ISPs Aren’t “Editors”

I also disagreed with this part of Yoo’s argument:

The Internet has historically been regarded as a “pull” technology in which end users specified the exact content that they wished to see. The explosion of content on the World Wide Web has increasingly given the Internet the characteristics of a “push” technology in which end users rely on intermediaries to aggregate content into regular e-mail bulletins. Even search engine technologies have begun to exhibit forms of editorial discretion as they begin to compete on the quality of their search methodologies.

Mandating content nondiscrimination would represent an ill-advised interference with the exercise of editorial discretion that is playing an increasingly important role on the Internet. Editors perform numerous functions, including guaranteeing quality and ensuring that customers receive an appropriate mix of material. For example, consider the situation that would result if a publication such as Sports Illustrated could not exercise editorial control over its pages. One particular issue of the magazine might consist solely of articles on one sport without any coverage of other sports, and there would be no way to guarantee the quality of the writing…

The same principles apply to the Internet as it moves away from person-to-person communications to media content. This shift argues in favor of allowing telecommunications networks to exercise editorial control. Indeed, anyone con- fronting the avalanche of content available on the Internet can attest to the benefits provided by editorial filters. This transition also weakens the case for network neutrality.

I think this misfires on several levels. The first is that he’s mischaracterizing what advocates of network neutrality regulations are trying to accomplish. I don’t know of any prominent advocates of regulation who think the regulations should apply to Google’s search engine, much less Sports Illustrated’s home page. Of course editorial discretion is important in a world of increasing information.

But equally important is consumers’ right to choose their editors. The beauty of the web is that unlike cable television (which he discusses at some length in between the ellipses in my blockquote), there’s no need for the conduit to place any limits on the range of content available. Traditional cable television networks had to pick and choose channels because there was only room on the wire for so many. An ISP, in contrast, can just give you access to everything and let you pick.

Now editors and other filters are important, of course. But the great thing about the Internet is that you can pick your filters. The problem with ISPs “editing” your browsing experience isn’t that editing is bad, it’s that the “editing” Yoo is imagining an ISP doing is fundamentally different from what Digg or Slashdot do. Digg and Slashdot refer people to content they might find interesting. Technically speaking, it’s still fundamentally a “pull” medium. You are still free to visit sites that have not been featured on Digg. In contrast, when Yoo talks about an ISP “editing” its customers’ Internet experience he seems to be referring (although it’s not clear) to an ISP blocking or downgrading access to sites the ISP feels aren’t worth the user’s time. This only degrades the user’s experience.

Finally, I don’t think it’s true that the Internet is becoming more of a “push” technology. In fact, I’m not really sure what this means. Architecturally, the Web works the same way it always has: your browser sends HTTP requests and the server returns the requested information. Most other Internet protocols work similarly, with the user requesting content and somebody on the network sending it to them. As for the subjective user experience, I think that if anything the web has become more “pull” than it used to be. Whereas portals were the hot thing of the late 1990s, users are now fragmented among millions of Facebook pages, RSS feeds, YouTube videos, etc. Intermediaries like Digg and Google have flourished by more accurately reflecting the collective consensus of their communities, not by actively trying to re-shape it. Filtering is more important, yes, but the latest filtering technologies, such as search engines and RSS readers, have given users finer-grained control over the content they consume. Having your ISP filter your Internet traffic would be an extraordinarily blunt instrument in comparison.

Comments Posted in: Broadband & Neutrality Regulation