Net Neutrality Part Deux
Wired posted earlier this week about the return of Net Neutrality to the courts (http://www.wired.com/2015/12/circuit-court-hears-case-against-net-neutrality/) and each time it does I get a little more nervous.
Net neutrality, for me, has always been a bit of a sticky thought process. On the one hand I agree whole-heartedly that the very idea of an open and free Internet depends on the fact that all data be treated equally regardless of who creates it or where it is being sent. On the other hand I see (to an extent) what the ISPs are saying — that they are investing their own money into the infrastructure of the Web and they need to be compensated as that becomes more and more expensive to do. It is a very difficult problem and one that is incredibly important to libraries.
The general idea is this: Internet Service Providers want to offer faster services to sites and companies that can pay for them. These Internet “fast lanes” would allow some companies to provide better services if they are willing to pay the premium prices. The problem here is that while large companies like Google and Netflix could pay the prices the ISPs ask for the faster service rarely could a start-up company. This could cause a number of problems including a cut in the number of new sites and services, a hike in the prices consumers pay across the board and a general tamping-down of the creativity that can be found on the Internet.
The outcome of this fight between an open Internet and the companies that provide it is important to libraries for a number of reasons, both in the now and in the possible future. At the moment, for most libraries the fight over Net Neutrality is one of Freedom of Speech. The library can stand on the sidelines with their pro Net Neutrality banners and root for an open and free Internet. This is because, at the moment, most of the services the library offers are not based online. Sure, services like Hoopla or My Media Mall use the Internet but the bulk of what most libraries do is still contained in a brick-and-mortar building. The only possible problems of an ISP-favored outcome in the immediate future would be a possible spike in database prices or a jump in overall Internet cost. The problems will multiply, however, as time goes on.
Fast forward ten-or-twenty years and a whole different story could unfold. While, as I’ve mentioned in a previous post, the library is often slow to adapt to technological change, that doesn’t mean it won’t eventually happen. As more and more library services inevitably wind up online the need for faster connection speeds and download abilities will magnify. This is when the ISP can use their power to squeeze institutions like libraries. At the moment, libraries likely aren’t on the ISP radar but as library services such as My Media Mall and Hoopla expand and offer more than just Babar cartoons in their video cues or even original content (it could happen!) that could change.
As I have admitted in previous posts here, I tend to lean to the Utopian side of the spectrum and as such I eventually take my place among Team Neutrality on the basis that the change the ISPs want would crumble one of — if not the — founding idea of the Internet as we know it. While I am not saying that ISPs should not be compensated for their services, a compromise must be made in which the sanctity of the Internet’s founding ideals must be preserved. Now, if only I could figure out what that compromise could be….
