The “latest” debate about the nature of the internet
A couple of days in the United States has brought home to me the worrying nature of the debate about the future of the internet. Of course I didn’t need to cross the Atlantic: the discussion is taking place everywhere, but here it seems almost taken for granted that the web as we know it has to go, and that the deal from now on is about “your contract”, about the advantages that this or that operator can offer you; something akin to Tony Soprano’s offer you can’t refuse.
The contract I am using as I travel around the ‘States at the moment includes unlimited access to music streaming service Pandora. Contracts of this type are increasingly common, whether social networks or other popular services. It’s been discussed in Chile after some operators offered free access to social networks, and also in Spain after Tuenti introduced Zerolímites, which allows users to continue accessing the social network even when they have consumed the bits stipulated on their contract.
It’s hard to see who would refuse such an offer, particularly on the basis of something as abstract as protecting net neutrality. What’s more it’s going to be very difficult to ban such contracts, and doing so would likely prompt protests by the public. The argument in favor of free services or low tariffs runs something like this: “it’s better that these users have access to something, even if they don’t have much choice, because at least they will be on the right side of the digital divide.”
The nub of the matter is still that operators are able to do deals with certain companies that provide internet-based services, this time offering them privilege access — not in terms of speed: few these days would disagree that all bits are created equal — but in terms of cost. In other words, use this or that service via us and you won’t have to worry about the limits stipulated on your contract.
This puts the operators in the position of guardians of the internet: if you want your service to reach a lot of people, do a deal with me and I will include you in my contracts. In the medium to long run, the outcome is the same: in return for money, the operator privileges others. If you want to compete with that service, it’s going to be hard, because you will have no margin. You could create a service that users see as better, but you will have to compete with something that is already included in the contract and not have to worry about running out of broadband by the middle of the month if you use it.
The problem lies with the changing role of the operators: these types of contract are a way of creating a role for themselves beyond that of a dumb pipe, one that reduces their competitive ability. They want to be in a position to dole out privileges in terms of access to their cables and to charge what they can for that. This would be like an electricity company doing a deal with brand X to provide you with free power if you bought that brand. Few would turn the offer down, but it’s easy to see where this would lead: it would skew competition in the market, and consumers would soon have fewer options to choose from when it came to buying washing machines: who knows, the electricity companies might end up making their own washing machines and controlling the market completely.
This is not the only danger we face: operators are now threatening to introduce adblocking on their networks, which has cheered up users tired of intrusive formats gobbling up their bits. Great idea, but when we look more closely, we see that it would be very easy for operators to filter other things for commercial or whatever reasons. As soon as an operator ceases to be a “dumb tube”, the internet suffers and the competitive freedom that made it what it is today diminishes and the operators suddenly acquire a whole lot of power. This is a more potent danger than the old debate about whether they can provide some services with faster broadband at the expense of others.
The latest debate about the nature of the internet is essentially the same one it’s always been. The same danger, the same threat: a fist in a velvet glove, and one that is going to be much harder to stop this time.
(En español, aquí)
