Take a look at almost any home in the United States and you are sure to find some kind of paid TV service that offers more than the basic channels. Be it Time Warner Cable (or another Cable operator), Dish Network (or another satellite operator), or even one of the new broadband network companies, almost all of us have a paid service for additional TV channels/tiers. Each of these tiers of service offers different programs. Some offer High Definition (HD) channels, while others include select sports channels. There are movie channels, child entertainment channels, music channels, naughty channels, shopping channels… you name it. You pay and subscribe for the service/tier you are interested in.
Then imagine the Internet becoming the same way. On one channel you get your shopping websites like Amazon.com, Buy.com, NewEgg.com, TigerDirect.com, Wal-Mart.com, etc. On another you’ll find your general service and corporation websites like Microsoft, Dell, AMD, Ford, AT&T, etc. Other channels would provide entertainment, music, travel, etc.
Think that’s impossible? At one time we might have all thought so. But in light of the “net neutrality” battle, that may no longer be the case. You’ve probably heard the term “net neutrality” but let me cover again exactly what it means. One pro-net-neutrality source describes it as follows:
“Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many companies, including Google, Yahoo, Amazon, and others, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet.”
The opposite side of the argument says that broadband carries should be allowed to charge for access to their networks. Meaning Google, Yahoo, Amazon, etc would have to pay for access to the network. The argument is that currently these large companies are ‘flooding’ the networks bandwidth and thus driving up the cost for consumers (which is why you pay $60 a month for internet access – you are supporting the network).
The real debate focuses on the fact that many companies, especially Google, feel that ‘broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.’
Whether you agree with that statement or not, the debate is real and is currently in the U.S. Senate. The outcome affects all of us.
Does this alter the openness of the Internet? Does it lower costs for consumers while driving up costs for companies who only exist on the web? Many questions remain.
But one that has perhaps been overlooked is the idea of Internet channels. It’s no secret that more and more companies are jumping into the industry of providing Internet access via their own network. While many companies have, for years, used the technology of a select few on the backend (AT&T being a primary backbone), this is all changing rapidly with new technology, including wireless broadband and satellite services. Google has also been rumored to have spent billions on network cable across the country, perhaps in preparation for building their own network – just in case anyone tries to charge them for access to an existing 'free' network (AT&T, etc). It may one day be a fact of life that instead of having a single Internet connection in our homes that we have many, or more likely, the option of channels. New companies will form, similar to Time Warner, who will make deals with internet giants guaranteeing certain amounts of traffic through those channels, much how cable networks currently make deals with select programming channels promising them a certain level of exposure (viewers) on given tiers of service. We’ll also likely see more service providers providing tiers of speed service (56K, Broadband, DSL, T1, etc) in addition to these ‘channels’ of the Internet. You can connect at 56K while enjoying one package of Internet channels while at the broadband level you gain access to a richer selection of channels. Perhaps Google creates their own channels and makes deals with the ISP’s to provide their service in all packages.
All of this seems like silliness I’m sure. But net neutrality will drastically change and shape the future of the Internet. If net neutrality disappears there is almost no doubt that initially the big companies will pay for access to ‘the network.’ But in due time, the idea of Internet channels will almost certainly become a reality. Consumers will love the lower cost of getting online as Internet giants start picking up the tab. But such things won’t last. From the very moment the cost of the Internet switches from the consumers to the corporations the corporations will be working on a way to flip the equation again, hence the dawn of internet channels that empower not only the internet giants themselves (at least those who have their own network), but also empower the ISP’s (who provide the access to those networks). What that means for the large (currently ‘free’) network owners (who want to charge access to the internet giants) remains to be seen, perhaps they’ll change their stance and things will go back to how they exist today.
The debate continues. Either way, expect change. There’s no such thing as a ‘free’ Internet.
John C. Derrick
Founder
UPDATE: The US's largest internet provider has enshrined the principle of internet neutrality in an agreement to treat all web traffic equally. The move has reignited the debate about net neutrality. AT&T's agreement comes as part of a merger deal with Bell South Communications (SBC). The agreement was a condition of the Federal Communications Commission's approval of the $86bn deal and reverses the position of the telco.
