This News.com article addresses some Senate hearings today on the concept of “net neutrality” -- the idea that carriers such as AT&T and Sprint should not prioritize certain traffic over others.
Some folks, such as Mark Cuban, would like the option to pay more for better performance. This seems reasonable to me, and a good way to pay for the high-bandwidth apps of the future.
That’s the key here: this is an argument about the future, where the serious high-bandwidth apps live. If the bandwidth providers can’t be compensated for building, um, bandwidth, then why would they invest?
If you prefer that the Internet never evolves from its current state, the concept of net neutrality is for you. While the terminology sounds, um, neutral, it really means that the government decides what companies can and cannot do with their pipes. It is a tired socialist argument based on imagined scarcity.
Bandwidth providers should be free to offer a premium product to those who are willing to pay for it. If you are willing to pay for a faster PC, a better meal or better clothes, I don’t see why a company should not be able to pay for better network performance.
Unfortunately, many are frightened that the organic nature of the net, where anyone can publish and be guaranteed delivery of their content, is imperiled. History does not support this prediction.
The likely outcome is that some companies will pay for high-speed lanes, and consumers reap the benefit of a better offering. Next-generation pipes get built because it is profitable to do so, and there is more bandwidth for everyone. Worst case, those who don’t pay a premium stay at their current level.
There is no question that bandwidth demands will continue to expand apace. The question is, do we allow the industry to build according the demand?
Another scenario: if the Internet infrastructure cannot keep up, then many companies will skip the 'net entirely and built their own private networks. The bandwidth will be built, it's just a question of whether it is part of the actual Internet. Google is already doing it.
Of course the bandwidth providers are in it for the money, just like Google and Apple and everyone else. That profit motive has given us great innovations like the iPod and Google Maps. I want the fat pipes of the future.
More and better here from the Progress & Freedom Foundation.
Update 8 Feb: The article at top implies that Google, Microsoft and others are arguing for net neutrality provisions. I don’t read it that way. It is more accurate to say that these firms are taking a generally libertarian position but are concerned about the fair application of net neutrality, should it come to pass. Perhaps I have something more to learn here -- are they afraid of the RBOCs?
Comments