One of the key tenets seemingly ingrained into the structure of the Internet was that it was neutral, the great equalizer. A tiny company could have a website and online presence that overshadowed any competitor, including even a huge company. When you viewed a website, you had no way of knowing the size of the company, number of employees or revenues. Generally, most of your knowledge about that company was based on the content and quality of its online presence. Testimonials and social media could further obscure a company”™s true size. Fortunes were made (and lost) by websites selling products or services to an often receptive market on a truly level playing field.
This model of equality was abruptly changed on April 23, when the Federal Communications Commission proposed rules allowing Internet providers to charge additional fees for more bandwidth. In short, it proposed allowing some companies such as Disney and Netflix to reach subscribers faster than other companies ”“ for a fee ”“ while entrusting them to act in a “commercially reasonable manner,” however they define it.
Would it make a big difference to you if a website loaded in one second versus two seconds? Probably not. It would quickly come down to the content, layout and a number of other factors. However, what if it was one second versus 10 seconds? That might make a difference or negatively dispose a viewer to that website once it was displayed. How might a viewer react if videos ”“ which are rapidly increasing in number ”“ took longer to load and regularly made frequent and annoying stops and starts while being viewed?
This ruling by the FCC does sound ominous. It is certainly unfair. And yet, will it have much effect? Probably not, as long as the commercially reasonable use of bandwidth is appropriately defined and properly managed. First, larger Web hosting companies like GoDaddy and HostForWeb will start to offer faster Internet speeds to their customers for a few extra dollars a month so their users can also compete with companies like Disney and Netflix. Second, online speeds are rapidly increasing. (Remember, it wasn”™t that long ago that people were using dial-up 56K modems to connect to the Internet.) Countries around the world are increasingly moving toward gigabit transmission speeds. It is only a matter of time before service providers are forced to upgrade the speed of their networks in this country, too. A one-second delay today will become a 0.2-second delay in a few years. In this type of high-speed environment, a difference in speed between fast and basic transmission speeds should be negligible.
Google Fiber gigabit is already in place in Kansas City, Mo., Provo, Utah, and soon in Austin, Texas, with plans for more than 34 cities in nine metro areas around the country. It offers speeds that it claims are up to 100 times faster than the broadband speeds most subscribers currently have. It”™s a game changer. Essentially, it eliminates transmission delays while providing higher quality video streaming and more interaction. Charging roughly the same price as the traditional broadband providers, it also represents a threat to the established order. Already, AT&T and Cox Communications are drawing up plans for their own gigabit networks. Not surprisingly, in the face of increased competition by Google Fiber, Time Warner Cable has increased the speed of its cable by over six times in Austin while not raising its fee to consumers.
And this, not faster lanes, highlights the crux of the real conflict: the quest for greater profits versus the needs of the public. It”™s not about Net neutrality; it”™s about profits and too little competition. It”™s hard to root for the “new guy on the block,” especially when it is Google Fiber, and yet well-financed upstarts like it have the ability to essentially ensure Net neutrality at a far more reasonable cost for subscribers while rapidly gaining market share for themselves. It”™s the type of competition every city and township should be seeking.
The Comcast-Time Warner proposed merger is all about market share and their combined 33 million subscribers. It”™s not about Net neutrality but rather the generating of profits and the ability to better withstand competition from the “Google-like” upstarts.
In the near future, the issues of Net neutrality and communications mergers will receive much press and attention. It is important to realize that it truly is all about profits, with the result of these battles having an impact on the quality and cost of the Internet, social media and communication service made available to the public by these providers.
Bruce Newman is vice president at The Productivity Institute L.L.C. and a regular Westfair contributor. He specializes in content creation and digital marketing. He can be reached at bnewman@prodinst.com.
