Net Neutrality, pt. III

You may recall that it was John Hodgman who pointed out that without net neutrality, internet service providers would be free to structure their service in such a way that they could exercise direct control over the flow of traffic. By prioritizing certain "packets" over others, these companies would be empowered to make some sites much more difficult (or easy) for end users to reach. This is disconcerting for two reasons: first, it gives corporations the de facto authority to censor speech.

In the absence of net neutrality, any site or blog critical of a particular ISP might suddenly find itself starved of bandwidth. For an ISP, this is just common sense; if it costs next to nothing to prevent what essentially constitutes negative advertising, why not do it? For bloggers, however,  it serves as a deterrent to voicing  complaints or saying negative things about a company for fear of being silenced. So not only could this type of deregulation censor existing speech, but it could shape future speech as well. There's also no reason to assume that this phenomenon would be limited to overt negativity about specific corporations; a site opposing a corporation's stance on an issue like environmental legislation might find itself similarly threatened.

The second, related concern is that deregulation would likely result in anticompetitive behavior by incentivizing exclusivity contracts and conglomeration. This is a common complaint about corporate culture in general, and it has been echoed in several sectors of society.

When the Iphone was released in early 2007, AT&T detractors (of which there are many) were disappointed to hear that the company had been given the exclusive right to sell contracts for the device. In effect, if you wanted to own an Iphone, you had to use AT&T as your carrier. Only now, four years later, is Apple beginning to allow consumers to purchase contracts with other providers. No doubt the deal was lucrative for both Apple and AT&T; but was it good for consumers? A primary fear of monopolies is that the inherent lack competition tends to result in artificially inflated prices, inferior products, and diminished innovation. And it's true that Iphone users have generally been overcharged for relatively spotty service.

If this principle were to be applied to online, the situation becomes much more grave. If Comcast and Amazon were to square off against AT&T and Buy.com, for example, who would win? Certainly not consumers, because Amazon and Buy.com would no longer need to compete with eachother's prices. If ISP's were allowed to prioritize one type of packet over another, this could become a very real possibility.