Net Neutrality Debate Roars On
Right now the FCC is overseeing discussions about new laws dictating data allocation around the web. As currently stated, wired broadband service would be unchanged, however the changes being discussed concern the future of the internet accessibility: the structure of the wireless networks.
The corporations responsible for building and maintaining these vast networks providing web access are interested in doing the same thing they’ve always done, acting in their best economic interest. The argument Google and Verizon are making is if internet giants such as YouTube (owned by Google) are willing to pay a premium to allow faster load times, shouldn’t they have that option?
In an article written in the Washington Post, Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg proposed ISPs should have the “opportunity to provide additional services — such as telework applications, health monitoring services or optimized gaming.” This NY Times piece explains the technicalities of how such services might work in a way that’s easy to understand.
Dana Blankenhorn argues that there’s more to this deliberation than meets the eye. He proposes that Google is in fact acting in self interest, but by doing so they are better evolving the progression of internet services.
The argument to that proposition is that it will squelch innovation. Putting a damper on innovation for startups is what Silicon Valley fears most. Facebook chimed in by saying, “Preserving an open Internet that is accessible to innovators — regardless of their size or wealth — will promote a vibrant and competitive marketplace where consumers have ultimate control over the content and services delivered through their Internet connections.”
If passed, this tiered system seems like it will greatly benefit the business and services for those who can afford to take advantage of it, while chipping away at the foundation which has allowed so many startups (even Google, way back in the virtual wild west of the mid nineties) to thrive because they’ve always dealt with an inherently even playing field.
Do you think the big players should be allowed to manipulate their resources in order to affect the way consumers receive their data?
RSS
Archive
Mobile