Accidentally Giving Big Business the Upper Hand

A company that started with two men in a garage who could barely find the funds to eat, grew to become one of the most valuable companies in the world that provides jobs for 14,000 people—this happened in less than 15 years—this happened because of the unregulated Internet—this company, is Amazon. Net neutrality is vital to the world economy as it provides motive and opportunity for small businesses by preventing monopolies, encouraging innovation, mitigating piracy, and creating jobs for millions of people.

Many argue that the success of the Internet is not solely based on openness, rather the given access to information at the whim of a mouse click. This is true, however, without Internet neutrality, this unfettered access to content in an equal manner amongst users disappears. Internet neutrality is defined by the Internet Freedom Preservation Act as, "not interfering with, or discriminating against, the ability of any person to use broadband service in a lawful manner" ("110th Congress" 3). The issue concerning bills that have been passed on net neutrality, are that they are too vague and don't clearly outline what can be deemed as inappropriate action.

In early 2010, almost three years after the Internet Freedom Preservation ACt was passed, Google and Verizon were accused by The New York Times of creating a deal wherein Google would prioritize YouTube video distribution to Verizon mobile phone users. This would not only limit non-Verizon cell users, but it would raise prices of non-Verizon data plans to deliver content more quickly—a clear violation of net neutrality as defined by the Library of Congress. Google and Verizon immediately denied the allegations of violating network neutrality and fought against the FCC claiming that YouTube was not to limit non-Verizon users, moreover, that the service was simply to give Verizon users premium access with faster speeds—that the current speeds would remain the same for every other non-Verizon cellular user (Wyatt 3). Google and Verizon were denied this request to prioritize users; however, the underlying principle of the suit was largely ignored. Internet giants teaming up not only yields a disadvantage to a large populous of users, but it is exponentially detrimental to smaller businesses who do not have the cash on hand to create these deals.

Net neutrality is necessary in preventing monopolies. As it did with Amazon, the open Internet provides an extreme amount of opportunity. In a world where big-box chains dominate the brick-and-mortar retail presence, and where running a 'Ma & Pa' shop is becoming increasingly more difficult, the open Internet provides a will and a way. Outreach as a small Internet company is far easier as there are no property and leasing taxes, nor is there the need to open multiple storefront locations. A company can run their entire business on a Web site that costs $4 to host each month. Not only is outreach easier, but so is discovery.

Through free social media and inexpensive advertising, it's a lot less difficult to appear appealing to customers that shop on-line. Distribution of content through video and text via social networks have made creating intuitive advertising campaigns far cheaper and more effective than radio, television, or newspaper advertisements. Everett Ehrlich, undersecretary of Commerce during the first Clinton administration writes on why net neutrality hurts small businesses that don't have the means to create a fast and optimized Web site by stating, "what makes business work: competition. A company that does not provide consumers with the Internet experience they want is going to lose lots of money." This is a very sound argument that any business owner can relate to; however, what Ehrlich doesn't consider, is how the lack of net neutrality, rather an unbalanced delivery of business opportunity, could hurt small businesses rather than help them. Without net neutrality, and Internet service provider (ISP) could accept money to make a big-box on-line store faster and more accessible than any other on-line store on the Net, that would likely be to the disadvantage of smaller businesses.

As scary as it might be that a singular company has the largest key to sorting through the open Internet, the westernized world relies on Google search. If net neutrality didn't exist, Google could—and probably would, as a business focused on profit—accept payment from big on-line stores to prioritize them in search over smaller competition. This would create the same problem that exists in brick-and-mortar retail. Ehrlich is right in saying that a good user experience is necessary to corral customers into creating a profitable business; however, what Ehrlich fails to see is that a good customer experience is not exclusive to large on-line companies. Smaller companies have the capacity to create and optimize something well, even without much expendable capital. Net neutrality doesn't dull down business: it simply requires simplicity and optimization to be present, which some small businesses may not have the capacity to create—but a weighted market without net neutrality would require money, and lots of it, to create success, which the majority of small businesses do not have the access to.

This radically tyrannous example of how the lack of information has limited a society is in China. This country is so focused on evolution and development, yet, by blocking some of the Internet's basic monuments, key information is restricted, and the society as a whole is ultimately stunted. Motive to use the Internet to create great things is there, but because the carriage for success is limited and restricted by the government, there isn't the drive to actually innovate. This might seem rather erroneous as information was accessible and innovation was rampant far before the Internet, nor to forget that there is still a large populous that doesn't have access to the Internet let-along a computer; however, the Internet has redefined the way research, science, social communications, and even business is run. By abolishing net neutrality, what may not seem as a major change will become a restricted medium which will very likely escalate into a corrupt business industry, as well as a haven for government censorship. Net neutrality has been exercised through sites like Wiki Leaks which keep government and large business honest and the loyal to the general population. Many believe that through the abolishment of net neutrality, first amendment rights will be maintained, but how can government censorship be monitored by the general public, if the government is in control of the Internet?

Innovation has been accelerated tenfold with the popularization of the open web and net neutrality. Countless companies that are now market leaders such as Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Twitter were started because of the desire to create value from something that isn't physically tangible. The Internet provides the way for social and political revolutions from tyrannous leaders and governments. Furthermore, the Internet has proven to be a successful platform for education and youth entrepreneurism.

I own an Internet media company that I started at age fifteen, which has delivered information to over 35 million people in 150 countries. This feat is something I could have only accomplished through the open Internet. I was able to gain traction and popularity by putting out useful information. I never once spent a dollar on advertising, but this hobby has evolved into a well-paying, full time job. The opportunity present in the open Internet acts as a distribution and discovery method for the content I produce. A large portion of youth recognize opportunity through this medium, and have become very successful through trial and error attempts at Internet stardom.

With the open Internet, innovation is set in the minds of those that couldn't create something traditionally and physically, be it due to capital, outreach, age, social status, etc., and transposes to something that is accessible and reachable. Without net neutrality, equal opportunity would not exist, and there would no longer be successes like Amazon. The platform to create opulence through innovation would be hampered due to market dominance by big business. The means necessary to gain recognition would no longer include creating something great, but it would require funds and capital necessary to buy a way into the limelight—something that is not necessary when Internet neutrality is in place: the already elitist oligopoly would be given the upper-hand.

Many believe that abolishing net neutrality could push government organizations to abolish illegal content distribution in the forms of child pornography, pirated films, music, text, etc. Australia has begun to stand in favor of censorship by banning such things. Though Australia's efforts seem noble, they're so fundamentally flawed, it only increases the negative effect on the distribution of this malicious medium. The Electronic Frontier Foundation expounds on how this primarily valid idea is poorly constructed and will further increase the adverse consequences of this time of illicit dissemination: ".. filtering does little to curb the trade of child pornography, much of which is traded across peer to peer networks and VPNs" (EFF, 3). This same concept can be applied to piracy. Piracy is prevalent on the Internet, but by forcing regulations, people will only become more devious, and the effects of this will become more widespread. Furthermore, it can be argued that piracy helps small musicians and film studios gain recognition. David Blackburn, a PhD graduate of Harvard in economics did an extensive study on the projected amount of albums sold by indie artists in correlation to their piracy rate. Blackburn discovered that albums with a higher piracy rate sold more albums than those that didn't (Blackburn 21). Furthermore, artists that were not previously pirated resulted in up to a 10% sales increase when their content started being distributed illicitly (33). There is no true justification or rationale for advocating piracy; nevertheless, through network neutrality, piracy can continue to benefit the industry, and by leaving the Internet open, devious ways to distribute illegal content will not be created, making the Internet a safer place.

Net neutrality creates jobs for millions of people. It's as simple as it sounds. By allowing people to dream, innovate, and act upon this idea, there is a larger opportunity for discovery and success, which in turn creates a more diverse and unique market. With success comes demand, which naturally forces companies to expound their outreach through a larger team and employee base. Without net neutrality, the companies that already dominate the brick-and-mortar space with the most money have the ability to take over entire Internet markets by bribing telecoms, ISPs, and search engines to display content in their favor. Massive companies can only become so big, and the amount of jobs as a result of that would be far less than from many startups that grow into success.

Net neutrality is mandatory to create and guarantee a window of opportunity for small companies. The open Internet certainly has its drawbacks with the distribution of illegal and harmful content, yet limiting its outreach would bleed into deep waters of First Amendment rights. Furthermore, by abolishing network neutrality, innovation ceases and large businesses take over yet another medium—Amazons and Googles of the world would cease to exist. Net neutrality is vital in ensuring that everyone is provided with equal opportunity and ample recourse.