Not Neutrality

Is it bad for consumers if ISPs to make it easier for them to reach selected websites? Even if this means that the ISP can offer lower prices and reach consumers who would otherwise not be able to afford a connection? Well Professor Thomas W Hazlett of George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia, thinks not. In his article in today's FT he argues that MetroPCS, with a market share a tenth of that of Verizon, could not conceivably have any market power to abuse and that their offering is a benign outcome of competition on the internet, not a threat to it.

MetroPCS offer a $40/month "Unlimited" package over 2G and, more recently 4G (LTE), which is substantially cheaper than rival offerings in the US, where similar packages cost as much as $120. As part of the deal, they provide access to a compressed YouTube stream that enables subscribers to enjoy this popular website, even though the 2G service does not otherwise support video streaming or VoIP. According to Hazlett this is a co-operative (not paid-for) arrangement between the ISP and Google, who own YouTube, though he would argue that even if it were a financial one, consumers clearly benefit and the the internet needs no "protection" from the FCC from innovations of this kind.