As it stands, net neutrality has prevailed for the better in the US. While that doesn’t mean corporations like Verizon and Comcast won’t do everything in their power to derail it, it’s been a victory for those of us who understand the power of an open and fair web. Still, it’s hard not to see why companies such as Sony Pictures and others would have liked a world without net neutrality and unlike the basis that drives Verizon and others (greed), their thoughts behind it actually make some sense.

Unlike Compact or AT&T which already charge you to be your ISP, without net neutrality, they could have in turn also charged all content providers like Netflix and Sony Pictures to ensure that their content would get to your household in a speedy manner. As an ISP, not only would they be double dipping for a service and speed that was already promised, but they also have the ability to decide whose content gets to you at what speed, which, down the line, can turn into suppression of information.

(Already today, we’ve learned that Verizon is purchasing AOL for over $4 billion. While noteworthy on its own, AOL is also the parent company of Engadget, Techcrunch, and Hoffington Post. It’s hard to see if this deal had gone through a year ago, that coverage from those sites might not have been different about net neutrality.)

Prior to the net neutrality ruling, Netflix was already forced to make such deals with ISP and if Sony Pictures had it their way, they would have likely purchased such fast lanes as well. While costing Sony a lot of upfront money, their argument goes that it would eventually benefit their customers as it would ensure their content got to your device quickly. Keith Weaver, Sony Pictures’ executive vice president of worldwide government affairs, wrote in early July that Sony Pictures and Crackl:

 are in the premium content business and do not want to be on equal footing with a random ‘mom and pop’ video streaming service 

Prior to the FCC ruling in favor of net neutrality, the September deadline was in place for companies such as Sony to voice their opinion on the matter. Sony ultimately chose not to support the measure:

 the public internet should first be preserved. Broadband providers and over-the-top service providers should be free to utilize specialized/priority services to advance their business interests. 

In short, Sony believed that it should have the right to purchase an avenue to get their content to you faster than random videos on the web which you might shrug off or simply move on from if they buffer too much. But with content directly coming from Crackle or PlayStation Video, slower times could shed a negative light on the service. Sony never did file their opinion on the matter and it’s believed that not all parts of Sony, mainly Sony Electronics, agreed on the stance.

Discuss:

Should content providers like Sony Pictures be able to purchase fast lanes?

[Via Verge]