I have fallen into writing about some topics that seem beneath the radar for most ed tech bloggers. I assume many writing about ed tech have a local focus and avoid topics that have a political tinge because they would prefer to remain apolitical or because they assume they cannot make a difference.
I became interested in what is called “net neutrality” in 2005/2006. Because the phrase seems to mean different things to different people, I define neutrality as an ISP being agnostic as to the type or source of content delivered to a user. Some used to describe this as “bits is bits” – meaning the user pays for access at a certain rate and the provider should not be able to manipulate the content the user desires to consume.
I understood the original concern to be that providers could use their control to prioritize other services they might provide. For example, a cable company selling premium movie channels might advantage such channels by making it difficult to download content purchased from a service such as NetFlix. A DSL provider might reduce the quality of Skype or some other VOIP service to advantage the phone services it sells.
More recent concerns focus on content providers allowing some to “fast track” their content by making deals with service providers.This multiplies the advantages of existing successful companies making it difficult for new companies or hobbyists to contribute content.
Just for the record, I do not accept the argument that a net neutrality position prevents businesses from generating a reasonable return on their investments. Much was invested before the large companies became involved. The Internet was not created by business ventures or ramped up by commercial content providers. The Internet came from the research community and was pretty much developed by hobbyists. Business entities came into the game once profit potential was established. The supposed great risks they take are not exactly the risks of R&D. Also, those companies in a position to offer these services were few in number and already well established. By building on top of the cable or phone companies, the services were provided in sectors of the economy that were already close to monopolistic. Many of us live in areas of the country with one option and a low quality and expensive option at that.
The President has now taken a solid position on net neutrality. A position taken by the President has generated the typical response from the republicans. This could easily be framed as a small business vs big business issue. Those who read tech blogs probably know about this issue, but the dem vs republican angle may now bring the topic to the attention of the average citizen. I think positioning this as a red/blue confrontation is unfortunate, but this may be what it takes to generate some attention. I am concerned we are losing sight of the original promise of the Internet and will become limited by the financial goals of a few large companies.
