Internet Companies Want to Have Their Net Neutrality and Eat it Too
Just how free and open is the Internet? Not nearly as open as it was a few years ago, according to a report by Arbor Networks. Instead of a landscape in which thousands of firms are scattered about, about 150 companies are responsible for half of Internet traffic. 
When I read this statistic I thought, “so what?” It certainly doesn’t sound like anything close to monopolistic or oligopolistic behavior. I definitely can’t think of any other industry in which 150 companies compete for half the market. However, the trend toward concentration, and the quickness with which it is happening, is actually quite startling. Just 2 years ago 5,000 companies were responsible for 50% of worldwide net traffic- 33 times more firms than today.
Google alone accounts for 7% of all web traffic, more than any other company. Not only do they hold a larger share of traffic than anyone else, but the nature of their traffic can be quite important. This is not just some funny Twitter page or blog that draws a large number of visitors. Google is in the business of organizing information, some of it very personal and valuable. In addition, offshoots like Google Voice provide services that some would consider pretty essential (phone calls) for modern life.
Which brings me to the news that the recently invigorated FCC may investigate allegations that Google Voice is blocking calls to rural areas. This issue really brings the discussion to a head for me. I don’t have any idea what an appropriate level of competition is for web-based business. The trend toward concentration could just be like any other market in which stronger, more competitive players end up gaining significant market share, while others fall behind and eventually die out. People may only rely on the Internet to do a few things, and will seek out a handful of providers to allow them to do so. Who knows, the search market may even be a natural monopoly, and will be controlled by 1 or 2 providers. I don’t even have a real grasp on all the angles of net neutrality and its possible implications. However, it does seem to me that the “underdogs” that people seem to root for in the advocating of net neutrality, and issues like the “Pulver Order”, aren’t the benevolent actors they are made out to be. They are businesses and will seek to make a profit just like the big telcos. Just because they have a different business model doesn’t mean they are exempt from the same potential abuses in the quest for profit that other companies are guilty of. In fact, it is this very type of behavior- discriminating against certain types of traffic- that I thought was supposed to be prohibited under net neutrality. But it sounds like Google, and potentially any other company that claims that VoIP is not subject to the same rules as PSTN communications, is trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want the Internet to be free and open, but only in a narrowly defined way. Once that openness means regulating activity to protect consumers and discourage anti-competitive behavior, the rules no longer apply to them.
It is still too early to tell if Google is in fact violating net neutrality principles, let alone doing anything illegal. However, it seems pretty clear to me that we need some common sense regulations to make sure that all consumers receive the same level of service, while encouraging competition in the marketplace.
Tags: FCC, google voice, net neutrality, pulver order
