Words are important. It depends which newspaper you read, but either communications minister Ed Vaizey has put an end to the open internet or he has assured its future with a major political commitment to equal access rights.
Neither is actually true, but the debate Vaizey has kicked off is vitally important. All Marxists know that control of the means of distribution is either a means of seizing market share and power or a means of ensuring greater equality of access.
So how does this affect Ed? His speech to the World Telecoms Conference set out plans to allow a two-speed internet – in and of itself not necessarily a bad idea – but the fact that access to the higher speeds will be based on ability to pay rather than public interest considerations is a total capitulation to the market.
Companies such as BT, Sky and Talk Talk will have the right to favour broadcasters and other media companies which pay them extra for a faster service. Other services – including those provided by the BBC or small independent content providers – could be downgraded to the slow lane of the information superhighway. It will be a two-tier internet with rich organisations dominating.
The problem for internet service providers is that new services, including the likes of the iPlayer and video services take up lots of capacity – there therefore has to be a system for regulating which gets priority for faster services. The Government – and some of the big commercial players – believe that should be based on ability to pay or volume of traffic.
Such a move would end the long-established idea – dubbed net neutrality – that means that all content, whether Indymedia’s reports or Channel 4 news content – will be treated equally.
Companies including BT and Talk Talk want to take advantage of their control of significant parts of the distribution network to charge heavy users extra to ensure their content is delivered more quickly and more reliably.
This argument is backed by the usual suspects: the pro-business lobby, the adherents of light touch regulation, including Ofcom and the European Union. Indeed, Vaizey makes it clear the powers to intervene to stop market abuse “are backstop powers. Competition in the market should render such intervention unnecessary”, he went on to talk about content providers having “open access to consumers”. Vaizey must have turned a blind eye to the damage light touch regulation has done to commercial television services if he believes such drivel.
But the fightback has already started. A major campaign – backed by the National Union of Journalists, the BBC, Article XIX, the Open Rights Group, Skype, the Coalition for a Digital Economy and many others – is building to preserve the best of the concept of net neutrality and in opposition to a system where ability to pay or heavy usage are determining factors.
It is aimed at making sure freedom of expression is protected and that dominant companies are not allowed to abuse their market position.
For competitive markets to function effectively, the regulatory framework must be fit for purpose and able to respond to abuses by network providers. What is needed is not market-driven deregulation, but an effective system which ensures universal service provision, universal access, the clear enforcement of public service obligations and equal service quality. There should be no favouring of high-value consumer services at the expense of public service.
Internet services depend on three broad levels of provision – networks, service providers and content providers. As a result of Vaizey’s policies, a small group of dominant network suppliers – upon whom independent ISPs and content service providers depend – will gain, thus distorting the market and reducing access rather than preserving openness.
While the minister’s words about open access and freedom of expression may be welcome, his actions will have the opposite effect.
Jeremy Dear is general secretary of the National Union of Journalists
