Net neutrality is the principle that says all information flowing across the Internet should be treated equally. But with more people streaming data-rich video and playing online games, the Internet faces congestion concerns. Should carriers be able to sell multi-tiered access to heavy users? Should sites that generate massive traffic -- like Google and Yahoo! -- pay extra fees? The U.S. Government is examining Net Neutrality and its financial, legal and social implications. Do we need federal intervention to ensure fairness, or is this an issue for the market to work out?
In
the words of Internet architect Vint Cerf, the Internet allows “innovation
without permission.” This genius of the network has proven to be a wonderland
for entrepreneurs. The Internet’s name brands of today were just “good ideas in
garages” a decade ago. College kids created Google. A hobbyist conceived the
idea for eBay. A teenager wrote the code for Instant Messaging. Some of the
most popular sites on the Internet right now — FaceBook and YouTube — didn’t exist
four years ago.
This technological revolution keeps turning because the Internet is an
unrestricted free marketplace of ideas where innovators rise and fall on their
merits.
Net Neutrality rules once protected this free market. Without these rules, innovators
are at the mercy of the network owners. We are stuck back in the Tony Soprano
model, where building a new online business requires paying protection money to
the boss.
Think about the repercussions of simply raising money from investors in a world
without Net Neutrality. How many venture capitalists will embrace a business
plan if the first line reads: “Strike a favorable deal with AT&T”? It is
simply a non-starter for entrepreneurs.
Or assume that a new business does beat the odds and get a foothold in the
online marketplace. What happens when it begins to compete with a service that
is partially owned by the network operator? Will investors continue to sink
money into a company with these kinds of market uncertainties?
This scenario is hardly hypothetical. Hardware manufacturers currently
advertise routers that have the ability to investigate the packets flowing onto
a network to determine the origin of the content or application. If the content
comes from a “preferred” provider that has made a deal with the network, it is
guaranteed quality of service. 9 If
the content is from an unaffiliated source, the router can de-prioritize the
content and degrade the service.
Network operators are already planning to manage bandwidth to maximize revenue
streams through discriminatory deals with third-party providers. Comcast has
already deployed a system to block video sharing services that could compete
with it's primary cable business,
This distorts the market, undermines competition, and smothers innovation.
Next Argument
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Expert Verified
