The threat of tiered internet service
A quick look through some of the stories listed in any current Google News search for “tiered internet” reveals that there is plenty of interest in recent legislative activities surrounding the issue of multi-tiered internet services.
What’s going on? Earlier this month, the US House of Reps rejected an ammendment that would have prevented lobbying actions by AT&T, Verizon and Qwest. A group of internet providers, led by AT&T, are pushing to introduce tiered internet services for internet content providers. According to the companies, nothing would change for consumers (as long as your favorite websites cough up the extra cash to fund high-speed transfers). That means that if Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft maintain their positions and refuses to pay extra fees to these internet service providers, they could find their sites being maliciously throttled back, likely driving users to other (paid up) outlets.
The argument from AT&T and friends is that it costs money to maintain the network lines that connect node to node. They do not intend to charge customers different prices for access to individual sites; rather, they will charge the sites themselves for faster access to browsers.
One major flaw in this argument, of course, is that there is precedent in the phone system for companies NOT charging to access lines. After all, it takes a lot to keep traditional telephone systems online, and that is all, presumably, factored into our montly phone bills. Why internet access charges would only apply to the “last-mile” of the network (that is, the part that goes from the Internet Service Provider to your house) rather than some fraction of the entire network is a complete mystery to me.
The much larger issue is the significant decline in quality, quantity and variety of online content that would no-doubt follow this change in billing practice. I think of this in relation to GamesFirst!, which we’ve had online for ten years now. It predates me, even, and it has always been a small, independent website. It might not always offer the latest or greatest material, but I think it’s unarguably contributed in some quality way to the growth of the Web. We’ve published short films, comics, podcasts, and thousands of articles.
If we were forced to pay extra (beyond the hosting fees we already pay) to run GF!, it could realistically put us out of the biz. If users found that our site loaded slower than another game site, they would not come back. And in the world of gaming websittes, there is plenty of competition. In the face of monoliths like Ziff-Davis, Imagine Media, and IGN, we would be simply buried in a pile of marginalized sites.
The infinite shelf space of the Internet is one of the qualities of the network that make it so worthwhile to engage in online production. If tiered internet service billing for online content providers became the norm, the Web would be forever altered in a negative way. It would probably feel a lot more like cable television…

