Broadband-Internet.GOV - One ISP to Rule Them All
(Page 3 of 4 )
Many of us can recall the internet boom of the mid-90s; the market for the internet was finally ripening, and the number of dial-up providers was exploding. Big companies were competing alongside smaller startups. America Online, the emerging leader, was all busy signals and redialing, and oftentimes local competitors were much better at keeping their services running properly. In any relatively populated area, there was a wide array of choices and real competition for ISPs to deliver speed and services. Although short lived, there was even a stiff competition between what company could provide the best dial-up access for free.
Then along comes broadband. Goodbye, choices. Now most people decide between two giant corporations (if they aren’t going to be left behind on a dial-up line). The phone and cable companies enjoy the setup of their either-or market. It’s anti-competitive, and they can price gouge. The internet is expensive because of these telecommunications and cable corporations that have stations of power.
Worse than the prices is the loss of freedom. Whenever media is in the hands of a few giant companies, things are bound to go wrong. Sometimes corporations have too much temptation to try to please people, like parents or political organizations. The way it is stated by Paul Misner, an Amazon.com executive, is:
Although perhaps subtle at first,…the Internet would metamorphose from being the ultimate “pull” medium, in which consumer choice is paramount, to being yet another cable TV-style “push” medium, where gate-keeping service providers decide what content Americans are allowed to obtain. By destroying unimpeded connectivity, the anti-competitive exercise of market power by a handful of broadband service providers would do to the Internet what even a nuclear strike could not.
Although you currently enjoy freedom in what sites and services you visit, it is not guaranteed. A company trying to please investors, special parties, or security extremists could easily institute control over what content is viewed on the internet. In Misner's vision, it sounds as if streaming media could be the primary offerings of the internet, "pushing" the arranged content on consumers. If unacceptable or offensive, sites and countries may have their IP addresses blocked. As drastic as it sounds, the couple broadband ISPs (given enough power) could exert control over online companies, strong-arming them into removing content or face being blocked.
Remember, no matter what cable company you have, they have control over what you see, and you have to pay into higher price tiers to see more controversial networks. Basic cable is barely anything but broadcast networks, whose disputably most offensive moment was seeing a police officer’s butt on NYPD Blue. Pay more and you can see more, but you still won’t see South Park during the day (as all offensive shows are reserved for post-primetime or late night) or heavy cursing on MTV. They could force adware (pop-ups or what have you) on customers who have few options. It would be tragic to see access on the internet divided into price tiers or other filtration methods.
Even though that example is an extremity, trusting a couple large companies to handle internet access may be a mistake. It’s against the fundamental nature of the internet as an open and accessible medium for sharing and distributing information and services unrestricted. Government organizations are responsible for upholding the first amendment as best they can, and also must serve the general public they work for (unlike corporations that serve stockholders and advertisers). Corporations have far more vested interests in seeing what you are viewing and controlling what you’re seeing than a local government.
Next: Internet as Utility >>
More Networking Hardware Articles
More By Developer Shed
