There
are some purchasing decisions that are clearly motivated by vanity or aesthetic
value: make-up, designer clothes, leather bags and pictures for example, or the
type of bar, restaurant or shop you want to be seen in. In some cases, design
and function go together as can be the case with a car. But one purchasing
decision where design plays no role is what broadband package you buy (and i am
not counting the accessories such as mobile phones).
Consumers
and businesses subscribe to broadband packages because they want to get to
content, services and applications on the Internet. Without these why would
anyone subscribe? In fact, why would anyone spend any of the c.155bn Euros per
year they spend in Europe on broadband were it not for the content and services
available online?
Ok, I
admit, it was a rhetorical question. The answer to the non-question is of
course 0 Euros. The broadband market only exists because individuals and
companies have taken the trouble to create services and content that run over
the Internet. If the Internet were shut down, there would be no market.
The reason
this is important is that some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) continue to
prevent people accessing certain online services. While this is sometimes
simply because the net is busy, often it is because they do not want people to
use services that compete with their own: services like Skype, WhatsApp and
Youtube spring to mind. The ISPs don’t want to miss out on what you would
otherwise pay them to make a phone call, send an SMS or watch their own TV
service.
But this
practice harms Internet users (36% of users face peer2peer restrictions and
Skype is a peer2peer service) and, in the long-term, harms the case for paying
for broadband and investing in that 155bn Euro market.
Given how
important an open Internet is to our economy, our society and,
increasingly, to our politics, this discrimination is very serious. The
Internet has served as a uniquely effective platform for civic engagement and
business and process innovation because of its open and distributed nature.
Products, services and ideas that once depended on the authority of a
particular business or government agency to launch and change no longer do so.
ISPs
discriminating against competing services creates a chilling effect for
potential investors and innovators in online service provision, something we
can ill-afford given the job creation rate of the Internet economy.
In the
Spring of 2013 the European Commission has the opportunity to end
discrimination and to secure the open Internet. Bold guidance on what is
reasonable vs unreasonable traffic management is needed such that the Digital
Single Market is a vibrant place for innovation and free expression.
Beyond
that, European authorities should look at bold structural solutions to enhance
competition.
In mobile
telephony the arrival of ‘software SIMs’ (no SIM card in your phone, just a
piece of software) means there is no limit on the number of accounts a user can
have at one time, and that they can switch provider at will. Their will,
not the provider’s. Just like having multiple email accounts. Given that ETSI
is seeking a standard for this now a view from European leaders would be
welcome.
Finally,
regulatory authorities need to monitor discrimination constantly to avoid sharp
practices by some operators and to communicate what they find to the public and
consumer groups.
Taking bold
steps now can alleviate the need for legislation later and ensure that Europe
has a free and open Internet, a prerequisite for a democratic society and a
vibrant economy in the 21st century. An open Internet is a beautiful Internet,
or at least that is the way I think of it.
James
Waterworth
For more
on the topic follow us @CCIAEurope
To read
CCIA’s full length position on the open Internet in Europe, click
here.
