heavy files. The ability to have a more flexible pricing model allows them to create the financial incentives they say will spur innovation and investment in the Internet’s infrastructure.
For more information on the PRO-Net Neutrality side, please see:
SavetheInternet.com
For more information from the ANTI-Net Neutrality side, please see:
HandsOff.org
Have a question and need quick answers? 
