Media in the New Millennium

posted by Doyle

There’s lots of banter in tech circles and the media of late about net neutrality. I firmly believe this is one of the most important issues facing how we communicate today, yet it’s often misunderstood, even by by lawmakers who may be asked to determine how everything will finally shake out.

Why is net neutrality so important? Simple: the Internet is taking over much of the way we get information and entertainment and how we communicate with one another. Twenty-five years ago, the radio stations I listened to, the television stations I watched, the newspaper I subscribed to and the magazines I purchased all got to me in very different ways. Now, if the Internet goes down, I’m cut off from the bulk of my news, information, entertainment and even the ability to reach out to friends and colleagues.

Read/Write Web did a great graphic presenting both sides of the net neutrality discussion here. The point I’d like to make in this post is that net neutrality is not some “techie” thing that’s over most of our heads. Instead, it’s critical that we understand and take a stand on how we would like to see the flow of information regulated—or not. Your stand may be different from mine, but the public discourse is critical for this enabling and important technology. This is one critical business issue that must not be decided by lobbyists voicing the business interests of a handful of large corporations.

Neutrality Must Not Mean “Don’t Manage Your Network”

Potential legislation, in my opinion, must be well written in order to keep the Internet from slowing down for all of us. I’ve heard net neutrality advocates boil this issue down to “all bits, regardless of what they are, must be treated the same.”

I disagree.

There is a difference between network management and net neutrality. For example, if I’m making a call on Skype, I want my Internet provider to give a higher priority to a voice packet, even if that means a web page I’m loading or an email I’m sending is delayed a fraction of a second. That makes for a better Skype experience, and I really won’t notice a slight slowing of my email. That’s intelligent network management that makes the available tools work better for all of us. The slippery slope is introduced with an example like Internet Service Providers (ISPs) having the opportunity to take a potential next step and prioritize their own paid voice packets over my Skype call to encourage me to use their service. Worse, what if Skype was blocked completely by one or more of the ISPs that service my market?

Clearly, any potential regulation must not be written in such a way that prevents providers from managing and optimizing their networks, but, I believe, it should should ensure equal access to any public URL.

The End of the All-You-Can-Eat Buffet

Comcast got in some trouble, but eventually prevailed in court, for throttling BitTorrent streams. To me, the issue is not as simple as “to BitTorrent or not to BitTorrent,” and if network congestion is truly an issue, as it seems to be, we need to start paying for that second slice of pie.

In the case noted above, Comcast was wrong in my opinion because they violated their own contract with their customers. They offered unlimited access for one monthly fee, then played dirty tricks on customers that became bandwidth hogs. Sorry, but you don’t get to do both. Either you can offer all the time/data/pick your measure you like for one fee, or you can offer a pay as you go plan, and that needs to be up front in the agreement. After all, Xcel Energy doesn’t just hook up electricity at my house and let me pay one lump sum for all I can use, regardless of my consumption. But, if they did, it would be wrong of them to just cut my service when they thought I was using too much power. It’s “A” or it’s “B.” In the end, it’s OK for heavy users to be charged more than light users.

What I Believe About Net Neutrality

You don’t have to agree with me, but I hope you’ll consider this issue as important is I do. Bad legislation, no matter how well-intentioned, could severely stifle growth of one of the most important elements of our economy. Here are the points I believe to be true in this discussion:

• There is a difference between optimizing all traffic across a network and giving special service. The former should be encouraged and the latter, in general, forbidden.
• I recognize that these are networks that were, to a very large degree, built with private investment (that is, non-government money). But just as television stations, for example—non-government entities, to be sure—must follow certain guidelines and demonstrate work in the public interest to continue to receive a broadcast license, I believe the same holds true for those that carry the Internet to our homes and businesses. In fact, I think it’s more important because of the myriad of information the Internet provides.
• Just as I pay more for cable if I get more channels coming in to my home or business, I should pay more for Internet service if I wish to use more bandwidth than others. Conversely, my mother-in-law should pay less since she her Internet use pretty much consists of checking email once a day (but perhaps she should pay extra for some of the things she chooses to forward!).
• Just like me, content providers should pay ISPs based on their bandwidth consumption. If I sell widgets and my sales go up, I need to ship more widgets to more people, so I will pay more to my selected carrier to send out more widgets. Same idea here. If 1 million people each month want to download my podcast, I need to pay more than if only 10 people wish to.
• What is premium content and what is not premium content should be decided by the content provider, not by the carrier. If the Wall Street Journal, for example, wants to charge me to look at a story, that relationship should be between me and the Wall Street Journal and Qwest, my ISP, should stay out of it. And, per the point above, if my content is wildly successful, my ISP will share in my good fortune by making more money because I pay more in access/transfer fees.
• Special offers and relationships do not violate net neutrality per se, and legislation must be written to protect free enterprise. For example, if the Wall Street Journal (which seems to be my example of the day) choses to give a free 30-day subscription to the premium content to anyone that signs up with a certain ISP during the next two weeks, that’s great and should be allowed. That’s called a trial promotion, not a violation of net neutrality. I would consider it a problem, however, if the Wall Street Journal and an ISP cut a deal making the Journal available exclusively on that ISP, or if the Journal was delivered better/faster/more reliably on the network than the local newspaper because they paid that ISP more money.
• User agreements are contracts, and contracts need to be honored by all parties concerned. If I don’t pay my ISP, they will shut off my service. On the other hand, if they tell me I have unlimited bandwidth, they need to honor that even if I’m downloading high-definition movies 24/7 as long as I’m adhering to the contract. If they would like to alter the terms of the contract once it is expired, fine. Maybe promotions like “price for life” will go the way of the buggy whip.
• I believe that more and more of us will get more and more Internet access through mobile devices, and I believe that what I’ve outlined here holds true for those devices as well. The bandwidth issues are even more sensitive and tend to impact other users even more, so we need to establish the rules now.

I fully recognize this is a complicated issue, but just as not understanding the complicated U.S. tax code is not a defense for not paying your taxes properly, the Internet is changing the way we are entertained, the way we do business and the way we communicate. It is incumbent upon us to understand the issues and to insist those who are making policy understand our wishes.

I’m sure many of our readers have opinions about this, and I would welcome and encourage a robust conversation. Here’s my volley—please join in and leave a comment–pro or con.

Share on Facebook