Pros and Cons of Net Neutrality

Network neutrality or net neutrality, as it is abbreviated, is the term used to describe networks that are open to equal access to all. They are non-discriminatory as they do not favor any one destination or application over another. Due to the political debate in 2006, the definition of network neutrality has changed to mean those who run networks as opposed to the network itself, where net neutrality is generally understood to mean that the service and telecommunication providers do not discriminate against rivals or individuals when they charge fees or when they prioritize traffic. Net neutrality is a major issue as the U.S. considers new telecommunications laws. In a general sense, it is mainly supported by companies that provide services at the edge of the network, and is generally opposed by companies that manage the middle of the network.

What are the "Pros?"First off, the "Pros" main concern of advocates of Net Neutrality is that big companies might one day force users to use one web service over another, effectively online equality and free speech. Example: One day, users of MSN's internet service will only be able to search with MSN Search instead of Google, while users of Comcast can only use Yahoo and not MSN. Users might have to pay more money for what they get now for free. Neutrality would pretty much guarantee that this scenario could never happen.
Those in favor of forms of "non-neutral" tiered Internet access argue that the Internet is already not a level-playing field: companies such as Google and Akamai achieve a performance advantage over smaller competitors by replicating servers and buying high-bandwidth services. Should prices drop for lower levels of access, or access to only certain protocols, for instance, a change of this type would make Internet usage more neutral, with respect to the needs of those individuals and corporations specifically seeking differentiated tiers of service.

What could possibly be the "Cons?"This is where the issue gets interesting. There are a couple main points of views advocating the end of Net Neutrality. The first view is that charging different rates for different sites can be compared to purchasing cable television, and this makes sense to a lot of the internet providers who also provide cable and phone services. Pay more to get more, right? The second view is that Net Neutrality isn't necessary in America because of the Free Market. Micro-Economics 101 teaches us that competition will lower the price of any good until it meets demand. Basically, if the mainstream Internet providers offer surcharges for the "good" websites, then some small third party company will offer everything for the same price to steal the customers back.
Opponents of net neutrality argue that prioritisation of bandwidth is necessary for future innovation on the Internet. Once again, telecommunications providers such as telephone and cable companies, and some technology companies that supply networking gear, argue telecom providers should have the ability to provide preferential treatment in the form of a tiered services, for example by giving online companies willing to pay the ability to transfer their data packages faster than other Internet traffic. The added revenue from such services could be used to pay for the building of increased broadband access to more consumers. Opponents to net neutrality have also argued that net neutrality regulation would have adverse consequences for innovation and competition in the market for broadband access by making it more difficult for Internet service providers (ISPs) and other network operators to recoup their investments in broadband networks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U