By Taylor Shortal
Could a policy analogous to ‘net neutrality’ offer similar benefits to cable television?
When choosing an internet service provider, many consumers take for granted that there will be access to the same websites regardless of which service provider they ultimately select. This model, however, was not the only market condition that could have developed. Before its repeal in June 2018, FCC-enforced “net neutrality” guaranteed that both government agencies and privately-owned internet service providers would refrain from granting deference to some websites over others. In countries without similar policies, internet service providers can restrict access to preferred websites. These arrangements can pose disadvantages to consumers, who suffer a lack of potential options as well as ethical concerns, with user access to information limited to content created by an exclusive group of producers.
This possibility of restricted access – which net neutrality was designed to prevent – has already become a reality in other media markets. For buyers of cable television, access to a partial range of television networks is offered in deliberately restrictive packages privately arranged between cable service providers and content producers. The question then becomes whether “neutrality” between service providers and content producers could benefit cable television in the same manner it benefited the internet?
It is hard to imagine now but many of cable’s advocates in the 1960s were not media moguls but, instead, were community activists envisioning a wide democratization of information much like what the internet would eventually facilitate. Unlike broadcast television, where only a small number of frequencies were available to air content, cable was viewed as offering a comparatively wide range of channels, many of which activists hoped would be available for alternative voices and public access. Ultimately, however, cable providers became the purchasers of content, paying a fee to receive material transmitted from select television networks.
Prohibiting these exclusive arrangements between cable providers and television networks could cut out the middleman and open fuller accessibility to content for consumers. Each producer could become more reliant on advertising (like CBS or YouTube) or subscriptions (like HBO or Netflix), incentivizing the transmission of content to as many cable providers as possible to maximize potential viewership. However, while content options may expand, there is no assurance that a new, possibly subscription-based model would offer price benefits to consumers.
Additionally, the wave of information democratization may be less significant than previously dreamed. Although more numerous than broadcast frequencies, there are far fewer cable-accessible channels than available websites. Moreover, cable production technologies are more expensive and less interactive than internet technologies. Consequently, any push to enfranchise the unheard with a new voice through cable may be less effective than anything already achievable through new media.