It sounds all doom and gloom, but a loss of net neutrality means the end of the open Internet as we know it – and, to some, the beginning of a more restricted Web filled with headaches and increasing costs.
Certainly, such headlines as “Net neutrality is dead. Bow to Comcast and Verizon, your overlords” in a Los Angeles Times opinion piece can strike fear in the hearts of Internet users.
The potential death of net neutrality – which forces ISPs to deliver Internet traffic equally – is perceived as a blow to consumers and heavy-traffic websites and an opportunity to Internet service providers. The Internet sky is falling sentiment stems from a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling last month in Washington, D.C., that struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s directives on net neutrality.
The FCC rules, collectively called the Open Internet Order and adopted in late 2010, were designed to give all websites a level playing field by requiring ISPs to give equal treatment to all online traffic. Under the net neutrality rules, ISPs could not give first dibs to companies ready to pony up extra cash to make sure users can visit their sites faster. The rules are meant to stop ISPs from blocking or prioritizing traffic on the Web, for the betterment of end users.
The federal decision was made in favor of Verizon Communications Inc., which filed suit claiming the FCC acted outside its authority in enforcing the rules.
Net neutrality proponents argue the rules rightly prohibit ISPs from picking favorites. Without it, Verizon, AT&T Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc. and other media conglomerates, could give preference to some websites and even charge competitors while protecting friends or themselves.
Streaming websites, especially, are at risk, including Google’s YouTube, which falls behind only Netflix as the biggest bandwidth hog on the Internet, according to Web usage tracker Sandvine. During the peak hours of 7–11 p.m., Netflix accounts for 31.6 percent of traffic in North American homes, while YouTube grabs 18.7 percent, according to a Sandvine study cited by Advertising Age.
AT&T, for instance, has a direct competitor to Netflix, its U-verse service, which carries television and movie streaming in its higher-priced options. Without net neutrality rules in place, AT&T could theoretically charge Netflix, the world’s largest video streaming company, a premium to keep its viewers happy with fast streaming speeds.
That is one of the worst case scenarios, as it would be up to the discretion of each ISP to determine which sites – if any – would be charged extra to keep up.
And that is where the argument against net neutrality comes in. Businesses come to expect a certain amount of autonomy in how they deliver their services. Should ISPs have more control over their products? Or does it go too far when anti-competitive practices come into play on a medium that has been level for years?
The issue boils down to a question of priorities. Which is more important, business or consumer freedom? Should ISPs have the right to significantly alter how users digest the Internet?
The years-long fight isn’t over and could very well be poised to anger both sides for much longer. Democrats in Washington have introduced a bill in the Senate and House to restore net neutrality, and the FCC has the option to appeal the federal court’s decision. As it stands, ISPs appear to be in the clear to do as they please, but that may not last.
The Internet will survive, in some form. What it will look, and feel like, after the net neutrality battle subsides is anyone’s guess.
Springfield Business Journal Web Editor Geoff Pickle can be reached at gpickle@sbj.net.[[In-content Ad]]
