Just ran across an article by Harold Feld related to “Paid Prioritization,” which is a part of the net neutrality argument.  In large part this article is about the potential consequences of regulating internet service und Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.  If the FCC does that, it would give the FCC very broad regulatory powers.  Anyway, here is Mr. Feld’s very nice description of paid prioritization:  

“Lets apply this to existing services clearly covered by Title II. Verizon offers me a choice of two Title II voice services on my landline, analog voice and digital voice. Digital voice is a higher level of service and costs more, in that (Verizon tells me) the sound quality is better and it comes with many more exciting features. That’s clearly a “higher level of service” in the same way that buying a 5 mbps down pipe is a “higher level of service” than buying a 1 mbps down pipe, and Verizon may properly charge me more for it. That hardly counts as precedent for Verizon to start selling me Domino’s Pizza “priority service” so that my calls to them go through 100% of the time crystal clear, while my calls to Joe’s Local Pizzeria drop on occasion and when they go through, the line has all kinds of annoying static. Similarly, it doesn’t count as precedent for AT&T selling me super swift access to Hulu while (comparatively) degrading my access to Youtube -- whether they are charging me, charging Hulu, or charging both of us the "QoS fee."”

 The whole argument around paid prioritization revolves around whether the carriers can maximize individual profits at the expense of the network as a whole and the consequential effects on innovation and growth. 

As many people have noted, the internet, social media, mobile web etc. are all near their infancy.  Nobody knows what forms they will take in the future.  Would you have predicted Twitter just a few years ago?  But, there is no arguing that Twitter has created a lot of new real estate and added a lot of value to the web.  If paid prioritization would have created an impediment to the creation of Twitter, Foursquare, or many others, we would all be the poorer for it. 

The paid prioritization debate needs to revolve around Metcalf’s law: the power of networks expands [exponentially] with the number users [sort of].  The FCC (and Congress) needs to look at paid prioritization through this lens.  Only then can they decide if paid prioritization (or some version of it) is good, bad or indifferent.