On Capitol Hill, a heated debate is currently underway. Proponents of an Open Internet, which include consumer advocacy groups, human rights organizations, and some online companies, picket outside of the FCC building. Meanwhile, on the other side of the debate, opponents such as telecommunications companies, Internet service providers, and some hardware companies lobby to gain more control over how data is transmitted on the broadband networks that they control.
With the topic of Net Neutrality, those who have opinions are making them known—and vehemently so. But among the American public, the debate over Net Neutrality softens, whether due to lack of awareness or confusion about what it all means. A recent survey aimed at gauging the opinions of adult Internet users found that 57% of respondents didn’t know enough about Net Neutrality to form an opinion about it. For professionals working in the digital space, it is important to be informed about Net Neutrality in order to understand the implications that any legislation could have on consumers’ digital experiences.
The basis for Net Neutrality is simple in concept: all Internet traffic, regardless of its source, is treated equally and on a level playing field. In an Open Internet scenario, data packets that are downloaded from the Web are delivered on a first-come first-served basis, whether it’s coming from a corporate giant or from a startup. Currently, Internet service providers such as Comcast or Time Warner Cable do not interfere with the transmission of data on their pipes, nor do they restrict access to sites based on content or the amount of data those sites consume. A bandwidth-heavy site like Netflix and a small-time hobbyist’s blog are viewed equally in the eyes of ISPs, causing what many online video watchers have come to know and dread: buffering. This occurs in times of online congestion when Netflix is waiting its turn to download data alongside all other sites on the Web.
A proposal drafted by the FCC, however, has created a potential loophole for ISPs, allowing them to offer preferential data treatment to sites, effectively creating a two-tiered system that gives a kind of high-speed fast lane for those companies willing to pay for the privilege—and a slow lane for everyone else. Under this type of system without neutrality, Netflix eliminates buffering by paying its broadband providers a higher premium to get priority data treatment over other sites.
So how would this type of paid priority “fast-lane” Internet alter the digital industry and consumers’ online experience? An end to Net Neutrality on the Web could likely have a significant impact on the following aspects:
“Trickle-down” costs of premium bandwidth: If some sites are willing to pay a premium to get data priority from their ISPs, there is a good chance that this higher cost would be passed on to marketers and consumers. For marketers, the cost of digital advertising inventory, therefore, could increase to cover site publishers’ higher operating costs. Additionally, sites that pay a premium could recoup their costs by offering tiered access to their services, similar to tiered cable packages, increasing costs for consumers. Just as a manufacturing company increases prices for consumers when the cost of raw materials rise, ISPs would likely raise prices or create tiered service packages in order to defray costs. All in all, the Internet would become a more expensive environment to participate in.
Creation of an online plutocracy: Central to the arguments that favor Net Neutrality is preserving an even playing field that allow new businesses to effectively compete with big brands. If a startup invests in a quality website and allocates a modest budget toward digital marketing, it could create brand awareness and buzz on the Web. Without Net Neutrality, however, small companies and startups that can’t afford to pay big money for priority speed, wind up with potentially lower-quality websites and poorer user experiences compared to their big-brand counterparts. In turn, many have argued that this could stunt economic growth from startups, including those like Facebook in its earliest stages. Without Net Neutrality, promising small businesses may never have the chance to reach their full potential due to the new barriers of entry imposed on the Web.
Disparate rich-media quality on priority versus non-priority sites: According to Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia University Law School, “With broadband, there is no such thing as accelerating some traffic without degrading other traffic.” If a site like Netflix has data priority, it can offer a fast and seamless user experience. However, Netflix’s advantage ends up adversely affecting quality and buffering on other rich-media sites that do not pay a premium. Thus, user experience with rich media could vary significantly between paying sites and non-paying sites, most severely in times of high traffic congestion.
Page load speed and bounce rate: Bounce rate is an essential KPI to determine user engagement in the digital realm, especially for e-commerce or lead generation sites. Similar to rich media, in an Internet without neutrality, page load speed on non-premium sites could worsen as premium sites are given broadband priority. Studies have shown that for each second it takes for a page to load, the higher the rate of user abandonment, which could ultimately cut into overall site conversion rates. Furthermore, Google and other search engines view page load time as a metric of quality when determining organic SEO rankings in their search results. These disproportionate load times could potentially widen the gap between the “have” and “have-not” sites on the Web.
Programmed censorship and access to unbiased content: While ISPs are the gatekeepers to the content that users consume online, the threat of an Internet without Net Neutrality could give power to ISPs to restrict and grant access to content at their discretion. If a broadband provider has a partnership with a content provider, such as Yahoo!, there would be nothing to prevent the ISP from restricting access to competitors of Yahoo! to drive more traffic to their partner’s site. This could ultimately lead to an Internet manipulated to provide biased opinions based on the control of the ISP through content restriction.
Though the effects of a change in the treatment of broadband service would not likely be felt immediately, small changes could eventually lead to shifts at a macro level in the way that people experience the Web. Currently, Net Neutrality is a hot button issue for those who are informed enough to hold an opinion. Digital practitioners in particular need to educate themselves about the pros and cons of an Internet without neutrality, and determine if the potential negative outcomes should warrant outspoken action about the topic directed toward those on Capitol Hill.
A Closed Internet could mean dramatic changes in the way that sites and marketers operate online, with new hurdles to surmount and added charges to navigate. Fortunately, the floor has been opened and those with an opinion currently have a chance to express it. On May 15, the FCC voted to open the revised proposal and accept public comments through a dedicated inbox through September. Thus far, nearly 50,000 comments have been submitted. Interested in submitting a comment? Visit the FCC comments page at http://www.fcc.gov/comments and make your voice heard.