Net Neutrality and the DOJ

If you are not informed about net neutrality please read this:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

As you might have already read the DOJ on September 6, 2007 came out against net neutrality. The reason the DOJ might have ruled as it did is that big business convinced them that the Internet is “hurting business”.

Google News

The Internet is unlike most other forms of communication in that you have nearly an infinite amount of choices to choose from. The Internet expands people's palette, so to speak, meaning because you can access nearly any piece of information easily, you can find out about artists, movies, software, products, and ideas that you would not have been exposed to without the internet. This makes it incredibly difficult for companies to sell products, why buy a piece of software when you can legitimately download an open source program that does the same thing free? Why buy a digital camera on sale from a large company, when you can find a better camera online for less money? Why buy a newspaper when I can look at it for free? Why buy a pop-star's album when I can find a more musically talented artist that fits my tastes exactly? Why should I take so and so's word when I can ask several top experts what they think? Why believe people or institutions biased to tell you a spun version of the truth when you can look at it yourself?

Before the Internet, people where limited by the amount of material you could acquire, read, and compare, but with the internet you can compare almost every online retailer, you can read product evaluations from experts, you can compare and shop like never before. You can contact experts, professors, common-folk, soldiers, etc. You can get facts directly, you can analyze events yourself, you can look at the bare numbers, and the bare equations and say I see something wrong, or my local media missed this or that etc. You can ask several top experts questions regarding the information and come to your own conclusion. No longer is the public limited to information presented by major media outlets, you can read dissenting opinions, different opinions, weird opinions, crazy opinions, and every once in a while an opinion that make more sense than anything you've read in the major media.
End result, it is more difficult for big companies to mold the public to buy their products or support government policy because it makes them money. They hate this.

Much of the push for no net neutrality is that many internet service providers want to make sure there is enough bandwidth for all their products, like internet telephony, on demand video services, etc. The only problem is that it will come at the cost of websites, and web servers that can't afford to pay to have their packets prioritized.

If our internet service providers route different packets with different priority and if the packets we want are not on the top of their priority list then technically they are doing a disservice. Why should someone have their packets routed first if both he and I pay the same amount of money, same package, same provider? What's worse is that they can play this little game with websites they don't like. They can make it easier for someone to access one website over another thereby little by little pushing the public towards the website they want you to see.