Will a Non-Neutral Net End Up Looking Like Cable TV?

By William Mainguy

Photo by Waag Society

Net neutrality—the principle that all data is served over the Internet equally, has rapidly become a contentious issue in the United States and on the world stage. The Federal Communications Commission, backed by the ISPs, have proposed a two-tier concept whereby a new “fast” lane of Internet connectivity would be provided, for an increased fee, in addition to the current Internet service offering. The proposal is being viewed by the public as a thinly veiled strategy for ISPs to begin regulating and "throttling" bandwidth for select businesses of their choice depending on what they’re transferring and who is using it amongst other criteria. In effect, this new regulation could allow ISPs to reduce the speed of, for example, Netflix’s video service to force the company to pay for the “faster” pipeline. In fact, some evidence of this has already occurred.

Because video has the heaviest payload on the Internet today, the end of net-neutrality possesses a serious threat to the heart of the film industry and independent filmmakers alike.

Originally, the traditional film distribution model was convoluted, restrictive and reserved for only a fraction of elite filmmakers who manage to succeed in it. The Internet, like in all of the other entertainment industries, has been the great equalizer, providing creators of any background with a free and open marketplace to reach their audiences directly. The advent of self-distribution and streaming has democratized video distribution—thousands of films that would have never seen the light of the day are now enjoyed by viewers. The end of net-neutrality would reinstate a classist supply of video content, whereby only the owners of top content will be able to afford a model where they can pay the ISPs' “fast” lane rates.

And we’re not just talking content—the innovative culture of new startups and companies that strive to offer new services also will be at risk. Larger corporations may be able to weather the storm by making deals with the ISPs—just like Netflix has with Comcast. However, new entrants that have ideas on how to disrupt and improve the industry may be presented with an insurmountable barrier to entry—effectively ruling out any form of new competition. Both content creators and viewers lose, facing no innovation in business model or experience.

Currently, we are enjoying an unprecedented era in which we can effectively watch whatever we want, whenever we want. The Internet has meant that we are no longer stuck with limited programming bundles and content from only a limited number of suppliers. It costs a fraction of the price of cable to do so and that is the source of the ISPs' fear—continuous loss of revenue and control. But this innovation is the fruits of a great Internet economy based on competition within a free and equal marketplace. This is what we must protect.

Simply put, the Internet should not be seen as the telecoms' business model. They are middlemen that should be providing broadband Internet as a “common carrier service,” regardless of what we use it for—just like other utilities we use.

About the author:
William Mainguy is CEO & Co-Founder of Reelhouse, an online distribution platform that enables independent filmmakers, studios, film distributors, and traditional retail outlets to market and sell movies directly to viewers.