It seems simplistic, but competition is absolutely vital to the health and future of the Internet.
Much has been said about the net neutrality debate and whether the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rules will stick. Without net neutrality – the term coined for free and nonmetered Internet service – some say the Internet as we know it would end.
Some websites could receive special treatment with Internet service providers getting big paydays. And worse, the user is the ultimate victim with the smallest say.
Want to get a word in edgewise? Visit
FCC.gov/OpenInternet to let the federal body know your thoughts and, perhaps, notate how important competition is not only to the Internet but also the U.S. as a whole.
A recent Wired article, “
What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality,” breaks down the issue into a simple, capitalistic notion.
We need competition for the Internet to thrive. In Springfield, residents have two primary choices: Mediacom and AT&T. It’s simply not enough, and we are essentially forced to take what we can get. That doesn’t sound very capitalistic, does it?
ISPs are just as susceptible to monopolies as the television and movie industries. Evidence this year comes in the form of proposed takeover bids for Time Warner Cable Inc., first by rival Comcast Corp. for $45 billion and then by 21st Century Fox Inc. for $76 billion.
The word is out, and the company is a valuable commodity.
A lack of competition is what Web users need to fear above all other worries.
Less competition means ISPs can get away with more injustices to the customer. More companies mean more competition and thus a need to provide better services at fair-market costs to consumers – simply to compete.
In the article, Wired writer Robert McMillan says the thing most people get wrong in the net neutrality debate is that faster service for privileged companies, or fast lanes, are a new concept. According to the article, these fast lanes have for years benefited companies such as Google, Facebook and Netflix, which have direct connections to larger ISPs such as Comcast and Verizon. It’s a much closer relationship between Web companies and ISPs than many would think.
Tim Wu, the man who coined the term net neutrality, agreed with McMillan’s conclusion that competition is the best solution.
McMillan says some net-neutrality debaters might be misdirecting their frustrations on fast lanes, which already exist, rather than the conglomerates, which are ruining Web competition.
Locally, Nixa residents have the opportunity to let city leaders know they want faster and more reliable Internet. Through a partnership with London-based fiber network developer SiFi Networks, a survey was put online at
SiFiNetworks.com/Nixa to gauge demand for fiber-based Internet with speeds of up to 1 gigabit per second, roughly 100 times faster than the average broadband service. Google Fiber is slowly but surely making progress on pushing its 1-gigabit fiber, with a pilot program in Kansas City among those reaping the benefits.
I’ll echo a reader comment made by Tony Iaguessa to the July 28 Springfield Business Journal story, “
Nixa moves forward with fiber feasibility study.” Commenting on the article, Iaguessa wrote that the benefits of fiber Internet would be enough for him to sell his house and move to Nixa. I could certainly see myself leaving behind my downtown loft and commuting to work for the speedy Internet service.
When it comes to the online superhighway, choice is king.
Springfield Business Journal Web Editor Geoff Pickle can be reached at gpickle@sbj.net.
