Rethinking the tiered Internet

I've been thinking about the implications of a "tiered Internet" for a while, now. At first I was essentially against it, but now after reading Martin Geddes' article on Telepocalypse: "Neutrality, schmootrality: a heretic speaks" I must admit I've changed my mind.

My initial fear was that the infrastructure owners--mainly the big telcos--would hold their customers hostage for the "good" bandwidth. Now, they charge one fee for usage, no matter who's using it. In the future they could decide to (in effect) raise their prices for the level of service they currently provide, and if you aren't willing to pay more, then you get shuffled off into the slow lane.

I still think it's a concern, since hardware is expensive to put in place and maintain. The barrier for entry is high, so competition is thin. Normally we have regulations that constrain what utilities can charge for pipes, wires, and such, to keep such monopolies in check.

But see, we're not talking about content providers, here. We're talking about the guys who are building the roadways over which our traffic, both small and large, must travel. I would compare the issues over an Internet infrastructure monopoly this way: What if the only roads into/out of a town were toll roads?

Perhaps this argument is hollow, as I think Mr. Geddes implies. If your town had only toll roads, I think the town would be relocating to a less costly place. Certainly the businesses who wanted the most convenient access to their establishments would relocate. Either that, or they would be reimbursing customers for their trouble. Of course, then they would have to pass the additional cost on their customers ... Eventually, they would have to move in order to compete, thus driving the road monopoly into a much less profitable position.

It's all well and good to build a road, but what if nobody came? Clearly, there has to be some value added aspects, or market pressures will drive your customers elsewhere. Added value is good. It means choice.

If the "new" AT&T (meet the new boss, same as the old boss) decides to charge more for "more better" speed, then those customers who are willing to pay for it will get it. They can't hold their largest customers hostage--Google, for example--because that will only lead to Google building their own infrastructure, and taking the thunder away from Big Bell. If not Google, then someone else will emerge who believes they can undercut the big boys.

On a similar vein, Bellsouth (AT&T) is now considering a "pay per byte" strategy, and of course it includes a tiered structure for charging different rates for different types of traffic. Many people believe that Congress will bail us out by voting for an Internet neutrality measure. *Ahem* Since when did Congress ever do anything that benefitted us at the expense of big money? What's wrong with this picture?

I'm with those other brave souls who are telling lawmakers to keep away from our Internet(s). Let's keep the thing open to all kinds of ideas. Let's have 50 competing access plans, pricing plans, and bandwidth plans. Sure, the more the better. It's not necessary to worry about being locked into someone's misguided idea that they can monopolize the Internet, because the 'Net is self-correcting and self-healing. An outage or obstruction is simply bypassed in favor of another route.

And it's for this reason that countries (and their willing corporate co-conspirators) who are censoring the Internet will ultimately fail, as well.