This is an issue before congress. The problem is that under the current design there is no differentiation between different types of packets. In other words, the internet equally favors, say, John Smith downloading illegal movies and John Smith's companies making an offsite backup over the wire. The obvious solution is to provide a multi-tier system where some packets get higher priority than others. This is very tempting, but avoids the obvious conflict of interest that those companies controlling the high priority packets now can effectively shut off anyone they choose to. In other words, say I have a broadband through company X and they have a deal with a provider to deliver pay-per-view movies at a discount rate. I find a better deal with a different provider. Under the proposed system, company X could limit or even block the packets from that second provider. Now company X might have a point; by having an exclusive deal with the original provider, they can optimize my download and streamline my user experience which is to my benefit. Also, their bandwidth is being paid for by not just my subscriptions but by the totality of income from their enterprise, including the pay-per-view deal. If I use my bandwidth with they second provider, their service is then being subsidized by company X. This wouldn't necesarily be a problem if this only concerned the last mile--the connection from your house to the first main routers of your provider. If this were the case, then consumers could simply choose among the various providers, including wireless providers, in their area. Unfortunately, the proposal allows the various companies to reach deep into the internet, shutting off competition and ensuring they maintain their monopoly status. One of the first results of this legislation would be, in my opinion, the loss of secondary broadband providers in urban markets (the wireless guys.) In the long run there could be wide spread censorship at a much more effective level than there is now. My own view is that all governments are composed of well meaning fools and they tend to cause more problems than they solve when trying to regulate things. Overall, we're almost always better off with less regulation than more. (Though, ironically, many people opposed to the current bill aren't in favor of less regulation either. If it's a choice between the government regulating the internet or corporations, I'll hold my nose and go with the corporations.)
Anyone who thinks he
