When I first heard about the issue of ‘net neutrality’ and the possibility of the ‘little guys’ getting pushed to the sidelines I thought doom was surely the impending forecast of the internet’s future. When I took a look at savetheinternet.com and it’s cute little introductory cartoon complete with corporate run flying saucers, I thought ‘sign me up’ and I signed the petition with a vengeance –nobody was going to push me to the sidelines.
Then I thought, well maybe I should dig a little deeper realizing that all is not usually as it seems when presented in a cool three minute film short. So I dug. And dug. And dug. And then realized –uh oh, I think I was just duped by a three minute cartoon with its cool little flying saucers.
The idea of the internet truly not being an equal playing field –which is what has made it so innovative and effective- is without question a dark and scary thought, but the question is – is that what is about to take place with the broadband providers seeking to develop a new and improved information superhighway?
However many years ago when it was announced that Google was going to allow for paid advertisers to place their content at the front of the line I was outraged. How could they do this? –Those freaking sellouts! Then when the wretches implemented their evil plan allowing the big-dollar heavyweights to place their ads alongside the little guys who fought long and hard to get to the top, I realized, oh… that’s no big deal. In fact it comes in handy seeing what the deep pockets have to offer next to the popular little guys (not to mention the income generating properties of adsense –for the little blogger guys). And of course, why would Google want to completely destroy what had gotten them so much usage in the first place? Google was free to do what it wanted to generate more income without being dumb enough to shoot themselves in the arse. And as far as I remember, there was no ‘savethegoogleweknow.com’ trying to preserve what the public had enjoyed for so long.
Bottom line- everybody won.
I am wondering now, if a similar situation is taking place –admittedly on a larger scale- but with the same principles applying.
Are the big guys –Verizon, AT&T etc. just taking advantage of a free market and trying to invent bigger, better, faster broadband connections? And is it possible they wouldn’t be stupid enough to destroy what they are currently providing to happy consumers by reorienting the very nature of that which makes it so successful?
The possibility of the net losing its neutrality is indeed a daunting one, but the question is, is government legislation dictating to companies what they can and cannot do the answer? How often is government meddling a positive solution that makes everybody happy and provides a wellspring of creative innovation and competition?
Not very often last time I checked.
Esther dyson said it quite well in her Huffingtonpost column – “There are real issues here, but legislation isn’t gong to solve them. Antitrust enforcement is probably the best solution.”
The fear of these huge corporations destroying the level playing field of the web is obviously understandable, but when ‘savetheinternet’s’ list of ‘what net neutrality means to me’ is fraught with statements like: “Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search engine opens faster than Google on your computer”, and “A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that it owned”, and “Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices—distorting your choice as a consumer”, well… I’m seeing the word ‘could’ occur just a bit too often. Yeah, they ‘could’ do all of those things but are they going to be dumb enough to do them and is a pre-emptive legislative strike the answer in assuring they don’t?
When more laws are passed the unfortunate result is oftentimes just more lawsuits. When bad laws are passed with overreaching and ambiguous wording the terrain can get even murkier. Even Art Brodsky, a strong advocate of ‘net neutrality’ posited the possibility of different solutions that don’t involve increased legislation.
Competition stirs and drives creativity and in the quest for the net to remain an equal playing field I truly hope that zealous advocates do not end up squashing that competition and consequently stifling technological innovation by the unforeseen effects of premature legislation.