How tech jobs will be affected by the net neutrality debate
Surprisingly enough, supporters on both sides of the net neutrality debate claim that the other side's position would reduce innovation, in turn slowing economic growth and thus reducing the number of available jobs and — in particular — tech jobs. But exactly how does the net neutrality debate affect tech jobs and the future value of having an IT degree? To answer this question, it is useful to briefly explore the concept of net neutrality, and to analyze the scenarios of either side of the debate and the extent to which some of their claims are supported by existing data.
What is net neutrality?
Net neutrality basically refers to the equal treatment of all Internet traffic by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). When net neutrality is observed, ISPs cannot in any way restrict the access to any content, nor can they provide different bandwidth for different traffic, regardless of the content, originator, time of access, destination or any other consideration. ISPs have thus no control over what kind of traffic transits their network; they simply provide the bandwidth that is used by whatever traffic the users request, and all content providers are equal in terms of how fast any user can access the content they provide.
The net neutrality scenario
Those supporting net neutrality in the debate feel that allowing ISPs to treat traffic differently would inevitably lead to a higher entry barrier for startups, thus effectively stifling innovation and economic growth of the very kind that made the current state of Internet and e-business possible. Given that successful startups can grow to the size of Google, it is easy to see how the loss of net neutrality would negatively impact tech jobs.
The tiered system scenario
On the other side of the net neutrality debate, the ISPs and several others consider that the current growth rate of Internet usage can be supported only by abandoning the current net neutrality in favor of a tiered system scenario. This scenario effectively means that ISPs prioritize certain types of traffic for those who pay for it.
The tiered system can obviously lead to startups being at disadvantage compared to established companies, who are able to pay more for their content to be accessible faster to a larger number of users. However, its supporters argue that the tiered system is needed to support the current rate of Internet traffic growth, and consequently, its economic growth. The underlying assumption to this argument is that most of the future jobs — and especially the tech jobs requiring an IT degree — will be created not by startups, but by ISPs.
What does the data say?
As seen previously, the positions of the two sides in the net neutrality debate differ in terms of the potential impact on tech jobs based on whether such jobs are mainly created by Internet startups or by ISPs. According to the e-commerce report on 2008 released by the U.S. Census Department, the total e-commerce in the U.S. in 2008 was $3,704 billion, mostly of business-to-business type. On the other hand, cable industry revenues in 2008 were only $85 billion, and telecommunication service revenues in 2008 were $297 billion. The sum of the two is only $392 billion, and can be considered a reasonable estimate of the total revenue of carriers.
Conclusions
Contrasting the $3,704 billion revenue from e-commerce of businesses including current and former startups with the $392 billion revenue of carriers, including ISPs, the conclusion seems to be that a resolution of the debate on the side of net neutrality seems more likely to provide more tech jobs than a resolution favoring the tiered system scenario. However, the concrete impact of the net neutrality on tech jobs is likely to depend not only on the resolution that is reached, but also on the concrete way in which it will be implemented.
