Government Assisted Monopolies

Courtesy of The Conversation

A few days ago, as I was routinely swiping past and finger-hovering over the various applications on my mobile device, I noticed that I still had the Tidal application downloaded, despite not ever using it since 2017. For anyone unfamiliar, Tidal is that music streaming application that’s trying (and mostly failing) to compete with the two biggest streaming apps, Apple Music and Spotify.

All of these apps have access to large collections of multiple artist discographies, and nearly all of them charge consumer subscription fees. Tidal is one the paid streaming applications, yet interestingly enough, they offer two different services at two different prices in terms of streaming speed and quality, one called Tidal Hi-Fi, offering clearer, louder music with alleged faster streaming speeds (as certain files have larger bandwidths), and the ‘standard package’ — not so much.

Back in 2016, I was weaseled into the Hi-Fi package, I’m a big Demi Lovato fan, and the first show of her Future Now Tour was streaming for all Tidal users, with more optimal speeds for Hi-Fi package users. I ended up forgetting to unsubscribe and was paying
(more like wasting) nearly $20 a month for a year.

Upon thoroughly checking my bank account statements and realizing I was spending $20 per month on something I wasn’t using, I cancelled my Tidal account as quickly as possible. It didn’t really seem super practical to have it in the first place (except for watching Demi Lovato concert videos, of course). To be honest, I can’t imagine why I would ever want to pay more money just to use the same service (and in my opinion, with the same streaming speeds) that I spend $5 a month with Spotify to use.

For me, it’s pretty wild to pay more money for the same service, just for quicker speeds, but if you’re as frequent an internet user as I am, then you probably know that this concept of “spending more money for faster services” isn’t only restricted to music streaming applications. This concept has extended into internet usage in its totality.

In December 2017, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission ) voted against internet consumer protections, a step taken to dismantle ‘net neutrality’ as we know it. According to Vox, ‘net neutrality’ is the idea that ISP (internet service providers) should treat all web traffic (the downloading, uploading, and streaming of various sized bandwidth files) “more or less the same on their network”. Basically, it’s the idea that all processes on the web must be treated the same, with priority and speed determined by sequence of order, rather than paying to push up priority and speed for your process. If ‘net neutrality’ protections are removed, it spells a lot of trouble for anyone who uses the internet.

Both internet companies and consumers will have to pay more money just to obtain faster speeds and this is just one negative aspect. The take down of ‘net neutrality’ also inhibits creative new, innovative websites (you can think of it like this, if ‘net neutrality’ was in effect in 2006, we’d all still be using Myspace instead of Facebook and Twitter). Also, if ‘net neutrality’ is done away with, the websites and companies who do not pay more money will not receive as much incoming web traffic due to their much slower speeds, this is because consumers will prefer to visit websites with faster speeds.

According to BBC News, ISPs like AT&T, COMCAST, and Verizon are definitely supporting this take-down of ‘net neutrality’ as they are eager to charge companies who use larger bandwidths more money for faster net speeds, similar to how Tidal’s pricier Hi-Fi package offers “better quality and faster streaming speeds”; no surprises, the ones who do not pay more money, will receive a “standardize” net speed that’s really just slow as f___ (use your imagination).

If you haven’t heard much about any of these things, it’s not very surprising. According to John Oliver, the hilarious host of Last Week Tonight, the FCC doles out their decisions in the most boring fashion using the most boring platforms, with the suspected goal of boring the media and public into literal ignorance. If I’m being totally honest, I’ve have heard of ‘net neutrality’ before, although I never really knew the extent or realities of the issue (which by the way, is way more complex than just a matter of costlier services for faster speeds).

Cable companies are basically monopolies, this is because they don’t really have competition per state or municipality. According to John Oliver, most cable companies consult with one another, designating which cable companies will provide services in each location, ensuring that no company directly competes with one another. In a world without ‘net neutrality’, these cable companies become richer monopolies.

Ironically, the only channel that can preserve ‘net neutrality’ protections and dismantle these monopolies, is the same exact channel that’s actually destroying ‘net neutrality’, empowering ISPs, and reinforcing these monopolies. I believe John Oliver best explains the root issue and it’s that our government is basically assisting with the creation of monopolies. I guess it’s not that suprising, considering the head of the FCC, Ajit Pai, is completely against ‘net neutrality’ and is a big telecom lobbyist himself.

Ironically, in the issue of ‘net neutrality’, those who will pay for faster speeds are going to be the same companies who can afford to, which definitely puts billionaires at the top of the list for fastest speeds. Furthermore, it is well known that most newspaper companies are already being bought out (some already owned) by billionaires. According to George Rodman, in his book Mass Media in a Changing World, there is a theory known as the ‘cultivation theory’ which states media has the ability to shape how people view the world. According to Rodman, since the internet itself is the most accessible medium with very powerful effects on most users, billionaire guided media will become the dominant media source (both in print and digital) shaping how people view the world. In accordance with this theory, if billionaires continue gaining dominion over our media sources and channels, a lot of the information we will begin receiving will be tailored to their wants and interests — just like sensationalist newspapers, for example.

Even more ironically, John Oliver was debating this issue of ‘net neutrality’ back in 2014, three years before the FCC voted against consumer protections. It’s fascinating how everything he discusses is still so very applicable even now, but worst as it seems to be coming into fruition.

I may be biased here, but I don’t really see any benefits (as an internet user) in repealing ‘net neutrality’, except for maybe the most obvious benefit: more people will stop using the internet so frequently.

Perhaps with less people invested in their cyber-worlds and information bubbles of the web, more people will start paying attention to and participating within the government (making sure that anti-trust laws are being adhered to, you know the ones that outlaw monopolies), rather than our current system of allowing destructive policies to pass right under our noses.