Bob Hahn and Bob Litan, co-founders of the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies just published a very thoughtful piece on net neutrality
The Hahn-Litan paper also points out that a number of applications - especially gaming - could benefit from the offering of services that enhance throughput or reduce latency. It makes the following point:
Online gaming provides a good example of how and why all bits are not treated equal by access providers. If there is even a small delay in response time with some games or degradation in the quality of the video stream, product quality declines unacceptably. The suppliers of these games will frequently pay web hosting companies to offer faster and more reliable service than they could achieve with their own servers. They may pass the costs through to their customers. For example, users pay between $13 and $15 per month to subscribe to the popular multiplayer online role-playing game, World of Warcraft, part of which presumably goes to maintain the quality of the gaming network.
The paper goes on to argue that policymakers should look at how the Internet really functions from both a technical and an economic perspective. Modern networks are capable of acting more intelligently than earlier networks, which means that access providers now have the ability to offer enhanced quality of service, better throughput and enhanced security for those applications that depend critically on them. If content providers are willing to pay for or work out other commercial arrangements for enhanced quality, there is no good reason for regulators to deter them as Hahn and Litan point out. And many good reasons to allow the emergence of such services.
As Hahn and Litan point out, the market (which is very competitive as their paper notes) and antitrust law will suffice to protect consumers and applications and content companies. I would add to that a comment made by Tim Wu, the originator of the "Net Neutrality" catch word, as quoted in the October 12th Economist (premium content requires purchase) . His comment adds to the view that the markets and public attention will suffice to protect against any dangers that the already strong competitive environment may not reach:
"'The public reaction has already been as powerful and effective as any law,' says Timothy Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School who is credited with coining the term "net neutrality". The debate has put the telecoms companies on notice that they are being watched closely, he says, and has forced them to make public pledges not to block or degrade access. 'Shame can have more power than litigation,' says Mr Wu. 'The market and consumers can control bad practices, but consumers actually have to be aware of what is going on for that to happen'."