I’m not going to get heavily into this topic because, frankly, I lack the specialized knowledge to make a deep argument. However, it is a subject that concerns me. Actually, to be perfectly honest, the possible repercussions scare the whey out of me.

Some time ago now, Eric French, a blogger whose work I enjoy, posted an argument against "Net Neutrality". He had some interesting points and then engaged in a very detailed debate with a commenter. As a result, he came to a slightly altered position which I find a good deal more agreeable than his original post. In a follow-up piece, he said:

The issue is opening up competition to the last mile to the household. Only then will people see real competitive prices and real innovation on the broadband pipe. That’s what I learned in a conversation in my original post.

And while I agree that this is the crux of the economic issue, I still see danger to the shared backbones that carry our content from one "last mile" to another. Whether inadvertent or malicious, we know that carriers have censored content delivered to their subscribers. In a cogent summary of the issues at Project Censored, Elliot Cohen notes:

Though cable companies deny plans to block content providers without cause, there are a number of examples of cable-initiated discrimination.

In March 2005, the FCC settled a case against a North Carolina-based telephone company that was blocking the ability of its customers to use voice-over-Internet calling services instead of (the more expensive) phone lines. In August 2005, a Canadian cable company blocked access to a site that supported the cable union in a labor dispute. In February 2006, Cox Communications denied customers access to the Craig’s List website. Though Cox claims that it was simply a security error, it was discovered that Cox ran a classified service that competes with Craig’s List.

If the censorship is happening on the backbone, I’m not entirely certain how opening up the "last mile" to competition will address that. Then again, not my area of expertise. Still, with Google entering the fray with their political action committee (news via Searchblog), and Ted Kennedy posting on YouTube (via Mid Market Maven), things appear to be heating up again in this debate.

Back to Project Censored:

What [groups advocating net neutrality] want is a legal mandate forcing cable companies to allow internet service providers (ISPs) free access to their cable lines (called a “common carriage” agreement). This was the model used for dial-up internet, and it is the way content providers want to keep it. They also want to make sure that cable companies cannot screen or interrupt internet content without a court order.

To me, "common carriage" seems like "common sense." The opponents of net neutrality claim that "such legislation fixes a problem that doesn’t exist and scoff at concerns that phone and cable companies will use their position to limit access based on fees as groundless." But the fact is that, if it can happen, and it’s in the interest of someone in power, and there are no laws against it, it WILL happen. The opponents of net neutrality legislation are essentially asking us to rely on an absence of motive in order to keep the net free of censorship.

That just ain’t gonna happen.

From a marketing perspective, what happens when Cox blocks access to your site because they have a competing product? With Google getting into desktop apps, Microsoft into content delivery, and everyone getting into search, competition is everwhere. The motive to give one’s own products an edge (if one is also an internet provider) is strong. Counting on that to never happen is naive.

UPDATE: An anonymous commenter has directed me to postings indicating that the Cox/Craigslist accessibility issue was definitively not Cox’s doing. Read more in the comments.