Consequences of a non-neutral Internet

In recent weeks the Net neutrality debate took a turn--in what direction? Well, we’re not sure yet.

Google, aka the “Don’t be Evil” corporation, came out and said network providers should follow Net neutrality, but only to a point. If Internet service providers (ISPs) need to muck with network traffic to allow for managed services or vital things like home health care monitoring, they should be able to.



Only so much can be shoved through fiber-optic cable, right? So it stands to reason that people who pay network providers more should get more bandwidth. Besides, it’s not a good thing if online gamers slow a network down and make life more difficult for a home care nurse communicating vital stats to a hospital hundreds of miles away.

Setting up a tiered service network doesn’t seem like a big deal. We’re seeing the beginning of tiered services already, with different levels of residential and business broadband available to the buying public. It’s already out there, and as far as I can tell the sky isn’t full of locusts just yet. And besides, a federal court ruling in April said the Federal Communications Commission can’t regulate ISPs’ so-called “network management practices.” If the FCC is going to have any significant power over the issue, Congress needs to write a few new laws.

Tiered services may seem fair. The ISPs build and maintain the network infrastructure. Sure, they’ve gotten government assistance, but the ISPs do the heavy lifting when it comes to day-to-day maintenance. Why shouldn’t they have some control over the traffic?

On the other hand, I wonder how successful Google would have been in its early days if it had to pay big bucks for the best Internet access.

Net neutrality advocates are worried and furious, and they have reason to be. Much has been said about the free flow of information and ideas. More than that, I think a neutral Internet embodies a level playing field, or at least a meritocracy. The better you are at things like search engine optimization (SEO), the more widespread your message becomes, and tools like SEO don’t require billions in the bank.

But it’s not just about Web traffic. The Internet has allowed many small companies, including contract metal fabricators, to act big. Many shops log in to check on a laser cutting center that’s running unattended over a weekend, or a job queue that’s part of an ERP system’s online interface. Technical gurus even can troubleshoot complex machinery from afar--again, thanks to the Internet.

My fear is this: What if the best Internet service goes to only the markets that are most lucrative for the network providers? Those governed by the free market aren’t altruistic. ISPs will act to maximize profit and shareholder value. Streaming media has huge money-making potential for ISPs, much more perhaps than fees from thousands of small businesses who rely on the Internet to make their operations as efficient as possible.

Those businesses employ millions, and it would be sad to see some of them laid off just because Internet connectivity issues made the company less competitive. As a consolation, those laid-off people would have more time to give a few extra bucks to their ISP so they can stream some incredibly cool online content--from sports to video games--right into their living room. That may seem irrational, but for the unemployed it may be a small price to pay to escape from unpleasant realities. Still, online gaming doesn’t support a family.

Such a thing probably won’t happen this year or even this decade. But years from now, as online business applications grow increasingly sophisticated and comprehensive, we may see some unpleasant, not-so-far-fetched consequences of a non-neutral Internet.