Last Thursday’s AFF roundtable on network neutrality was a smashing success. The panel, made up of James Gattuso (formerly of CEI, now at Heritage), Patrick Ross of PFF, Frannie Wellings of Free Press, and Alex Curtis of Public Knowledge gave excellent presentations, which were followed by some spirited Q&A with the audience.
There are a couple of issues raised during the roundtable that I want to comment on, the first of which is on the idea that equal bits should be treated equally.
Frannie, who was presenting a pro-neutrality case, acknowledged that some applications, such as video, audio, and other large media files, would require better network delivery systems than standard web-surfing or e-mail. Her position was that there could indeed be tiered pricing, but that those prices should apply to all content of a certain format: equal bits should be treated equally. That is, all video delivery should be priced and treated the same way, all audio delivery should be priced and treated the same way, all e-mail should be priced and treated the same way, etc.
This should be exceptionally concerning to people who want innovation on the content side to continue thriving, which is what net neutrality supporters claim to be protecting. Unlike implementing tiered pricing on a company by company basis (the "anti-neutrality" position, where companies choose on an individual basis whether or not to pay for priority), a doctrine of treating equal bits equally forces a certain minimum standard of service that companies without a lot of capital can't opt out of. Right now, if I want to start a video streaming service, I pay the same as everyone else. If, in the future, better pipes for video are created and there is a doctrine of "equal treatment for equal bits," my tiny little start-up will have no option but to pay for the same high-quality services that my billion-dollar, well-entrenched competitors use, all in the name of "equality." That's just silly.
Regulation opponents often make an analogy that in any other business, if you want to pay for priority, you can upgrade all your shipping, for example, by paying Fed-Ex more for overnight delivery. The corollary of allowing businesses to upgrade their service if they want to is that you also allow businesses NOT to upgrade if they so choose: every letter or package must be sent via Fed-Ex. An upstart can’t cut costs by relying on the Post Office.
Perhaps an Internet start-up with a limited budget would rather put their money into advertising, personnel recruitment, or more bandwidth, and worry about speedy delivery later down the road. Mandatory equal treatment for equal bits says that a company can't make that choice for itself.
--Brooke Oberwetter
