Dropping the Net

I am sure that you have seen the term "net neutrality" in passing. You probably skimmed right past it or made a brief and unsuccessful effort to grasp its significance. It is a vague and bland term that belies its own importance.

Make no mistake: It is one of the most important civil rights issues of the 21st century.

Now, I am no law student and I do not claim to know the history of media law particularly well. I believe, however, that lay people can easily understand what is at stake here. They must, as it affects the way every American consumes information in the Internet Age. Net neutrality is a movement designed to ensure that the internet remains an unadulterated resource, giving an equal voice to lone citizens and huge multinationals alike. Such a subject may seem slightly beyond the scope of this blog, but it directly affects every industry this blog covers, as well as the blog itself.

In the United States, today's internet is an aberration. It is the only media service that we receive completely unfiltered. We pay a flat fee and we get access to the entirety of the internet at a set speed. Providers have no control over how we access their service or what we use their service to access, as long as we are not breaking any laws. This can make life hard for them. Modern uses of the internet, such as streaming video, peer-to-peer sharing and online gaming, are putting increasing strain on their networks. Companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon do not understand why a person who pushes gigabytes of information through BitTorrent or Limewire should get to pay the same amount of money as someone who simply checks their e-mail a few times a week. It costs them more, so why should it not cost us more?

It sounds like a perfectly innocent gripe. Allowing companies to take away a bit of our freedom for the sake of a little common business sense is not without precedent, either. We get charged extra for calling certain people. We have to pay extra to see certain television channels. Why should we not pay extra for using specific aspects of the internet?

This is why:

This is tiered internet – an internet where access to sites is purchased like access to cable channels. Like Facebook? Buy the Social Network package for just $5 per month! Want to watch your favorite network shows for free (with ads)? Get the Hollywood package! Want to use the file sharing networks you love? We're sorry, but Telco has discontinued this service due to lack of popularity! This image (courtesy of Gizmodo) is merely a hypothetical – a worst-case scenario – but, with internet providers chipping away at net neutrality, it is only becoming more plausible. Not bothered by this image? It is easy to get distracted by what is on this list and forget what is not: Namely, every other site on the internet.

Sure, they would make the cut now, but twenty years ago, upstarts like Yahoo and Google would have no chance of gaining the popularity necessary to become part of an internet provider's tiered service. How could they become well known if they could not be widely accessed from their birth? Tiered internet would destroy the level playing field that is today's internet. No conglomerate is going to think up the next Twitter, Facebook or Netflix. Under such a structure, the internet would quickly become the sort of bland landscape of corporately-managed mediocrity that is basic cable.

Tiered internet seems like a far cry from slapping bandwith gluttons with surcharges, but one look at Comcast makes this all too plausible. In the next few months, this internet provider will come into majority ownership of NBC Universal. Comcast is traditionally a cable company and, now, it will own a massive media company. In other words, Comcast will own companies that make content, own companies that sell the content to networks, own networks that air the content and own the company that brings those networks to your home.

If that sounds like some horrible excerpt from the pages of 1984, congratulations – you are still sane. This, however, is nothing new. After all, NBC Universal had the first three pieces of that puzzle before Comcast even came to the table; media companies have been consolidating their power for years. Robert Smigel's Saturday TV Funhouse segment of Saturday Night Live once parodied this, but the sketch was never reaired and is nigh impossible to find on major video sites:

The video's harshest accusations are tough to prove, but its broader point is not. When a company can pursue its vested interests without losing money, it has no reason to consider anyone else's interests, including the public's. Arguably, Comcast is about to gain more control over the ideas to which this country is exposed than any single entity has ever had. What if there is something they do not want us to know? Will we ever have a chance at hearing about it? Right now, the internet ensures that we would.

The internet is one of the few (or possibly the only) facet of modern media that is too large for any media company to comfortably wrap its tentacle around. It is the product of total anarchy, not the oligarchy that dominates all other media. Yet Comcast is attempting to impose order. The company recently won a federal court case wherein they claimed that the FCC had no right to prevent them from blocking users' access to peer-to-peer sharing sites.

In 2005, the FCC publicly adopted policy that was designed to protect net neutrality. This policy was defined with four points:

• Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
• Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
• Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
• Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

It failed to address the possibility that providers could simply bring traffic to certain sites to a crawl, but it was a good start. Yet there was no legal basis for this policy. As a result, when the FCC attempted to impose the policy upon Comcast, it failed.

The fact of the matter is that, in recent years, Washington has struggled to regulate the internet with laws that predate it. The few laws that have been passed seem to only hinder the rights of the average citizen. Currently, internet services are regulated by the same lax regulations that cable services are. Numerous attempts at legislating net neutrality over the past five years have proven fruitless. President Obama has claimed that net neutrality is a priority for him, but a bill has yet to be introduced under his administration.

Current laws will likely fail to stand between companies like Comcast and tiered internet, but new laws seem very far off.

If you look back up at that fictional price list, you will see the popular video streaming site Hulu. It is partly owned by NBC and therefore, will be partly owned by Comcast in short order. If Comcast were to introduce a tiered pricing structure like the one above, you can be sure that Hulu would be front and center and that any video site that they do not like would disappear from 15 million computers.

For Comcast, it would mean their tightly controlled media pipeline would now encompass the internet, as well. For us, it would mean the death of an equal-opportunity internet. The internet is the best thing that has ever happened to free speech, as well as free enterprise. Thus far, few entities have encroached on this most important of resources. If Comcast and similar companies continue to make progress, you can be sure that this resource will quickly dry up. Only an educated electorate can stand in their way.

Cable TV: Not Just Entertainment Anymore

I intended to refrain from writing on this issue. It is one characterized by such brazen condescension that I refused to believe that the average American was not already privy to it. More often than not this summer, however, I have found my trips to the movie theater beginning with an obnoxious reminder of just how naked the greed of American media companies has become. I am speaking about one of those longform commercials that precedes the trailers at AMC theaters (annoying in and of themselves, but not the point). The ad in question consists of the rocker, Andrew W.K. screaming about how Cartoon Network is now "more than just cartoons." It is a particularly blatant example of a bigger phenomenon that the internet has labeled "unbranding."

Anyone who has watched Cartoon Network in the past few years knew that this was coming. A few years back, executives at the network announced that they would be embracing a broader idea of what "cartoon" means. What did the word really mean in their minds? Things that are not cartoons, of course. The trickle was slow at first – the odd, live action movie here and there – but it was clear that, if this network was subject to the same forces that others are, it would not remain a trickle for long. The History Channel now proudly states that history is "Made Every Day," saving viewers the trouble of wondering how historical this week's "Ice Road Truckers" was. The SciFi Channel has now morphed into some illiterate, bastard spawn called SyFy, side-stepping their long-standing confusion of science fiction, fantasy and Nic Cage movies. One could argue that even the cable news networks play fast and loose with their titles, given how difficult it is to find news on them. (Anyone know what MSNBC stands for, anyway? Thought not.) Now, Cartoon Network is launching CN Real, a block of reality shows that includes programming such as "Destroy Build Destroy." No wonder they need a frenetic music video to justify it.

What does it all mean? In short, nothing – on purpose. When a channel called "Cartoon Network" proudly announces that cartoons are not enough for them anymore, it does not just render the name meaningless; it seems to make meaning the enemy of all things capitalist. It is why the term, "unbranding" is so apt. Traditionally, marketing is about creating a cohesive, unique idea of what a product is in the heads of consumers. The tactics that cable channels are now embracing across the board seem to fly directly in the face of traditional marketing. In fact, it borders on purposeful confusion. These days, the name of a channel is generally a surer indication of what one will not find on a cable channel, than what one will find.

Unless, of course, the channel lacks an identity altogether. If one was to peruse the cable Nielsen ratings on a weekly basis, a handful of channels would quickly emerge as consistent, unopposed successes: USA and TNT. Anyone would tell you that, if anything, these channels could be called "general entertainment." TNT? They "Know Drama," apparently, but they also seem to like airing "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective." ... and USA says "Characters Welcome." Well, that rules out experimental cinema, I suppose. So, what is one to do when they own a cable channel with a woefully specific name, like "Cartoon Network?" Render the name meaningless. Then, it is only a matter of time before its scoring big with ad nauseam "Law & Order" reruns.

It is only natural to emulate something that works. Those fancy-pants ad men on Madison Avenue (ahem, you would think that, at least, the folks at AMC would know about them), however, seem to have their noses to the ground. With all of the cable channels rushing to the same well, it would not be long before it runs dry and Americans power up their cable boxes to find nothing more than an alphabet soup of bland, clone channels... and some porn. To me, it is apparent that such a time has already come.

Yet, even in a recession, most cable companies' subscriber rates have not dropped in any considerable amount, as Americans pay a rising average of $71 per month for the service.

Today's cable channels offer none of the benefits that they did in the 1970's, when the concept was introduced. Most channels quickly dropped their ad-free formats, despite the fact that we were paying to see them. Of course, with ads, comes censorship, the lack of which was another selling point for cable. Now, the final nail has been run in: The promise of niche programming, designed to appeal to one's personal tastes, not the national audiences of the broadcast networks, has been flouted. Today, cable subscribers are left with hundreds of broad-appeal, commercial-supported channels that are filled with repetitive schedules and low-quality programming.

Where are the benefits over broadcast television? Sure, there are more channels but is the gain really that large in a qualitative sense? "Unbranding" should make the answer to this clear. Anything cable has that is worth watching can be rented on DVD. (Hell, HBO is $13 per month. You could buy your favorite shows and probably break even.) Besides, the premium channels do not explain why most people pay about $50 every month for the trash heap that is basic cable. I suppose that sports are tough to find outside of cable, but licensing fees for regional sports channels are astronomical – just ask your cable company. How much can you love a team that perpetrates such highway robbery? Most teams have a game or two on broadcast networks each week, anyway... in HD, no less.

Most Americans would benefit from stepping back and asking themselves if they only watch cable out of habit. The amount of cable programming that can be considered "appointment viewing" pales in comparison to the amount that people simply watch because it is there. Media companies are relying on that passivity more and more, as the quality of their product steadily declines, and what is there is being spread thinner every day.

When all is considered, there are few reasons to continue to shell out those exorbitant subscription fees. Even if your house does not have a rooftop antenna, it would only cost a month or two's worth of subscription money to fix that. It is a small sacrifice to make for a lifetime of free television. With the digital transition over, broadcast channels have multiplied and their picture quality is great (over-the-air HD is almost always better looking than cable's). Besides, an $852 per year habit is probably one worth kicking, under any circumstances.