Chromecast, Net Neutrality and the Rise of New Gatekeepers

In a nutshell, the argument for net neutrality is that ISPs (like Verizon and Comcast), which currently have near monopoly positions in broadband service, are in a position to favor their own services in the face of this competitive threat.  So, for example, instituting data caps that apply to Netflix but not to video-on-demand; or by throttling web video.  To avoid this, providers like Netflix and Youtube could strike a special deal with the ISPs for “fast lane” service.  The net result of this would be a big blow to small innovators (“the next netflix|youtube”), who naturally wouldn’t be able to afford such fees.

The argument against net neutrality is that broadband providers have never been classified as “common carriers” (the classification that allowed similar rules to be placed on phone-based ISPs in the dial-up era), and aren’t subject to such rules.  Further, net neutrality assumes a monopoly environment that doesn’t exist (with the growth of mobile internet, mesh networks, etc.).  Instead, we should stay hands-off and let marketplace competition do the trick here.

Freedom is such a slippery issue.  One way of looking at the argument around net neutrality is about the freedom of ISPs to manage their services as they please, vs. the freedom to watch & participate (as consumers of media) and the freedom to publish (as producers of media).  Thinking about it through that lens, and taking the history of the internet thus far into account, my position is to favor creators and consumers.  The best thing about the internet is that everyone can become a creator — the smallest blog can become a news powerhouse, and the smallest side project can become the world’s biggest personal video platform.  This potential to start from nothing and reach millions of people is the heart of what makes the internet great and empowering.

With this issue heating up again, we’re starting to see more public discourse around it.  If you haven’t seen it yet, here’s a pro-net-neutrality video, The Internet Must Go, that just launched last week:

And for some counter-arguments, here is TechFreedom’s commentary of the Verizon / FCC case.

Back to Chromecast for a sec: on top of all this, Chromecast introduces a new layer: for now at least, Chromecast appears to only work with “approved content partners” (so far, Netflix, Pandora), and Chromecast may be actively blocking some apps.  So this puts Google in a new type of gatekeeper position, though a less defensible one, since anyone can connect anything to their TV.  This is particularly interesting given how Google has begun to close up the Android ecosystem, but that’s a subject for another post.

In a nutshell, the argument for net neutrality is that ISPs (like Verizon and Comcast), which currently have near monopoly positions in broadband service, are in a position to favor their own services in the face of this competitive threat.  So, for example, instituting data caps that apply to Netflix but not to video-on-demand; or by throttling web video.  To avoid this, providers like Netflix and Youtube could strike a special deal with the ISPs for “fast lane” service.  The net result of this would be a big blow to small innovators (“the next netflix|youtube”), who naturally wouldn’t be able to afford such fees.

The argument against net neutrality is that broadband providers have never been classified as “common carriers” (the classification that allowed similar rules to be placed on phone-based ISPs in the dial-up era), and aren’t subject to such rules.  Further, net neutrality assumes a monopoly environment that doesn’t exist (with the growth of mobile internet, mesh networks, etc.).  Instead, we should stay hands-off and let marketplace competition do the trick here.

Freedom is such a slippery issue.  One way of looking at the argument around net neutrality is about the freedom of ISPs to manage their services as they please, vs. the freedom to watch & participate (as consumers of media) and the freedom to publish (as producers of media).  Thinking about it through that lens, and taking the history of the internet thus far into account, my position is to favor creators and consumers.  The best thing about the internet is that everyone can become a creator — the smallest blog can become a news powerhouse, and the smallest side project can become the world’s biggest personal video platform.  This potential to start from nothing and reach millions of people is the heart of what makes the internet great and empowering.

With this issue heating up again, we’re starting to see more public discourse around it.  If you haven’t seen it yet, here’s a pro-net-neutrality video, The Internet Must Go, that just launched last week:

And for some counter-arguments, here is TechFreedom’s commentary of the Verizon / FCC case.

Back to Chromecast for a sec: on top of all this, Chromecast introduces a new layer: for now at least, Chromecast appears to only work with “approved content partners” (so far, Netflix, Pandora), and Chromecast may be actively blocking some apps.  So this puts Google in a new type of gatekeeper position, though a less defensible one, since anyone can connect anything to their TV.  This is particularly interesting given how Google has begun to close up the Android ecosystem, but that’s a subject for another post.