The past ten years the internet has become a critical tool in all aspects of modern business, culture and communications. Since 2004, the number of internet users has increased 220%, with users logging in from every continent and nearly every recognized country. Social media has become a key component of global internet use. According to a recent PewResearch study, 74% of internet users are active on social media. Based on the statistics, it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise that social media accounts for roughly 20% of time spent online. The social media landscape is built upon the idea of an open internet, where everyone has access to the same things you do. With these ease at which people can speak, share and discuss, it has come to be expected that the internet be easy to use, convenient and fast.
The net neutrality movement has exploded in the last few months as the FCC tries to work out a net neutrality rule that complies with the court’s ruling in Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission. Net neutrality is a highly technical topic that has huge implications in the real-world future of the internet and the way that people communicate online.
The conflict
The conflict is between internet service providers like Verizon, and content providers like Netflix. Netflix wants to deliver their video content to Verizon’s customers with flawless quality. But to do that, it needs a lot of bandwidth. Netflix alone currently accounts for around 30% of U.S. internet traffic, and growing. Verizon (and other providers) see this as unsustainable and has demanded that Netflix pay for peering arrangements if they want to their traffic delivered to customers.
But it’s not that simple
It seems that the answer is obvious: Netflix shouldn’t be able to build a business using the ISP’s infrastructure without the consent of the ISPs. The ISPs paid for the infrastructure, who is Netflix to tell them what traffic they allow? If people want to get better Netflix service, they can switch to another provider that has agreed to carry the traffic, and competition will work it all out.
“A multi-tiered system..catered purely to the economic interests of broadband providers with termination monopolies to end consumers, will undoubtedly harm innovation and competition in industries reliant on the Internet (a set of industries that now extends far beyond the usual ‘tech’ sector) and stifle free expression for millions of users of Tumblr.”
Statement by Tumblr to Washington Post
Competition among ISPs in America is nonexistent in many regions
But there are few alternatives for broadband internet access for many people in the US, so you may be simply stuck with whatever service your only provider gives you.
ISPs have conflicts of interest
Verizon has its own video streaming service. In the ISP’s ideal world, Netflix wouldn’t exist and the ISP would be the provider of this type of service. So it’s difficult to trust the ISPs when they say that this is purely to ensure a stable network. There is also evidence that the disruptions are artificial and not a consequence of a network filled to capacity.
It’s not clear to users whose fault this is
When a user sees their Netflix stream fail, they perceive a failure of Netflix, no matter where the failure actually was. So any network disruption destroys their credibility as a dependable service. Netflix actually implemented a message for their users blaming Verizon for disruptions, and was forced to stop due to legal action from Verizon. And I’m not convinced that anyone would have read and understood it anyway. All the users see is that Netflix doesn’t work, and the intricacies of tech company business models are never going to be general knowledge.
Coming legal battles
Regardless of what the FCC decides, there will undoubtedly be many lawsuits to come about these questions. I find it hard to believe that, at the end of the day, the court will force a private company to let another private company use its infrastructure without paying for it. The only solution is more disruption: more competition in local broadband markets, so that Netflix can legitimately say to a complaining customer: “Sorry, your ISP doesn’t work well with us, have you considered switching to a different one?”
“The Internet is built on the principle of openness. For the price of an Internet connection, anyone can spread new ideas or start a business — even spark a new industry.”
Althea Erickson, Etsy
Disruptive business models must remain viable
I’ve worked at a variety of startups in my career, and they have all, including People Pattern, been about disrupting the way things are done. A future where any ISP gets to dictate whether traffic from a new company actually gets delivered seems terrible: does that make the first step for any new internet business negotiating contracts with every ISP in the world? Or do people only show up with their hands out once you’ve become successful?
The open internet is not going away
The world of social media has erupted in response to the FCC–over 3 million comments were logged against the decision. Facebook issued a public statement, touting the importance of “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.”
The social media landscape has provided platforms for individuals to share opinions, comments, thoughts and concerns in a largely unregulated environment. Since the widespread adoption of social platforms and the increasingly popularity of video sharing, I’m confident that, no matter what the FCC rules or what the courts decide, the majority of consumers will not accept anything less than fast, unregulated internet.
Interested in learning how People Pattern is impacting the social landscape? Send us an email or request a demo below and we will be in touch!
Recent Comments