The
US
Department of Justice (DoJ) has dismissed the need for a net neutrality law,
maintaining that it would represent unnecessary meddling in the affairs of
telecoms companies.
It added that existing competition laws would be enough to ensure that
companies would not use differential pricing to drown out competition by buying
faster access.
"Even assuming that a potential danger exists, the ambiguity of what conduct
needs to be prohibited raises a real possibility that regulation would prohibit
some conduct that is beneficial, while failing to stop other conduct that may be
harmful," stated Thomas O Barnett, assistant attorney general in charge of the
DoJ's Antitrust Division.
"The FCC should be highly sceptical of calls to substitute special economic
regulation of the internet for free and open competition enforced by the
antitrust laws.
"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."
Net neutrality, the principle that all websites should be equally easy to
view, has long been opposed by telecoms providers which would like to charge
different prices to site owners for different speeds of access.
Such plans have been slammed by web giants such as
Google
and
eBay,
as well as web founder
Tim
Berners-Lee, computer scientist
Vint
Cerf and pressure groups around the world.
Opponents believe that plans for differential pricing would allow those with
the deepest pockets to stifle innovation and access by offering faster web
access times.
"The DoJ ruling once again proves the point that powerful corporate and
government gatekeepers are working together to dismantle internet freedoms and
impose their will on the web," said a
posting
on the
Savetheinternet.com
blog.
"While [Attorney General Alberto R.] Gonzales's feckless reign at [the DoJ]
is near an end, his legacy is becoming clear. The DoJ has established itself as
a friend to the powerful, and an enemy to the basic freedoms that Americans once
took for granted."
Do you agree?
Have your say on this article