As a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, I, like everyone else
working here, is cheering that we are finally going to get Net Neutrality. The
question I have is this: why do Silicon Valley businesses, companies that
depend heavily on the internet, care so much about Net Neutrality, and why is
Fox News and many vocal republicans, so adamantly against it?
First of all, Net Neutrality has to do with access to the
Internet. On one side of the argument are consumers, along with small, medium,
and large businesses. On the other side are the four large carriers: Comcast,
Time Warner Cable, Verizon and AT&T. What Silicon Valley is cheering for
and what informed consumers and businesses want is for all web traffic to be
considered equal. While the carries want a multi-tier system.
On the surface, the carrier demand sounds reasonable.
Supporting high bandwidth traffic like Netflix is more expensive then
supporting low bandwidth traffic like Twitter. The carriers want to charge more
depending on the network demand. But what appears on the surface is not the
reality. In reality, the carriers want to speed up and slow down traffic based
on how much an organization pays.
This level of control gives a company that has a geographic
monopoly the legal right to slow down or deny access to individual
organizations. They can use this tiered system to act especially egregious when
they are negotiating a contract.
From the business and consumer point of view, we already pay
for network access, and we pay much more than people in the rest of the world. For
example, in Mexico you can get 80 channels and great Internet access for $35 a
month. A similar service in Silicon Valley starts at $80 a month.
Netflix, YouTube, Twitter, and your company pay the carriers
a lot of money for internet access. What no business wants is the equivalent of
a work stoppage when negotiating their next internet access contract, or to
find out their competitor paid the carrier more money to slow down their
access. Work stoppages like this have already happened.
Last year, while negotiating their contract, Comcast
drastically slowed down Netflix’s traffic. In 2013 when negotiating a contract,
Time Warner Cable discontinued service to CBS and NBC stations in four cities.
What gets confused on sources like Fox News, is the
difference between Net Neutrality and government regulation. Net Neutrality is
the what of the issue, while government regulation is the process of insuring
that the rules are followed. The carriers have already shown that they can’t be
trusted to self-govern. Do you want to be negotiating a contract with a carrier
if you know they will drastically shut down your internet traffic unless you
agree to their terms?
Realistically, the only way to insure Net Neutrality is to
have an oversight group and regulations that assure a third party is watching
out for businesses and consumers. Most importantly, what is needed are ongoing
rules to measure what's fair to the consumer and to businesses.
Fox News says that any regulation is bad — a heavy handed
statement considering the proposed Net Neutrality regulations. This proposal
differs from that of a regulated utility since there is no rate or tariff
regulation. What Net Neutrality includes is a set of safeguards that make
access fair.
The Net Neutrality proposal has been modeled after the 1993
rules for wireless traffic. Rules create certainty. For businesses to prosper
and our economy to grow, we need to assure consumer and business rights and
privacy over the internet.
So, back to my original statement: why are Silicon Valley
companies for Net Neutrality and Fox News and vocal republicans against it?
Silicon Valley companies know the importance of Net Neutrality. The web is the
blood line of their business and all modern businesses.
I can only come up with two reasons why Fox News is against
Net Neutrality. The first reason: they blindly disagree with anything that President
Obama supports. The second: any and all regulation is bad. Neither of these arguments
involves a rational business decision or creates a positive business climate.
Posts
