One thing I have learned while reading up on "Net Neutrality" is that each person seems to have a different definition of what it is, what is should be or even what it should not be. As I have stated several times before, I agree that Internet providers should receive "just compensation" (however that is determined) for the infrastructure and access they provide. However, there are two nagging issues that keep me very interested in this debate: 1). the lack of broadband choice I have given the cable / telecom monopoly that currently exists, and 2). the walled gardens I experience with my mobile device. Here is why I get nervous:
- Lack of Broadband Internet Competition (dare I say – monopoly conditions): When the Internet first reached the masses, we accessed it in our homes on dial up connections. We had the option of purchasing dial up service through hundreds of different companies. We could compare services and prices among AOL, NetZero, ATT&T and so on. However, with the advent of far superior broadband service, we faced a significant trade off in the form of a complete lack of consumer choice in vendors. Currently, I get my broadband Internet access through my cable provider (Optimum Online from Cablevision). Given that I live in an apartment, my only other broadband choice is DSL through Verizon. So, whether you say it is a broadband duopoly or a monopoly for cable and a monopoly for DSL, my broadband Internet options are severely limited. My fear is that my cable company will soon exert its monopoly powers within my building to dictate or influence what Internet content I am able to experience. As it stands today, I do not have the ability to compare service options among all the cable companies and then call up a different company to have a new cable Internet account set up. No matter how you slice it, Cablevision has a "take it or leave it" cable Internet monopoly within my building. Therefore, I have little issue with introducing new legislation to protect my rights as a consumer facing such a severely restricted marketplace.
- Walled vs Open Gardens: A recent post on Open Gardens addresses the other nagging issue that keeps me interested in the Net Neutrality debate. When talking about Net Neutrality, I have made a comparison between the mobile Internet experience (what I would consider to be very much a "walled garden") and the traditional computer Internet experience (what I would consider to be – for now anyway – an "open garden"). As defined by the author, a walled garden is "a mechanism to restrict the user to a defined environment – forcing them by some means to stay within the confines of a digital space. This restriction, often defined by a single company, is a means of exercising control and supposedly maximizing revenue." All you have to do is try to surf the web on your phone to experience what they are talking about. While the author is referring to the mobile phone experience, why shouldn't we fear that our currently "open" gardens on the Internet will become "walled" gardens given the broadband monopolies that exists? The monopoly conditions are even worse than within the cell phone market and (in some cases) the players are the same (Verizon, for example). As I stated above, I have little issue with introducing new legislation to protect my rights as a consumer facing such a restricted marketplace.
While I feel these arguments support the need for Net Neutrality legislation, I am still very "fuzzy" on how such legislation should be drafted. For now, I'll leave that to the brains in Congress … on second thought, maybe I'll ponder that in a future post 🙂
Blogged with Flock