There is more in this great editorial by Cory Doctorow in The Guardian, i.e. he warns against many new rules being voted and proposed, that give extra power to telecoms and ISP’s to control our access and experience of the internet.
Here is an excerpt on the particular issue of metered billing, which ISP’s argue is necessary to rein in ‘excessive usage’.
Cory Doctorow on the question of metered billing for ISP customers:
The logic goes like this: “You have a 20Mbs connection, but if you use that connection as though it were unmetered, you will saturate our bandwidth and everyone will suffer.” ISPs like to claim that their caps are “fair” and that the majority of users fit comfortably beneath them, and that only a tiny fraction of extraordinary bandwidth hogs reach the ceiling.
The reality is that network usage follows a standard statistical distribution, the “Pareto Distribution,” a power-law curve in which the most active users are exponentially more active than the next-most-active group, who are exponentially more active than the next group, and so on. This means that even if you kick off the 2% at the far right-hand side of the curve, the new top 2% will continue to be exponentially more active than the remainder. Think of it this way: there will always be a group of users in the “top 2%” of bandwidth consumption. If you kick those users off, the next-most-active group will then be at the top. You can’t have a population that doesn’t have a ninety-eighth percentile.
But the real problem of per-usage billing is that no one – not even the most experienced internet user – can determine in advance how much bandwidth they’re about to consume before they consume it. Before you clicked on this article, you had no way of knowing how many bytes your computer would consume before clicking on it. And now that you’ve clicked on it, chances are that you still don’t know how many bytes you’ve consumed. Imagine if a restaurant billed you by the number of air-molecules you displaced during your meal, or if your phone-bills varied on the total number of syllables you uttered at 2dB or higher.
Even ISPs aren’t good at figuring this stuff out. Users have no intuition about their bandwidth consumption and precious little control over it.
Metering usage discourages experimentation. If you don’t know whether your next click will cost you 10p or £2, you will become very conservative about your clicks. Just look at the old AOL, which charged by the minute for access, and saw that very few punters were willing to poke around the many offerings its partners had assembled on its platform. Rather, these people logged in for as short a period as possible and logged off when they were done, always hearing the clock ticking away in the background as they worked.
This is good news for incumbents who have already established their value propositions for their customers, but it’s a death sentence for anything new emerging on the net.
Between these three factors – reducing the perceived value of the net, reducing the ability of new entrants to disrupt incumbents, and penalizing those who explore new services on the net – we are at risk of scaring people away from the network, of giving competitive advantage to firms in better-regulated nations, of making it harder for people to use the net to weather disasters, to talk to their government and to each other.
Telcoms companies argue that their responsibility is to their shareholders, not the public interest, and that they are only taking the course of maximum profitability. It’s not their business to ensure that the Googles of tomorrow attain liftoff from the garages in which they are born.
But telcoms firms are all recipients of invaluable public subsidy in the form of rights of way and other grants that allow them to string their wires over and under our streets and through our homes. You and I can’t go spelunking in the sewers with a spool of cable to wire up our own alternative network. And if the phone companies had to negotiate for every pole, every sewer, every punch-down, every junction box, every road they get to tear up, they’d go broke. All the money in the world couldn’t pay for the access they get for free every day.
If they don’t like it, they don’t have to do it. But we don’t have to give them our sewers and streets and walls, either. Governments and regulators are in a position to demand that these recipients of public subsidy adhere to a minimum standard of public interest. If they don’t like it, let them get into another line of work – give them 60 days to get their wires out of our dirt and then sell the franchise to provide network services to a competitor who will promise to give us a solid digital future in exchange for our generosity.”