Net Neutrality is the Catalyst for Online Innovation

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.


J-Jammer's picture

...that the carriers are like bullies on the play ground and the government is like the teachers. Little inventors run around creating play ground games while the bullies run a muck trying to control everyone and if it were not for the teachers the little inventors would be squashed? The problem here is that you can't always protect people and if you create too many laws you'll eventually restrict the inventors as well. There has to be a fine balance.

Also I don't like this mucking of the waters between the two sides. Making it seem like the other is bad and "you're" the one that has everyone's best interest at heart. Who wants more control is my question.

People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

VarGulF42's picture

It's how companies like Google and Facebook and Youtube started and thrived. The idea behind laws is about preventing ISPs from controlling content and speed (Which they have done already). I understand the whole "Government control" thing but that's now what it's about. It's about keeping it the same, we wouldn't need this if ISPs didn't start attacking net neutrality. A funny video explaining net neutrality http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou9S3wrHg8c

J-Jammer's picture

The government IS NOT NEEDED!

They make matters worse.

Name one thing that actually works that the government has touched?

People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter

OV Social