Connect with the world's leading business experts.
Get instant access to their expertise via world–class Q&A, Research, and Events.
0
Net neutrality: what are your thoughts on the debate and its impact on consumers and businesses?
Should internet users have equal access to all types of content and information? Or should carriers and ISPs be able to prioritize certain types of content over others? Is this a choice between big government and big business? Does the wireline vs wireless distinction matter in this debate?
Events
- Social Media and Content Marketing For Business Q&A Feb 14 @ 11 am PT
- #TNLive Radio: Workforce Marketing & Recruitment Feb 14 @ 4 pm PT
- The Rise of Pinterest in B2B Feb 15 @ 11 am PT
- ERP – Priming Your Business to Deliver Value From Strategy to Operations Feb 15 @ 1 pm PT
- How Not to Coach Your Salespeople Feb 16 @ 1 pm PT
Related Activity
5 Answers
Many people frame the Net Neutrality debate as one of consumer vs. big-business and that is exactly how the content and media companies want the public to look at it. But, that is not entirely correct. Rather, the debate is really about how to divide the money between various big businesses. In my opinion, disputes between businesses are not something that our government should really be deciding (except in narrow cases such as anti-trust) and as long as there is competition between ISPs consumers will end up just fine.
Media companies suggest that the public needs government regulation to ensure that innovation will continue to happen on the internet, while the Telcos assert that they need to be paid fairly to deal with all the new uses of bandwidth. For example, both AT&T and Verizon spent money installing fiber-optic cable in cities initially to provide better internet access but figured out they could use the same physical infrastructure to compete with cable companies by delivering TV over the internet.
The battle between the content providers and the network providers is nothing new. Cable companies have been arguing with the television networks for decades over how much whether they should have to pay to carry something that is available for free over the air. Net Neutrality is simply an extension of that debate on the internet - but in this case it the content providers arguing that they shouldn't have to pay extra to provide their content on a platform that is fundamentally open.
This year ABC threatened to stop feeding Cablevision a signal in Manhattan starting with the Oscars unless they were paid a per subscriber fee. Cablevision dug in their heals, but in the end agreed to pay to carry it - they were worried they would loose subscribers to satellite or OTA broadcasts.
That incident says two things to me, one that content is king and two that these types of disputes can be resolved without government involvement. I believe that, absent government intervention, internet carriage disputes will end up the same way. If ISPs attempted to charge Google extra to carry YouTube, customers would eventually switch to alternate ISPs. It might be a slow process, since there are very few must-see internet events like the Oscars, but it would happen eventually.
As to whether, there is a distinction between wireline and wireless, I tend to side with the Google / Verizon proposal. If we must have regulation, then lets exempt wireless. In the wireline case, a much larger proportion of the network build out is complete and the telcos have already spent the money - in practical terms regulation probably won't make a difference. But in the wireless case, there is much less bandwidth available. If Net Neutrality were to apply in the wireless world, I think it would end up being anti-consumer as consumer would be forced to pay even more to cover the costs of the bandwidth they use.
I say let the markets decide. If Comcast and ATT want to charge more for unfettered access to Hulu and Netflix there will be competitors that spring up with "all you can eat" packages.
This debate has raged since at least 1994. I used to participate in the Compriv email list where ISP owners would complain about these bandwidth hogging users of HTTP, as opposed to text based Archie and Veronica. The ISPs that supported the web thrived.
Seeking legislation is how the major carriers hope to prevent competition from springing up. Let 'em duke it out in the free market.
Mike, thanks for your post - lively debate is important.
Your point is well taken, that everybody, both consumers and content providers, already pay for access to the network, but what does that have to do with Net Neutrality - which is really about differentiated pricing / service levels should be legal. It's about whether the Government should mandate, that since all digital content is fundamentally the same bits (1s and 0s) that network providers should be able to create differentiated pricing schemes. If we never get Net Neutrality, content providers won't pay *twice*, as you say, but some may pay more for different types of content.
I'll stay out of the political argument as to whether the Government has any business regulating network providers because given the duopoly nature of the market any of the free speech implications, its pretty easy (unless you are Ron Paul) to assert that this is a proper function of Government.
You need to look at this from an economic point of view, as people use more bandwidth, *someone* has to pay for the investment to increase capacity within the network. If I were a network provider I would want to find a way not to charge end consumers, and if charging content providers more to carry bandwidth heavy services achieves that goal, then I believe consumers will be better off. On the other hand, if you don't let the networks charge content providers they will end up charging the consumer. Major players are already testing bandwidth caps in the wireline world and AT&T had to move away from unlimited bandwidth for iPhone users.
Look at BitTorrent as an example. In pure form of Net Neutrality, networks wouldn't be able to discriminate against BitTorrent traffic in favor of, say YouTube, Hulu, or Netflix. If it turns out that a small percentage of consumers use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth via BitTorrent, as I suspect is the case, then the majority of users will be forced to pay more for to enable a service they don't use.
Drew, this is a great point - "Rather, the debate is really about how to divide the money between various big businesses."
Mossen, you actually have it dead wrong. I went into this here: http://www.networkcomputing.com/next-gen-network/net-neutrality-where-the-mon... but the short point is both the consumer and the content provider have already paid for access and transport. The intervening ISP are also getting paid. What the local access providers want (ISP) is to charge content providers *twice* to deliver the bits.
What Google and Verizon hammered out was a deal to prioritize Google traffic over other traffic to the detriment of that other traffic. Capacity is a scarce commodity. Wireless capacity scarcer still.
The obvious result is that Google and the content providers given their deep pockets can lock out start-ups that can't pay for the priority service. How exactly does that help innovation? It doesn't.
To the rest of you that want to let the markets decide and point back to the modem days (ah hem, Stiennon), should I remind you that telcos *had* to provide wholesale access to competitive carriers CLECS and ISP for transport of the last mile and that gave start-ups at least a shot of reaching customers. Today, the ISP have no such requirement. In fact, in much of the US, cable companies have a monopoly to the home shutting out competition.
In most of the US, you will find that many locals have two choices for internet access: Cable or telco. Period.
Answer This Question