Login:
Password:

Antitrust Battle Next for Net Neutrality?

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

July 5, 2006, 4:14 PM

Google said Tuesday that it was prepared to take the legal route if it felt telecommunications companies were abusing their market position, a sign that the net neutrality fight may extend beyond the halls of Congress and into the courts.

Attempts o have some type of net neutrality provision added to a broad communications law reform bill making its way through Congress have so far failed. The closest supporters have come was in late June, when a Democratic amendment failed in a Senate Committee in an 11-to-11 tie.

The net neutrality fight has also turned into a partisan issue. Most Democrats and Internet companies say not including the rules could create a "two-tier Internet," while a majority of Republicans have sided with the telecommunications industry saying the laws are needless regulation.

With Republicans in control of Congress, its rather unlikely that any net neutrality provision would make it into the bill if it was passed this session, say interest groups.

Google vice president Vint Cerf made the company's position known at a press conference in Bulgaria Tuesday, Reuters reported. While Google will not challenge the law outright in court, it would look at each incident, if any, and complain to the Justice Department's antitrust authorities if necessary.

Cerf, who is in the country on official business, said Google is not completely convinced that telecommunications companies will not abuse the powers they would be given under the new law.

Companies like Verizon and AT&T, which own the pipes that Internet traffic travels through, are now starting to offer services of their own that compete with those of companies like Google, Microsoft, Vonage and others.

These Internet companies fear that the telcos could prioritize their own traffic, giving them an unfair advantage over competitors.

With the 2006 elections fast approaching, it is appearing increasingly unlikely that a bill will be passed this session. That may benefit supporters of net neutrality, as it is widely expected that Democrats will pick up seats in both the House and Senate.

Add a Comment (39 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By 33Nick

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 1:30 PM

The problem is that Verizon and the other big boys are shooting themselves in the foot. This will eventually bog down the internet and backfire. They are just too shortsighted and greedy. Has anyone read Robert X. Cringe on pbs.org? He makes great points and I agree.

It's about money, power and politics. Always a very bad menage a trois.

Score: 0

By bbetauser

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 10:05 AM

Can't we just keep the internet free like the military intended? Who holds the patents to the internet? It it was me and the tecols get this law, i would just charge the telcos really really high fees for using my technology!!!

Damm, telcos, microsoft, google, patent, lawsuits... whats next??? A fake war? [did i just say that?]

Score: 0

By radioactive21

edited Jul 6, 2006 - 7:07 AM

Remember these are business, BIG business fighting BIG business. My point, its never about principles or values or anything ethnical. Its about the money.

Both sides want the advantage for them when it comes to profits. Net Neutrality is the battle of the giants, which is very bad news for internet users and the public.

In the end the public's ignorance or lack of understanding of net neutrality will hurt the internet as a whole.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 9:56 AM

"In the end the public's ignorance or lack of understanding of net neutrality will hurt the internet as a whole."

Exactly. This is why the "net neutrality" bill failed to pass (not to mention the fact that it is a Democratric proposed bill in a Republican dominated government)

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 12:02 AM

Here's a Star Trek thought for you: what if network infrastructure was managed globally, rather than by multiple private companies within each country?

Some constructive thought on this one? :)

Score: 0

By 33Nick

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 1:33 PM

Ultimately it will happpen one day, it has to. For anything to survive, society, a race, a system, there needs to be a unification. The problem with globally managing is who will do it. Maybe a system like the Swiss have? A truly democratic system with checks and balances where people are really asked and lobbies quickly dismantled while backing off big corporation with an invested interest?

I don't think most CEO of these big companies are capable of thinking outside the box and let the greed behind. They are just not developped enough.

Score: 0

By iamtux

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 11:20 PM

Woohoo! Go Google!

"Cerf, who is in the country on official business, said Google is not completely convinced that telecommunications companies will not abuse the powers they would be given under the new law."

I'm convinced they will abuse their power.

"These Internet companies fear that the telcos could prioritize their own traffic, giving them an unfair advantage over competitors."

Honestly, I think this is a given.

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 10:43 PM

Gotta love Google!

Score: 0

By Spyderloco

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 8:38 PM

Man, you people will argue about anything.

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

edited Jul 5, 2006 - 10:01 PM

No we won't, you're wrong! :P

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 11:13 AM

No he's not. It's obvious to anyone here.

Some people...they'll argue about anything... ;)

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 9:28 PM

heh

Score: 0

By rla0001

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 8:19 PM

Suprising since Google's own search results are anything but neutral.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 7:58 PM

Net Neutrality as I understand it is supposed to guarantee that ALL web sites get equal "representation" on the Internet by ISP's and other services.

So what about the illegitimate traffic like spam, kiddie porn, viruses, security threats, botnets, and fraudulent web sites? Are we supposed to treat these equally as well?

I think it's amusing that for every liberal that wants equal rights, they sure are selective about who they want those equal rights to go to. I mean, we don't want to increase minority status... instead we try to limit majority status to be equal.

But as soon as something bad happens, they blame the person who made the rules, not the person breaking them... HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN!?!?! WHY DIDN'T YOU STOP THIS?!?!?! etc etc.

Net Neutrality is perfectly fine... and it's going to give people EXACTLY what they (think they) want... if you're into the whole equality thing.

Personally... I'm not one to limit anyone... but I'm much more of a MERIT kinda guy... I think things should receive back what they put into life... and thank goodness more people still seem to agree with me! :)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 11:17 AM

I think you're reading too much into it.

Net neutrality simply means no-one gets preferential bandwidth.

This is how it works now, and, in many folks opinions, how it should continue to work.

Cutting bandwidth to *anything* we deem as socially unacceptable (other than that which is illegal) would be trampling all over our first ammendment rights.

And as for Merit...who gets to decide? no-one trusts the government, apparently. Should we hand this over to the folks behind ESRB, perhaps? I mean, we can all trust them, right? How about the board of education? No?

Any suggestions? I know I could do it. I mean, ya'll trust *me*, right?

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

edited Jul 5, 2006 - 10:00 PM

"So what about the illegitimate traffic...Are we supposed to treat these equally as well?"

That's silly. It's like saying we should not give everyone the same rights to drive on the highways because "are we supposed to allow drunk drivers and criminals drive on them too?" Those things you listed are illegal regardless of whether the net is neutral or not, it has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. This is about not allowing "companies" to restrict web access, not spammers or criminals.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 8:18 AM

It's not like saying anything... it's exactly what it is, and no amount of Politically Correct word play will change that fact.

You say it's not about that, but that's exactly what will happen. Some of the shadier, borderline problem sites will cry foul and say they're just trying to conduct a business.

And thank you for proving my point... it's always about equal access when you talk about it... but you (at least) ignore the problems or (at worst) cover up the problems that the plan creates.

I believe in improving things, and I believe in fixing problems.... but if it isn't broke and it isn't improvable without creating problems, then leave it alone.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 11:18 AM

Net neutrality *is* leaving it alone. Am I missing something in the point you are trying to make here?

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 4:12 PM

I am not sure they know what their point is, let alone the issue.

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 10:45 PM

Well said.

Score: 0

By zridling

edited Jul 5, 2006 - 6:00 PM

...What GCoder says. Go Google Go!

Net Neutrality will be the single biggest issue in our computing lives in the next generation. If you want a corporation to control who gets access and to what, then vote republican. If not, then in the words of The Boss, Rise up!

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 9:48 AM

Totally agreed "ZRIDLING"

(does best comedy preacher impersination...)

We must riseup'a!

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 10:48 PM

True!

If Internet = TV,
then Verizon = NBC,
Concast = ABC,
and AT&T = CBS

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 6:09 PM

The sad fact is, 90% of the population doesn't care. And they won't....

...until they get the bill.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 9:43 AM

EXACTLY.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 5:34 PM

"a majority of Republicans have sided with the telecommunications industry saying the laws are needless regulation."

Is it funny to you REPUBLICANS?

IS IT FUNNY to see this fine country ruined in 8 short years!

"needless regulatiuon"?????

Are you F**king out of your gorde!????

-> Just wait until you have to pay the "fees" for the telecomunications company to get faster than 3kbps access to any website.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 7:44 PM

Ruined? What the hell are you talking about? Stop being overdramatic and whiney... nobody likes a drama queen crying wolf about some doomsday conspiracy.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 9:45 AM

Read the Article before you speak. It might prevent you from looking loke a complete moron!

LOL@knowsnothing

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 11:59 PM

The fact is you don't know if this will or won't happen - without net neutrality, anything goes.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 8:21 AM

No, see, that's the whole point... Net neutrality will ultimately mean that anything and everything will go... equally without priority.

So what happens to my college who relies on Packet Shaping and Proxy Servers to limit access to illegal content and prioritize academic sites?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 11:21 AM

Uhh..

They'd still be able to do that.

Net Neutrality does not bar colleges or businesses from controlling internet traffic over their servers/routers. It bars the bandwidth *providers* from doing so in an effort intended solely to boost their profits.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 9:49 AM

^^^^ Please read up on "net neutrality" because you obveously do not know what its about.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 7:12 PM

In general, I have discovered the following rule:

Emotion is inversely proportional to reason.

This means that more anger=less able to reason. Put yourself in a Republican's shoes. Just try it once. Why would we be so stupid to think that this is needless regulation?

1. It certainly hasn't been needed in the past. The country is still here, last I checked...

2. Government should not be responsible for this--we should be. Stop paying for that 3K service and it'll leave. Seems to be working for AOL...

3. The government has too much on their plate already, and even you would agree they aren't doing so well with the issues they have. Why do we want to put even more on them?

I say we wait. Nothing has happened yet, we can prosecute illegal price gougueing on a per-issue basis. Why regulate over something that hasn't happened yet?

P.S: It's likely not funny to republicans. I wouldn't call myself a "Republican"--conservative maybe--but I'm certainly not laughing.

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Jul 5, 2006 - 7:51 PM

1. It certainly hasn't been needed in the past. The country is still here, last I checked...

The way I understand it, it wasn't needed because there were other regulations that took care of it. It is the relaxation/removal of those regulations that make this regulation necessary. So, in short, neutrality has been mandated in the past.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 9:52 AM

"neutrality has been mandated in the past."

This is 100% correct.

This net neutrality bill is just to renew a section the telecommunications act of the early 90s.

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 9:58 PM

Seems like many people have no clue what this issue is about. They just start screaming because they think Big Brother is going to start lording over them.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 6:08 PM

gourd.

/pedantic

Sorry, couldn't resist. Ya need to relax a bit.

Score: 0

By GCoder

edited Jul 5, 2006 - 5:46 PM

see above

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jul 5, 2006 - 4:49 PM

I apologise in advance for this:

I sue you, you sue me,
We'll screw the economy
Being immature and fighting like we're teens,
Just because we want more greens.

Score: 0