A court’s decision to disallow the F.C.C. from requiring net neutrality needs to be put in this context: Anything a business can do to increase its profitability without too much collateral damage, it will do. This is not a judgment, but an observation. Companies must make money to survive. Incorporating a business adds another layer to that law of the jungle: Corporations must not only make money, they must perpetually make more money. It is expand or die.
Now Comcast is allowed to decide to give Web surfers fast delivery of some sites and slow delivery of others.
The ruling is made more interesting in light of Comcast’s recent acquisition of a majority stake in NBC Universal. Theoretically, Comcast could slow down access to competitors’ sites, while speeding up access to its own properties.
There are a few ways to avoid these measures. Regulation, the battle over which continues. Intense competition. There is a third option: evidence of increased profitability for Comcast resulting from net neutrality.
Anyone have those arguments handy?