Imagine this scenario - you cannot view the 2006 version of Penn State v. Ohio State game because you cannot get to a TV or the game is regionalized and you get to watch Oregon v. Arizona instead. You do, however, have access to a computer and decide to listen to the great Paul Keels call the game on the Buckeyes' flagship station 1460 The Fan's website. You log on to the internet, type in the address, and . . . you wait. And you wait. And you wait some more. Then, one of two things happen - either you get a message saying the page won't open, or it does open, but the connection is so poor and slow that the game is already at half over by the time your connected (and after that you only hear every 10th word Paul says).
This is more than a poor connection. This is a deliberate denial of access or an intentional slowing down of the signal. Freedom to access any website at any time coming to an end.
Cannot believe it could happen? Well, there are two large groups out there telling the government that it will happen, and soon, but for two very different reasons. Welcome to the issue of "Net Neutrality." How we got here is too long and complicated for me to understand, let alone describe, but Law Professor Tim Wu, has written numerous papers to help frame the issues and the debate.
In one corner, we have the "Deregulationists." These are the internet providers (such as AT&T, Bell South, and Verizon) who claim ownership of cable/DSL lines ("pipes") that bring the internet to you. They say that because of the increasing amount of internet traffic, you won't be able to get to the 1460 site. When the primary source of internet traffic was data, there was plenty of bandwidth (space) for the traffic to flow. But more and more the internet is handling voice and video which take up much more bandwidth. If you do get through, your connection may be very slow.
The Deregulationists' solution is to create a "tiered system" which essentially discriminates internet traffic based upon content. Voice and video get preferred bandwidth space if the content provider (such as 1460 The Fan) pays the Deregulationists a fee for that preferred space. The remaining internet traffic gets use of the non-preferred space.
In the other corner are the "Openists." These are the content providers (such as Google, Microsoft, Yahoo), as well as bloggers, and consumer advocacy groups. These are the people arguing for "net neutrality." Their argument is that the internet providers have never been able to discriminate based upon content before, and they should not be able to now. You, as the user, have been able to access any site you wanted to on the internet. Voice and video has been treated the same as e-mail, no matter the source. The openists' fear is that the providers' tiered system will essentially deny or limit your ability to access some sites.
Their scenario is this - you want to visit 1460 the Fan, but the station has not paid the internet provider money, while a competitor has. You cannot get through to 1460, but the provider lets you get through to the competitor. Your freedom is restricted based upon which companies pay money to the providers.
In a way, this would be very similar to how cable TV operates. I cannot get OLN to watch hockey, or the Do-It-Yourself network, because my cable provider does not offer those channels. Your internet selection would be limited based upon decisions made by the providers.
So, the Openists' solution is to have the government to step in and create regulations that preserve net neutrality. The Deregulationists want the government to stay out of the way and allow the free market system to work.
Normally, I am a free market kind of guy. Government does few things well, and typically regulations increase costs for companies, which are then passed onto you and me, the consumers. But, after reading Charles Wheelan's book "Naked Economics", I am now convinced that in some areas we need government intervention.
When an industry is deregulated, price becomes the primary margin of competition, presumably because consumers care more about price than service (e.g. airline industry). Many times that is good, but not so with all things. As Wheelan states, "anyone who tells you that markets left to their own devices will lead to socially beneficial outcomes is talking utter nonsense." There is great social benefit in allowing internet users the freedom go wherever they want. Based upon the Deregulationist position, a free market will not lead to that outcome.
The Deregulationists say that content providers are using their pipes for free and they are missing out on revenue that is rightfully theirs. They also claim that with this new income stream, they can build a better pipe system for the future.
The Openists say this is hogwash. The companies have benefitted from millions of dollars in public subsidies to lay their pipes on public land, while other industries have been required to pay the government fees to use the land. The companies already pocket fees from content providers, so no one is riding for free. Creating a tiered-system provides no incentive for the Deregulationists to expand the system - keeping a bottleneck of traffic keeps the increased fees coming. Also, the lack of competition gives the companies no incentive to make the system better - because who else can you turn to for internet access in your area?
There are bills in the House and Senate right now which would affect which group's vision of the future becomes reality. Both sides are trying to influence Congress to adopt their position. This is something each blogger and internet user should pay attention to because either way, we are affected. The internet as we currently know it may be in its last days. And if you cannot get a Buckeye game on television, an listening to Paul Keels describe the game on the web may soon not be an option.
No comments:
Post a Comment