Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Mediacom: Supporting net neutrality in theory

Net Neutrality

Mediacom—one of the top 20 internet service providers in the country—voiced its support in bringing back net neutrality last week, agreeing with millions of Americans who went into an uproar after the FCC overturned the regulations in December.

Tom Larsen—the vice president of Government & Public Relations at Mediacom—told Clay & Milk that Mediacom supported net neutrality in principle, but pointed out inconsistencies in its execution that allows the uneven playing field it was meant to prevent.

“The net isn’t neutral and it never has been,” Larson says. “We wish net neutrality was being done in a holistic approach. One national law that was passed by Congress, rather than decided by the FCC’s appointed board members. Congress says once and for all here are the rules: follow them.

“We have to change our policies every ten minutes… It’s confusing for customers and it’s not fun for our business.”

Net neutrality was largely a national issue before Iowa Rep. Liz Bennett, D-Cedar Rapids, introduced House File 2287—the Iowa Internet Neutrality Act—earlier this month. The bill died in committee, but Bennett believed simply introducing the concept to other lawmakers was an important accomplishment for the 2018 session.

“This session might be a good time to plug the involvement of millennials and Gen X people in the tech and startup communities with state and local government,” Bennett said. “There’s a certain population of us who understand what can happen to the internet when it’s not a free and open internet.”

What Actually Happens

While paid throttling and preference was illegal, unpaid preference has been ok, which Larsen believes most people aren’t aware of.

He says the biggest hosts on the web—Netflix, Google (which owns YouTube), Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon—all disproportionately benefited from Net Neutrality.

“I have no problem with the principles (of Net Neutrality),” Larsen says, “but one of them is kind of a fib.”

Under Net Neutrality, it is legal for ISPs to create faster connectivity to high-traffic sites so long as they don’t directly charge consumers for them.

To achieve those faster speeds, big sites (Netflix, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon) build server farms (data centers). A Microsoft server farm could support both Microsoft Office and Xbox Live, for example. These farms give the big sites greater control over their processing power capability.

For the rest of the web, all of the traffic is funneled to single locations, known as “Carrier Hotels” — essentially giant data centers shared by the rest of the sites on the Web. (The world’s largest is in Chicago; 1.1 million square feet.)

At these Hotels, websites rent server space where their data is stored.

Where the Advantage Lies

If Mediacom were to just ignore the server farms and go through the Carrier Hotels Mediacom customers would see a difference in load times. Mediacom’s rejection could get it all but blacklisted by the sites that have server farms.

In a public speed index provided by Netflix that ranks providers on their connectivity speeds, Mediacom ranked fifth.

The advantage the ‘Bigs’ have is a distinctly better user experience. They can upload more to their sites and have them load faster, making them preferred by more users.

“If you’re a startup in Iowa, how could you become Google if they have no priority?” Larson asks. “These are the same companies that come out way ahead of everybody else.”

Loopholes like this, as well as the loss of Net Neutrality, aren’t advantageous for competition in the marketplace.

Matthew Mitchell, a Drake University College of Business professor who used to work in telecommunications, says that, if America prides itself on a “startup culture,” this might not be a healthy direction.

“Startups are going to have to pay to access consumers,” he says.

Larsen says he’s ok with some companies having private highways—they have more traffic, they need more lanes—but he believes that Mediacom (and thus Mediacom’s customers) having to foot the bill for the Bigs’ advantage is absurd.

He’d rather see Net Neutrality preserved and expanded so that websites would have to foot the bill for the fibers, rather than having the ISPs cover that cost.

Larsen says that this “unpaid prioritization” forces ISPs to become middlemen and can be left looking like “the bad guy.”

What could happen next…

A deeper discussion around Net Neutrality centers around treating the internet as a public good or as a telecommunication service. The FCC continues to change its mind.

While Net Neutrality is repealed ISPs, can charge consumers for packages, similar to paying for specific television packages.

No ISPs have made significant changes thus far.

Mitchell doesn’t think consumers will see a change anytime soon — there’s too much uncertainty — but they should be wary.

“It’s hard to imagine this big change won’t affect them in some way,” Mitchell says. “People aren’t really sure how it will affect them.”

And they won’t be sure so long as the law isn’t set in stone or until ISPs start making commitments on one side or the other.

“It will be very difficult for consumers to perceive the differences that result from this change,” Mitchell says. “How many of us are able to understand our cable and cell phone bills as is?”

Adam Rogan is a contributor to Clay & Milk

Previous Net Neutrality coverage

Net Neutrality bill introduced in the Iowa House – Feb. 13, 2018

From the editor: We may need Congress for Net Neutrality – Dec. 11, 2017

Middle Bit: Startups are for Net Neutrality – Nov. 24, 2017

Net neutrality and the risk to the Midwest – May 7, 2017


Mediacom: Supporting net neutrality in theory | Clay & Milk
A central Iowa ag-tech accelerator has secured more backers and finally has a name. The Greater Des Moines Partnership first announced the accelerator last year, naming four initial investors. On Monday, the Partnership said the program will be called the "Iowa AgriTech Accelerator" and named three new investors. The new investors include Grinnell Mutual, Kent Corp. and Sukup Manufacturing, all Iowa companies. They join investors Deere & Co., Peoples Co., Farmers Mutual Hail Insurance Co. and DuPont Pioneer. Each investor has agreed to put up $100,000 for the first year of the accelerator. Startups entering the program will receive $40,000 in seed funding in exchange for 6 percent equity. Tej Dhawan, an angel investor and local startup mentor, is serving as interim director until the AgriTech Accelerator names a permanent leader. Dhawan held a similar role with the GIA before Brian Hemesath was named as managing director. As interim director, Dhawan said his main job includes hiring the accelerator's executive director, establishing a business structure and initial recruiting for the first cohort. The accelerator will place few filters, such as location and product, on the applicant pool, Dhawan said. "When you’re seeking innovation, innovation can come from every corner of the world so why restrict ourselves," he said. One area the the AgriTech Accelerator won't recruit from is biotech. For its first cohort, the AgriTech Accelerator will work out of the GIA's space in Des Moines' East Village, Dhawan said. A future, permanent home is still to be decided. The accelerator's program will host startups from mid-July through mid-October, ending with an event connected to the annual World Food Prize. The GIA, which the AgriTech Accelerator is based on, also ends with presentations at an industry event. The accelerator has also started lining up a mentor pool. The Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Soybean Association and the Iowa Pork Producers Association have agreed to provide mentors, as has Iowa State University. While the AgriTech Accelerator is loosely based off of the GIA, it will differ in its business structure, Dhawan said. The GIA runs through a for-profit model for both operations and its investment fund. The AgriTech Accelerator will have a nonprofit model for its operations and a for-profit setup for its fund. Dhawan said the nonprofit model is being used so the accelerator can better work with other nonprofit partners, such as trade associations. "These are all organizations that are nonprofits and can be amazing stakeholders without ever having to be investors in the accelerator," he said. "It becomes easier to work with trade associations in their nonprofit role when we are also a nonprofit." When it's up and running, the AgriTech Accelerator would be one of a handful of ag-focused startup development programs in Iowa. Others include the Ag Startup Engine out of Iowa State University and the Rural Ventures Alliance from Iowa MicroLoan. Matthew Patane is the managing editor and co-founder of Clay & Milk. Send him an email at
This Pop-up Is Included in the Theme
Best Choice for Creatives
Purchase Now