America! Land of the free and home of the brave. Free to vote, free to pursue happiness, and free to use the internet. America is a champion of capitalism, we love the free market and politicians are willing to go to extreme ends to preserve it. One of the aspects of capitalism is the encouragement of competition. In theory, companies will compete against each other which benefits both the consumer and the supplier. The consumer benefits from low priced goods that are high quality, while the producer benefits from increased sales and profits. In many circles, capitalism seems like the only way an economy should operate and the government has no right interfering. However, in our capitalistic society it seems as though competition in the internet industry is at a minimum.
The media industry is heavily conglomerated, meaning the few companies own the majority in some way. When the mid-90s policy makers decided to deregulate the media industry, it lead for those companies to become even more powerful. In Digitial Disconect, it is reported that all but 4% of American households has at most 2 choices for internet providers and some only have 1 choice This lack of diversity is shown through price differences across nations. Cellphone service in Sweden is vastly cheaper and higher quality than it is in America. Also, there is speculation that these companies are working together to meet each-others needs and create less competition and higher prices. With prices high, an uneven access to the internet is kept in tact. Only those with resource can afford to have it in their homes and all the wonderful Utopian expectations of the internet are lost.
So is it time for government intervention? Timothy Karr of the Huffington Post thinks it is necessary. In his article he calls for action, seeing the internet as a public good that should not be privatized or controlled by any one company. He sees it as unfair that these companies seem to 'control' the internet and almost have a monopoly over it. Thus, Americans are paying more for less and are being cheated. Though, Is this conglomeration just a result of successful companies being successful? Many people think that powerful corporations benefit society because the success of the company trickles down to providing more jobs and better wages. However, has this success of few companies gone too far? It is very hard for upstart providers even to compete with the corporate giants, creating no hope for market diversity. Personally, I would love to see some more competition because I do not want to pay high fees to use the internet if I do not have to, but with the way things are it does not seem like this is happening anytime soon.
The topic of media conglomeration is one that is highly complicated because no one simply knows what is absolutely best for the nation as a whole. One can poke holes in either side of the argument. Competition and conglomeration have benefits but also have their negative side effects. Should the government intervene to create more competition in the internet market or should the situation be left as it is and let the top companies continue to have control?
Keith, great post! I think your question is a difficult one to try to answer because of what you said before "The topic of media conglomeration is one that is highly complicated because no one simply knows what is absolutely best for the nation as a whole. One can poke holes in either side of the argument. Competition and conglomeration have benefits but also have their negative side effects." However, I remember learning a lot about conglomeration in Woodstock's Media and Society class.I don't like the idea of media content being limited to only a few providers because of the lack of diversity in content. I want different options and taste in the content I engage in. Also, the fact that this lack of diversity is shown through price differences across nations angers me. You said that "cellphone service in Sweden is vastly cheaper and higher quality than it is in America." I feel that America should be able to compete and give their citizens a better deal with media services.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Keith, that the controversy of media conglomeration is tricky because of the pros and cons that are produced. The article from the Huffington Post that you included above, however, definitely opened my eyes to just how much of the Internet is controlled by one or two companies. The article states that “most Americans buying home Internet access today have just two choices: the local monopoly phone company or the local monopoly cable provider”. The more I thought about it, the more this idea can be said about not just the Internet but most other technology, whether it’d be television, cell phones, or other devices. Like Caroline, I remember talking about this subject in my Media and Society class and how a monopolistic technology affects the users or consumers. Only having one or two companies dominating a certain medium, we only are exposed to their specific views or angles on things. I am bothered by the idea that we have limited choices because we are stuck with our hands tied.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with everything you said Keith and I couldn't have said it any better myself. While reading this, I couldn't help but think about how competition drives the majority of things in our society. Whether it be with the internet or another technology-driven device, few companies control each market. I too believe this poses a problem because it prevents us from being able to pursue the American dream if we can't even enter the market to compete. I don't know how we fix this problem because these companies aren't open to others emerging into their market. So for now, I believe we are at a stand-still with this potential bigger problem.
ReplyDelete