35866579_60c56daa17
[photo by ajschu]

I had a dream last night that the US Postal Service announced it would start adding a $2 charge, payable on delivery, for receiving NetFlix DVDs in the mail. The announcement, written in microscopic print on the back of my bill cited the high volume of NetFlix mailings interfering with "normal" mail flow and delivery as the reason for the charge. Other services would not, at that point, be affected.

David_Newell

If I had a problem with this, the mailman (moonlighting from his job as "Speedy Delivery" guy in Mr. Rogers) pleasantly informed me, I could choose to have my DVDs tagged to eliminate the charge but it could take 2-3 weeks for me to receive them. Or, he said with a twinkle and a tip of his cap, I could write to NetFlix to see if they wanted to strike some kind of deal to speed things up a bit. I also noted that I could switch to a different DVD mailing service and receive the same movies in the same kind and size of envelope. At least for a while.

So goes net neutrality, without which the carriers discriminate, double-bill, and surcharge based on the type of content that is being carried, punish successful enterprises, and create a lever by which they can enrich themselves through sweetheart deals and collusion.

Net neutrality doesn’t interfere with tiered pricing by speed or volume or adjusting based on the cost of doing business geographically. In my dream, neutrality wouldn’t prevent the USPS from creating a new pricing for all mail of a certain weight or for allowing people to choose to pay for a special delivery method… as long as it didn’t discriminate by content or brand. The post office can’t refuse to send or delay my letter because it espouses Buddhist rather than Christian principles or because it is going to the Church of Scientology instead of the Church of God. Why would we give Internet access providers that kind of power?

[photo of Dr. McFeely courtesy of Wikimedia Commons]