Content Wants to Be Unequal: Another View on Net Neutrality

Though the former JetBlue attendant with the flare for drama has eaten up tons of bandwidth over the last day, so has a story that has much more to do with bandwidth itself: Verizon and Google's declaration of what they view an open Internet to be -- and not to be.

The two made their joint viewpoint clear in a conference call yesterday, following a New York Times story late last week which quoted sources saying the two were close to a deal that would rip apart so-called net neutrality -- by pumping Google content through Verizon's pipes faster because Google paid Verizon for the privilege. Google and Verizon say that isn't the case, but, even so, it's clear that a paid tier may well be on the way to the previously freewheeling -- and free -- Internet.

Beyond wondering about the technical and regulatory complexities, my questions are these: Hasn't content always been tiered? Why would the Internet be any different?

Before I answer, here are the details of the position stated yesterday by Google and Verizon. First, they say that the Internet as it currently is -- and yes, that includes Google's YouTube -- should remain open. All existing services would be served up in a non-discriminatory fashion, with the Federal Communications Commission being being given the authority to prosecute transgressors. But the two diverge from the utopian net neutrality world view in what happens in the future. Their vision is (although some call this merely the creation of a loophole) that wireless content would be exempted, as would newer services like high-end education programming, healthcare-related bandwidth use -- oh, and new entertainment services. In other words, in areas where there is no precedent, new precedents could be set.

Most people in-the-know have a problem with this because they don't think it's good for consumers, who, of course, up until now, have had access to whatever content they want, when they want it. If content providers were to pay more to ISPs for quicker downloads of their content -- or to carry their content at all -- might those costs be passed onto consumers? Well, maybe.

While I don't look forward to shelling out more for my content, the hole in the argument for net neutrality is so big you could drive a supercomputer through it. The fact is that content delivery has always been tiered, no matter what medium you're talking about. Here are just a few examples:

1. The Internet is already in two tiers because of some consumers' inability to pay for bandwidth. Yes, friends, there are still people out there who can't afford $20-30/month for a broadband connection, let alone people who can't afford Internet access at all, not to mention a computer.
2. The Internet is about to become more restrictive anyway as publishers begin to charge consumers to access their content. Look no further than The New York Times, which plans to erect a paywall in 2011, or Hulu, which is rolling out a paid tier.
3. There have long been multiple tiers of TV. Just as broadcast TV became near universal several decades ago, cable appeared, leading to tier-upon-tier of service -- the more you can pay, the more you have access to.
4. Cable providers have long blocked access to certain cable networks on an arbitrary basis. They also decide what cable nets viewers get to see in each tier, rather than offering channels on an a la carte basis.
5. Even in magazines and newspapers, there are paid and non-paid tiers. If you can't afford to buy a New York tabloid, you may have to satisfy yourself with the free AM New York. Want to read People but can't pay for it? Go to the library and take it out for free. Sure, It might be missing that photo spread of Justin Bieber by the time you get it, but that's the price you pay for not paying for it.

(Image courtesy of WPClipart.)

Related:

Net Neutrality Decision: Much Ado About Nothing