Here are two videos summing up net neutrality.
Pro-Net Neutrality:
Anti-Net Neutrality:
Prioritizing Content
One of the key arguments in this debate is the ability an incentive for ISPs to prioritize content in the way they control traffic. The first video demonstrates this idea and the potential harm to consumers it could inflict; if a service provider signs a contract worth shit-tons of money with a website or content provider, they are going to fulfill their end of the bargain! The second video claims that if one was to be "blocked" from visiting Google so that they would use Yahoo! instead, this person could easily switch to an ISP that doesn't restrict them. Though true in principle, the phone and cable industry is monopolistic and thus has very little competition. The cost for a consumer to switch could be painful, not to mention the potential for the only other available providers to also restrict and prioritize content. I posted a blog earlier about Comcast effectively blackmailing a Netflix partner last year, so we know this is more than possible.
Government Involvement
Another facet of this debate is the government's involvement. Some believe market forces left to themselves in this situation will provide consumers with the best outcome. The FCC's intervention on certain matters is and has been receiving scrutiny, mostly on the grounds that granting it oversight on net neutrality will snowball into a totalitarian vice-grip on our last free-speech frontier. I myself acknowledge this fear, for such extreme extrapolations in the past have occurred (i.e. Brendan mentioned Social Security numbers in his presentation). But the government's focus in this situation is on preserving openness and access for consumers and a level playing field for content providers and many other firms that rely on the internet for business. The general principle of free-market forces being left to their own device is not amusing anymore; I feel that such a concept would have been widely accepted as antiquated after the 2008-to-present economic travesty this country faced as a result of decreased regulation in the private sector, but clearly such asinine displays of irresponsibility are still advocated. A balance needs to exist.
Some Proposed Solutions/Alternatives
- Pay-per-site billing structure
- Increase competition at the "last mile"
- Let FCC regulate on case-by-case basis
- Municipality operated broadband
The pay-per-site option is not viable. Imagine paying $39.99 a month for Yahoo.com and 200 other sites, and paying extra for anything not on the list. How unfair is it to smaller websites that rely on ad revenue when they are totally unaccessible to the everyday user? Or even if you have to pay for every site you visit--imagine the complexity of this, too: if my fantasy team updates every time somebody scores or a stat changes, am I paying? Are you paying for pop-ups (which, granted, are mostly obsolete at this point)?
The increased competition at "last mile" is a long-term goal whereby consumers are free to choose their providers with low transition costs. The idea of the FCC regulating is not even a proposed solution, as it is the reason for litigation occurring right now. But, it is one alternative to the status quo that should be considered.
Having municipalities operate broadband would be the most undesirable. It would (i) freeze the pace of innovation and (ii) services would not be delivered as efficiently as private ones. I'm sure there are tens of other potential solutions out there, but these are a few of the main ones.
Current Situation
As of right now, there is some serious litigation happening, as well as legislation moving through Congress (see previous posts). I was surprised to see articles dating as far back as 2006 talking about the Senate shooting down bills with pro-net neutrality components. It seems that this issue continues to drag on month after month with no end in sight. Hopefully something can be hashed out soon.
In Summary
This blog enabled me to discover much about net neutrality. I have seen clearly both sides of this argument and hope I have been able to demonstrate such for those of you reading. It is a very controversial issue, which is something I knew I would be getting into. I feel I may have been less objective about the topic as others were about their own, but I feel passionately about few things these days and I feel this is one topic that struck me as significant. I hope that with my opinions aside I was still able to address the entire spectrum of this debate for everyone to draw their own conclusions.
Miscellaneous
Wireless companies like Verizon seek nondiscrimination exemption based on "competitive nature" of the wireless sector.
-Fun Fact: Verizon and AT&T control over 60% of the wireless market
Google late last year released a joint statement with Verizon that essentially contradicts statements it made in 2007 when it purported to be a net neutrality advocate.
Al Franken likes net neutrality.
No comments:
Post a Comment