Is this a form of business discrimination/monopolistic behavior, or just an attempt to make the Internet a little bit more efficient?
But the nation’s largest telephone companies have a new business plan, and if it comes to pass you may one day discover that Yahoo suddenly responds much faster to your inquiries, overriding your affinity for Google. Or that Amazon’s Web site seems sluggish compared with eBay’s.
The changes may sound subtle, but make no mistake: The telecommunications companies’ proposals have the potential, within just a few years, to alter the flow of commerce and information — and your personal experience — on the Internet. For the first time, the companies that own the equipment that delivers the Internet to your office, cubicle, den and dorm room could, for a price, give one company priority on their networks over another.
This represents a break with the commercial meritocracy that has ruled the Internet until now. We’ve come to expect that the people who own the phone and cable lines remain “neutral,” doing nothing to influence the content on your computer screen. And may the best Web site win.
The rest of the story… The Coming Tug of War Over the Internet
This certainly seems to be a very interesting case, though I don’t know which side of the issue I come down on. I can definitely see merit in both arguments. While it seems natural to be against any type of regulation in the sense of a provider offering better service for their online partners, similar types of partnerships can be seen virtually anywhere. When a university such as Purdue signs a contract with Coca-Cola, they are giving a clear preference to Coke, making it impossible to find a Pepsi at a university sponsored event. Certain stores carry certain lines of clothing, groceries, motor oil, etc., thereby excluding other types. I don’t seem anyone complaining that you can’t get BRAND X at Store Y…
This will be an interesting issue to keep an eye on.
This sounds to me like another example of the media monopoly that Bagdikian talks about. You could always say “just choose another service provider”, but what about people who live in an area where there is only one choice? They’re pretty much a captive audience for whatever the ISP wants to sell them.
I agree with Alyson’s post above. At first glance, it appears as though telecommunications infrastructure companies joining the bandwagon queers the pitch a bit. I would also be more than a little concerned about this, as in many locations even across the U.S. (for example, here in West Lafayette), consumers do not have a great deal of choice between telecommunications companies. So in the short run at least, it may actually serve to decrease the choice available to consumers and appear to encourage monopolistic business practices. On a broader scale, this may be true for the emerging market in India also, where there is a great deal of debate about the deregulation of the infrastructure sector. There may be something to the argument about keeping the infrastructure market neutral so as to ensure (at least to some extent) a level playing field for all, and more choice for the consumer.