Assuming network neutrality fails in the Congress, with Verizon and AT&T favoring specific Web sites (like Yahoo’s) over others, some of their chief rivals are ready:
- AOL has struck up a deal with Clearwire to co-brand its wireless broadband system (which uses licensed frequencies, as opposed to WiFi). Clearwire, which is slower than DSL and is only in select markets, is the first broadband provider to link-up with AOL in this way.
- Google’s San Francisco Deal, and its wealth of dark fiber, give it a chance to quickly launch its own networks should it decide it needs to.
Notice who is missing from this? And now you know why the rumors of Microsoft buying part of Yahoo make some sense.
What does this mean, though?
I think it means that no telco system that tries to violate net neutrality will succeed in the real world.
Only a few large Web sites have got the money and market power and incentive to strike up a deal favoring their content over others. Nearly all those companies are now building their own networks, which would bypass any "blackmail" regime.
A truly-neutral network will have a major competitive advantage in this environment, and since the telcos risk losing not just DSL customers — but telephone customers — should people abandon them for violating net neutrality, the prediction here is that they won’t.
But we should still guarantee no one does.
Dana, you make great sense up until the last sentence! Of course you will still be able to reach the same sites at the same speed as now, if the bill fails. Actually, if it passes, and tiered service is not allowed to develop, good luck watching video online. The system just can’t handle it. This Slate article — http://www.slate.com/id/2140930/ — does a good job explaining why.
And just in cas you wonder, I do work with the Hands off the Internet group, although I can’t say I represent all their thoughts, just my own. Feel free to email me with more questions.
Dana, you make great sense up until the last sentence! Of course you will still be able to reach the same sites at the same speed as now, if the bill fails. Actually, if it passes, and tiered service is not allowed to develop, good luck watching video online. The system just can’t handle it. This Slate article — http://www.slate.com/id/2140930/ — does a good job explaining why.
And just in cas you wonder, I do work with the Hands off the Internet group, although I can’t say I represent all their thoughts, just my own. Feel free to email me with more questions.
The problem with the Slate article is that it conveniently forgets that it becomes cheaper and cheaper to increase the total available bandwidth over time. Thus, the streaming problem fixes itself. You can already stream radio over the Ineternet that sounds as good as broadcast radio. Eventually, you will be able to stream HD TV. If there is really a huge demand for the streaming of HD TV, then there is justification for paying to upgrade the network so this can happen faster. There is no need for packet prioritization to make TV over the Internet happen. That said, I am not strictly against packet prioritization — just make the process open and transparent as well as being transparent about what the baseline (non-prioritized) performance is. I think most people who are in the Net Neutrality camp are not so much concerned that people will be able to pay for better performance, but that the network operator will be able to degrade the performance of those who don’t pay (i.e. extortion).
The problem with the Slate article is that it conveniently forgets that it becomes cheaper and cheaper to increase the total available bandwidth over time. Thus, the streaming problem fixes itself. You can already stream radio over the Ineternet that sounds as good as broadcast radio. Eventually, you will be able to stream HD TV. If there is really a huge demand for the streaming of HD TV, then there is justification for paying to upgrade the network so this can happen faster. There is no need for packet prioritization to make TV over the Internet happen. That said, I am not strictly against packet prioritization — just make the process open and transparent as well as being transparent about what the baseline (non-prioritized) performance is. I think most people who are in the Net Neutrality camp are not so much concerned that people will be able to pay for better performance, but that the network operator will be able to degrade the performance of those who don’t pay (i.e. extortion).
It seems the big error/blind spot that net neutrality opponents make is that they think degradation means actual slowing down of service.
But just because one type of traffic is prioritized does not mean the other will be “degraded” in an absolute sense. Relatively, it may be slower, but in actuality it’ll keep getting faster itself — just not as fast as the top tier, of course. So a company gauges its wallet and makes the call. Seems like a normal business decision.
Meanwhile, they point to a handful of situations where there have been conflicts between providers and online media companies and argue that will be the norm. With more networks being built all the time, even if they tried, they won’t have the leverage to make it stick.
It seems the big error/blind spot that net neutrality opponents make is that they think degradation means actual slowing down of service.
But just because one type of traffic is prioritized does not mean the other will be “degraded” in an absolute sense. Relatively, it may be slower, but in actuality it’ll keep getting faster itself — just not as fast as the top tier, of course. So a company gauges its wallet and makes the call. Seems like a normal business decision.
Meanwhile, they point to a handful of situations where there have been conflicts between providers and online media companies and argue that will be the norm. With more networks being built all the time, even if they tried, they won’t have the leverage to make it stick.