Some things don't appear scary, until you sit down and think about it. The pending agreement between Google and Verizon is one of those things.
At first sight, why shouldn't a provider of content (Google in this case) be able to pay an Internet service (that would be Verizon) for quicker streaming of their sites? We live in a free world, and a market economy at that, so what exactly is wrong with this plan? If you pay for something, you should get it, right?
Personally, I think the problem is the belief that whatever the market wants must be good for the people. This notion seems to have been the fundamental driver behind American politics regarding media content, at least since the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Just because although the market might at times know what works, doesn't mean we should just let it have free reign, as past experiences (such as the infamous chlorine incident in Minot, ND) have shown.
The Internet is tacitly ruled by something known as "net neutrality", the idea that all content is equal, i.e., no content should be more accessible than others. If Google and Verizon were to succeed in their agreement (which, judging by the FCC's lack of authority, they probably will), this would undermine this net neutrality, and open the door to a whole myriad of potential problems that could seriously impact our ability to inform ourselves.
Let's just keep it very simply. What if you're in a strange city, and you want to find a good sushi restaurant? Don't you want a list of all restaurants, and not just the ones that paid your phone provider extra dough? Or what if you want to read up on your media history, and find that the book you're looking for on Google is unavailable, because that publishing house did not fork over as much money as its competition? Or even more drastic: What if political party paid all cell phone services enough money to have them stream their websites at twice the speed as the other party's websites? Where would that leave our democratic process? Would it still be democratic? Or would we then truly be a marketocracy?
So yes, some things do bear some thought. Or actually, a lot of thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Net neutrality has been one of the keys to the success of the Internet, even though it has never existed in a pure form. For instance, when most people had dial-up service, then they did not have the same access as research scientists working at a university or at defense contractor, who had very high bandwidth at their fingertips. Still, we must be vigilant against the machinations of Google, Apple, Microsoft, and all the others that will use their muscle and money to gain any competitive advantage—always for their benefit and only accidentally, if at all, for the benefit of the public.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think you are spot on with the assessment that these efforts by Google and others to buy advantage are supported by the tacit understanding that what's good for business is good for the public.This has been disproven so often, that one wonders why we must remind people again. Businesses still define themselves competitively, and that means they will always seek advantage over everyone else. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with giving them free rein to pursue that objective without some oversight. In general, the only behavior that is ever changed is behavior that is monitored. We must monitor even Google.
But the largest issue for me is that Google is trying to create a hierarchical structure—with themselves at the top—within what functions best as a non-hierarchical, or rhizomatic, structure. If governments and businesses succeed in wrestling the rhizome into a pyramid, then I fear, the Net we know and love will be lost. Too bad for society.