Net neutrality is really just a fight over money

August 13, 2010

By Rob Cox and Robert Cyran

It’s easy to frame the debate over net neutrality as an ideological battle between forces who want unfettered Internet access and those who would prevent it. Actually, like most good fights, it’s largely a dispute over money. Some pretty basic numbers illustrate the point — and provide an idea of where the debate should logically wind up.

There are two broad constituencies facing off in this quarrel. On the one side are providers of Web access. Call them the Pipes. They include telecoms giants AT&T and Verizon, who have a combined 142 million wireless customers and provide fiber and DSL connections to more homes than anyone else. Alongside them are the cable operators, led by Comcast and Time Warner Cable, who together reach into 30 million American homes.

In the other corner are those firms that benefit most from surging traffic on the Internet — call them the Swipes. In this camp are Apple, Google, Cisco and Microsoft. Their businesses — whether selling search advertising, routers to channel data or snazzy mobile devices — demand ever-larger amounts of bandwidth to grow.

But the economics are incredibly skewed. The Pipes bear the price of building the infrastructure on which all these Web businesses depend. That’s reflected starkly on their balance sheets. The four biggest Pipes have combined net debt of around $143 billion. Last year alone they spent $42 billion on capital expenditure.

As for the four horsemen of the Swipes, they have a combined net cash pile of around $140 billion. Last year they spent $4.9 billion on capex — a tenth of the amount the big four Pipes shelled out on erecting new cell towers, buying routers and extending fiber-optic cables.

The switch to mobile devices such as the iPad and Android-powered handsets will aggravate this divide. Cell networks were designed for short and infrequent calls. Customers use these gadgets longer, more frequently and download more data. If people used wireless connections in the same way they use their broadband connections, operators would need 10 times as many base stations, according to Sanford Bernstein research.

The introduction of variable pricing, or charging customers based on the data they consume, will help pay for the needed gear. But it means the already unpopular Pipes will stick their customers with far larger bills — a recipe for political interference. Meantime, the Swipes would continue to carry away what the telecom operators see as a disproportionate chunk of the benefits.

Some of the Swipes realize this imbalance isn’t sustainable. Witness Google’s decision this week to issue a shared statement of principles with Verizon to protect “the future openness of the Internet and encouraging the rapid deployment of broadband.” Of course, there’s no assurance the principles will be accepted by regulators, Congress, other companies or consumer groups. But the proposal shows how much of the Pipes-and-Swipes dispute centers on economics.

Wired networks are largely built out, and need relatively modest capital expenditure. So the proposal gives the Swipes what they want for existing Internet services — carriers can’t favor, or charge premiums, for transmitting one sort of data traffic over another. Wireless networks, on the other hand, need huge investment and face capacity constraints. The Pipes get something they like here. Traffic on these networks would remain largely unregulated, and carriers can charge more for carrying services such as streaming video.

Google, once the leading proponent of strict net neutrality, may have recognized the symbiotic relationship that exists between its business and the Pipes. Not all its peers will follow suit. Facebook is already challenging the Google-Verizon detente. But over time it’s hard to see this as anything more than a negotiating stance.

Already it is clear that demand for bandwidth is outpacing supply. If this persists, it will act as a drag on growth for the Swipes. They could take matters into their own hands by, say, buying one of the Pipes or sharing more of their revenue with them.

The better financial option, though, is to expand the size of the profit pie. And that is why the Swipes and the Pipes will increasingly find a middle ground like the one staked out by Google and Verizon. Call it a net neutral zone.

Comments

Net neutrality is really just a fight over money.
Alas the coinage of the realm does have a habit of rearing its ugly head, in all things commercial.
It may be worth noting that the pipes are usually being paid at least twice per month, once for phone service and a second time for TV and internet services.
The Swipes however are usually only paid by the advertisers’!
A while back, for worldwide radio reception you could purchase a short wave radio and listen to any and every broadcast for free.
So why when these companies, have succeeded in sewing up the ‘www,’ must we now be expected to pay more for a free service?

Posted by The1eyedman | Report as abusive
 

I agree. It is just a fight over money. Google pretends to care about net neutrality while it reads your gmail messages and drives down your street with Street View Wi-Fi collecting your private messages.

I disagree with your idea that Google would want to buy Verizon; “They could take matters into their own hands by, say, buying one of the Pipes or sharing more of their revenue with them.”

As greedy as Apple and Google are, there’s no way that they would foot the bill for maintaining or building out the infrastructure needed to expand their networks. Maybe if Verizon declared bankruptcy either Apple or Google would come in and pretend to be a “white knight” while they strip the company bare, layoff all non-essentials, and run the company into the ground as a cash cow until the government stepped in to protect the public from these pirates.

Posted by Jones22 | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/