Net Neutrality and Small Business on the Web

Have you heard of "net neutrality?"

Network neutrality is the idea that network providers such as AT&T or Verizon can't determine what information on the Internet has priority; it keeps these providers from giving preferential treatment to partners and corporations that are willing to pay more (read: those with deeper pockets.)

Although there are smart people (and giant corporations) on both sides of the debate, small businesses and entrepreneurs benefit from net neutrality, as we could never afford to spend individually what a Verizon partner spends for preferential treatment.

Imagine if only Wal-Mart, McDonalds and similar delivery trucks were allowed on the highway, with the rest of us taking side streets to get from place to place. How long would small businesses and entrepreneurs survive in a business climate like that?

Oddly, this seems to be a partisan debate. I would think this would cut across party lines to anyone who wanted to be a friend of small business.

Personally, I have little faith in the pressure of online campaigns, but for those of you who feel motivated, here are some links to petition sites:

• Protect Net Neutrality (Common Cause - non-partisan)
• Net Freedom Now!
• Save the Internet! (Moveon.org)

Rich Brooks
Net Neutral

Tags: Net Neutrality | Network Neutrality | Small Business | AT&T | Verizon

Comments

[John Rice]

Frankly, I have very little patience for partisan politics. Both the Democrats and Republicans have proven supportive of big government policies over individual freedoms, and big corporate supporters over small businesses. While the later has been better, not substantially and growing worst every day that they are in power. There is an inherent naivety in a post that refers to MoveOn.org and Common Cause as non-partisan. MoveOn.org was founded as an attack vehicle for Bill Clinton and Common Cause is run by Chellie Pingree, who if you do not know, is a partisan Democrat who ran a ridiculously negative campaign against the very moderate Susan Collins. This debate has been skewed by the rhetoric used by proponents of net neutrality. The claims that internet providers would somehow close out small businesses from access is preposterous. What incentive would a provider have to limit its customer’s access? For anyone who has taken a remedial economics it’s clear that if a provider fails to offer the desired service in a competitive marketplace, then the customer will likely chose another provider. The small business denied access today could be the next Amazon or Google. Internet providers know this and will be responsive to market forces. Net neutrality laws will empower the political elite over yet another industry, and doing so, stifle innovation and new products offered to Internet consumers.

[Rich Brooks]

John,

I appreciate the feedback, even if we're going to end up on different sides of this debate.

To be clear, I didn't say MoveOn is non-partisan. I hesitated to even mention them BECAUSE they are so polarizing.

Also, my point is not that small business would be DENIED access, but rather that if Verizon-type companies have the ability to give preferred treatment to partners and companies they will, to the detriment of small business.

As far as rhetoric goes, I would say that both sides enjoy hyperbole.

Just as you apparently fear big government, I fear big business. It's net neutrality that allows small businesses to compete on an even playing field and I believe THAT is what powers innovation.

[lessgov]

Excellent points John. The difference between the roads analogy and the net neutrality debate is that the Internet is a free market enterprise. What if the government decided who could park in your driveway? That would be a better analogy. Analogies aside - and none are perfect when it comes to this complicated issue - my primary concern is inviting the government to pick winners and losers in this debate. There is little, if any, evidence that any sort of wrongdoing has occurred, and I'm curious as to why some (partisan) leaders are so anxious to regulate the Internet.

[hammertoe]

Bravo, John. I am far more afraid of big government's regulation of the internet than I am of allowing the market to sort this out. Park of what gets lost in this argument is that the vast majority of consumers in this country have a choice of MORE THAN 2 ISPs. The market will prevail--along with innovation--is only we let it!

[pkp646]

Very interesting posts and comments. I've been up on this issue for sometime now and I've come to the conclusion like several of the commenters that the best solution is not net neutrality legislation. Besides it being unnecessary, it would seem to be both ineffective and unworkable. It would surely cause more trouble than it is worth.

[Paul]

Net neutrality is so easy to take for granted. Like free breathable air, freedom of speech, freedom of movement. You only notice them when they are absent or taken away from you. I think many non-militant people will become radicals pro-freedom activists, when big business puts its first filters in.

Small business entrepreneurs are the first into the fray. Having to pay broadband and telecom for the privilege of connecting your web site to the internet would kill off hundreds and thousands of possible startups.

Paul

[Jim Lippard]

Rich:

The problem with your analogy is that the freeways correspond to the backbones, which are highly competitive and extremely unlikely to engage in anti-competitive traffic blocking. The RBOCs control not the backbones, but the last-mile connectivity for consumers--they're like an HOA controlling the private roads around homes in your analogy.

I've offered a slightly different analogy at my blog.

[Jim Lippard]

Paul, you wrote:

"Small business entrepreneurs are the first into the fray. Having to pay broadband and telecom for the privilege of connecting your web site to the internet would kill off hundreds and thousands of possible startups."

This is not a real issue in the debate. You already have to pay to connect a website to the Internet, but that's not at risk in the net neutrality debate because you have *lots* of options for how to do that and are not being held captive by RBOC/CATV duopoly.

The only risk to a business is a business that is a content provider, dependent upon access to consumer eyeball customers, who needs better-than-best-effort (i.e., current Internet) connectivity, for applications which are either bandwidth-intensive (like real-time video) or latency and jitter-sensitive (like real-time audio, including VOIP).

Business-to-business connectivity is not a real issue in this debate--that's a very highly competitive environment where there is no monopoly or duopoly control, and it's easy to find a provider who wants your business and will customize a service offering to your needs.

BTW, the best paper to date on net neutrality is the Stifel/Nicolaus analysis, "Value Chain Tug-of-War" (PDF).

[tkarr]

Readers of this comment thread should know that lessgov and pkp646 look to be part of a tag-team of industry shills who invade blog comments on net neutrality to argue against any government regulation of the Internet. (Google "pkp646 and lessgov" and you'll see what I mean)

What they fail to point out is that Net Neutrality has been the rule that has governed access to the Internet since its inception. It's the reason that the Internet has become such a dynamic force for new ideas, economic innovation and free speech. What they really want is for Congress to radically re-write our telecommunications laws so that companies like AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth can swoop in and become gatekeepers to Internet content -- in a way that benefits no one except the largest ISPs.

I'd like pkp646 and lessgov to tell us how it is that they appear together (usually one after the other) spouting identical industry talking points across the blogosphere.

What gives fellas? Are you being paid?