FCC's net-neutrality proposals won't create online inequality, just expand it, reporter writes

Critics are saying that the Federal Communication Commission's proposed rules on Internet neutrality will change everything, mostly at the expense of consumers and small businesses, especially in rural areas. However, Brendan Sasso of the National Journal writes that "The Internet has never been the level playing field that some seem to believe. Big websites have always been able to pay for faster service—and the biggest ones are already spending billions to get it." The FCC's proposal was met with criticism, and the agency revised the plan and proposed some exceptions.

"Just about all major websites pay for content delivery networks, or CDNs, to carry their traffic. Those CDNs build networks of servers around the country to store website data," Sasso writes. "That way, a Facebook user in New York City trying to watch a friend's video clip doesn't have to retrieve data all the way from Facebook's headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif.  Instead, the user is actually connecting to a much closer server owned by a CDN that Facebook has hired. A worldwide network of servers helps to speed up websites, ease congestion and is better able to handle cyberattacks."

"It would be impossible for someone to start a high-quality video streaming site in a garage without paying for some intermediary to handle traffic. The site would grind to a halt as soon as a significant number of people tried to use it," Sasso writes. "Small start-ups are nearly always at a disadvantage—and the Internet is no exception. For example, skyrocketing bandwidth bills reportedly contributed to YouTube's decision to sell itself to Google in 2006."

"Many of the largest companies like Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft build their own data centers to ensure a smooth service for their users, investing billions of dollars to give their websites an edge over the competition," Sasso notes. "The Internet's existing inequities are acknowledged both by advocates and opponents of net-neutrality regulations."

"Paying to ensure fast service isn't the only way that some websites have an advantage over others," Sasso writes. "Search engines, particularly Google, are the main tool that many people use to find information online. Websites at the top of a search page have a huge advantage over sites buried under pages of results. Slight tweaks to Google's search algorithm can make or break a company."

"The idea of total neutrality is especially absurd for people who access the Internet on smartphones and tablets," Sasso adds. "Apple has absolute power over what mobile apps are allowed in its store. Apps can reportedly be banned for being offensive, using too much data, being too glitchy, having small font sizes, infringing on trademarks or numerous other reasons."

Sasso concludes, "Although the Internet has never been perfectly neutral, that doesn't necessarily mean the FCC's attempts to police Internet providers are futile—or that the equality gap couldn't grow. But regardless of what happens with the FCC rules, even the worst-case scenarios won't be creating inequality on the Internet—only expanding it." (Read more)