So … should the Internet be neutral? Metaphorically, beige in a manner of speaking. Neutrality.
Consider the following scenario — Your wireless phone service provider is ABC while your brother Tom’s provider is XYZ. When Tom calls you from his cell phone, his call is placed in a queue waiting to connect to your phone. Then, at the same time, your uncle (who has ABC cell service) calls you and connects immediately. Now, how many nanoseconds would it take for you to react? Or a revolt to begin?
So now the topic of net neutrality.
Net neutrality has clearly setup “sides” to frame a policy discussion. Simply put, net neutrality involves the policy of transferring data without any bias or special handling based on its origin (content provider). Ultimately, net neutrality is the broadband version of Federal EEO guidelines. Over the last few years, the stakeholders in this policy formation (communication/cable companies, content providers, consumers and government) have been battling. Why is there a battle? There is a lot at stake.
Now enter the FCC. The FCC’s position is very simple … everyone should have equal and unencumbered access to the information highway communication lanes … from the content provider through communication distributors … to the end consumer. Ultimately, the FCC has implemented specific actions to classify broadband service as a common carrier. This action would place Internet service in the same category with landline telephone service, electricity, and other utilities … therefore, within the regulatory authority of the FCC.
The opponents of the action? As you may imagine, the industry (through the NCTA and other lobby groups) have strenuously resisted the FCC’s Title II order … and requesting a stay of the order in Federal court.
The sponsors of the FCC/Title II action contends that (theoretically) Blue Moon Communications would (maybe have) slowed the transmission of broadband data (for example a video) requested by a consumer from a content generator (for example NetFlix). This situation may have occurred because NetFlix may not entered into a partnership arrangement with Blue Moon. However, there is also another fly in this ointment. Blue Moon also generates revenue from video purchases directly from their subscribers in direct competition with services such as NetFlix.
A bit of history. Before 1948, the movie studios (content generators) owned theaters (distribution). Therefore, they controlled both “sides” of the channel. Not surprisingly, they held exclusivity over the distribution of their content with their corporate-owned theaters. The Court found (US v. Paramount) that this model violated anti-trust laws. Sound familiar?
In a similar situation, why are public libraries (yes books haha) often called “Free Library” and have separate governing boards? Because, using the same strategic model, if the distribution of content (libraries) was controlled either by the Government or publishers (content) … an anti-trust violation (of sorts) could prevent the unencumbered distribution of printed material.
The “muddy” part of the net neutrality and communication companies model is different … in a small, but important distinction. Communication companies are the distribution channel but also market and sell content (sometimes through partnerships) as well. So there could be (or is) a vested interest to create “bias” in the distribution (transmitted through their broadband network) of content from providers that do not “play” with the communication companies.
Who could be harmed? The consumer possibly. With only a few players in the transmitting of broadband access in the US, a monopolistic model would be mainstreamed into our society and daily lives (already is).
So what’s the effect? If that monopoly occurred, the ability of technology content providers (non-studio businesses) or distributors (such as Hulu, NetFlix) would either be disrupted (oh my, the disruptor becomes the disrupted!) … loss of revenue/market share … and/or significantly impede new entrants into a market. The latter result would have a chilling effect on innovation and technology businesses. Imagine if a communication company had its own shopping service and “slowed down” Amazon purchases by consumers.
Those possibilities are not very positive outcomes in a free-market society. Distribution channels, like canals and waterways for freight ships, must be free of any disruption to support commerce.
Obviously, both sides (communication industry, Internet-based businesses and consumer groups) will continue to fight the cause.
Now the”data” (small data) on this public policy debate has been been framed for you to consider.