Menu Content/Inhalt
Home arrow Columns/Culture arrow Pierre on the Electronic Frontier
Pierre on the Electronic Frontier PDF Print
Written by Pierre Maré   
Article Index
Pierre on the Electronic Frontier
Page 2
So who should pay for the Internet?
The idea of an egalitarian Internet in which all can benefit from knowledge sharing is beautiful. But the net has moved beyond knowledge sharing into the realms of lifestyles and gaming. At the same time, Web 2.0 envisages a vast collection of businesses interacting on an ongoing basis, with storage and processing on the Internet. And there is the matter of bandwidth consumed by spam.
So all things being equal, net neutrality implies the assumption of homogeneous use and reasonable use determined by a common denominator. This is clearly not a workable solution.
The fear at the root of the net neutrality arguments lie in denial of the development and social benefits of the internet by a cost model that automatically favours those with the financial ability to pay for and consume bandwidth. Charging for bandwidth creates market segments that are more lucrative than and sideline others. The lucrative market segments consume a larger proportion of a finite bandwidth resource at the expense of other market segments.
Net neutrality attempts to preserve usage on an equal basis for all within the hegemony of the virtual world. Perhaps the answer lies in disrupting the hegemony and assigning bandwidth within separate spheres: one for development and social purposes, another for lifestyles and a third for business and possible a fourth low bandwidth hell for spammers.
The solution allows for assigned bandwidth for specific purposes, particularly development. This type of implicitly low-cost, low-bandwidth solution is not without its appeal. However it does imply a lockdown on certain types of content and applications.
The solution need not be applied on a global scale, but could be applied on a national scale. The downside is the entrenchment of the haves and have-nots. The thinking is still not precise: but perhaps having less is more than having nothing at all.

Next: the cloud

 
< Prev   Next >

DATE: Fri 19 Dec -
Thu 08 January 2009
Volume 22 No.50