The analogy with FedEx is easily turned. Imagine a FedEx driver coming to your door with a package and demanding that you pay to receive your package. After all, if a driver thinks you really value a package, he could probably get a few extra bucks out of you. This is even though the sender has already paid. Surely this is extortion.

This Tony Soprano business model is exactly what Verizon would like to use. In this case, though, both the sender and the receiver have already paid their network providers. The major broadband companies seek to charge a THIRD fee in order to “protect” the quality of service. What’s the non-euphemistic word for “protection”? That’s right: extortion.

If FedEx started doing this, they’d lose out to DHL or UPS or the Postal Service. The package delivery market is fairly competitive and highly contestable. But 2 or fewer providers control the lion’s share of the broadband market in nearly every US ZIP code. Further, thanks to the economics of “sunk costs,” broadband will likely never be competitive. If left unregulated, noncompetitive businesses always find innovative ways to charge more than a competitive market would allow. The law should not allow broadband companies to charge anybody for the “protection” of their data packets.

Further, nobody’s insinuating or demanding that nobody pay more for better service. I’m on the cheap plan with Verizon because I’m poor, I don’t download that much, and I don’t need that much speed. I couldn’t get good streaming video right now if I tried, but if I want it, I’ll pay for it. If I want FiOS or my own T-1 line, I’ll pay even more. So the “overnight v. 3 day rate” analogy still applies to a neutral internet. Those who oppose net neutrality really want to give the FedEx driver the right to impose additional “protection” fees, based upon his estimation of how much you value your package. Why? JUST BECAUSE HE CAN.

Additionally, all this economics discourse ignores the threat of a major shift in the communications model of the internet. Now, everyone can talk to everyone on the internet. This many-to-many model has literally revolutionized mass communication. But if neutrality becomes a thing of the past (again, it’s been the legal status quo until very recently, and telcos are only behaving until the legislative fight is over), we’ll go backwards toward the cable TV model. Next-generation internet communication will be reserved for the most well-funded communicators, a damned shame that will end the relative equity of online communication.

But who really needs a near-infinite plethora of communicators when we can have a slightly niftier television for the few thousand with the most capital?

“If a broadband network provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, it must prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin or ownership of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality of service.”

Now tell me where in the history of common carrier law there has been such a provision. Transportation companies are governed by common carrier, but FedEx can charge more for an overnight letter than for three-day service. Is this a violation of your free speech rights?

The Internet has, from its earliest days, recognized the fact that applications have different needs from the network, and that satisfying these needs may have economic consequences. There is an “M” bit in the IP header that says “pick the cheapest route.”

If Lessig has his way, the Internet will be required by law to suck at delivering VoIP and IPTV, and will remain super-friendly to Nigerian dictators, phishers, DDOS attackers, and pedophiles. If this is your vision of Democracy, by all means pick up your old circuit-switched phone and implore your Congressman to criminalize technical improvement of the Internet’s infrastructure.

It’s your duty.