A new study has linked a drop in NBC's prime time ratings to the increased use of World of Warcraft. Unfortunately, Comcast now owns NBC. According to a leaked memo, their first action will be to sever their customers' connections to the WOW servers between 8 and 10 p.m. 

That scenario, thankfully, isn't real. It is a hyperbolic nightmare that is technically possible. It could also be completely legal if the open net rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission in December are not upheld. 

The Internet is a series of tubes.

The GOP (Republicans, for the politically adverse) believes that the FCC doesn't have the authority to make these changes, and they voted to remove funding from the aspect of the agency that would enforce these new regulations. The rules are called net neutrality, and they have one goal: To maintain an open and fair Internet. But what does that mean? And how will it affect your shooters and other Internet-reliant games such as World of Warcraft? 

Net neutrality explained

Over the summer, I moved into a new place, and the first thing I did was call the utility companies to connect electricity, gas, and Internet to my apartment. Net neutrality is the concept that, like electricity and gas, Internet access is a service that can be used by the customer in any way that person chooses -- as long as it isn't illegal. American Electric Power can't cut off my electricity if they discover that I am using it to invent a device that will create free energy.

In the same way, net neutrality argues that if a customer wishes to watch a Miramax film on Netflix, then Comcast -- who owns entities that compete with Miramax and Netflix -- can't interfere with that customer's service. 

The risk is that if Comcast or any other ISP holds complete control over the flow of Internet traffic, that power could be easily abused. Internet providers might not be so bold as to completely block access to a game, but they could implement more subtle and expensive methods. Without consumer protections in place, ISPs could degrade the connection to game servers -- making them unusable -- or charge more to connect to popular titles. To be clear, we have no evidence that they plan to do this, but they have the technical capability to do so at any time.

 "[Without strong regulations] ISPs would immediately be able to make the Internet into a huge cable operation, potentially slowing down game play, stopping access to some games entirely, and making play and access much more expensive, " ECA Vice President and General Counsel Jennifer Mercurio told Bitmob. 

I can hear the cries now, "They can't take away my raiding! How could anyone be against a fair Internet?" The majority of opposition seems to come from ignorance of how the Internet works. ISPs have been arguing that if the FCC forces them to follow the same rules, then competition would be stifled and innovation would flounder. Free-market advocates insist that the rules are unnecessary, because any customer who an ISP mistreats would punish them by taking their business elsewhere. This ignores two major factors.

First, most people cannot choose who they get their Internet from. The list of companies providing my apartment with Internet consisted of just one choice. Typically, providers have a monopoly on an area, because they were the first ones to get their wires laid underground. If I need the Internet to conduct business and communicate, I'm stuck and have to deal with Time Warner -- regardless if they wrong me or not. 

Second, it is more important to keep the Internet open and free than it is to protect the competition between ISPs. This is an important distinction to make: Time Warner and Comcast are not the Internet; they merely provide access to it. And while access to the web is a big money-making industry, it pales in comparison to the total amount of business that is done on the Internet. Basically, if the rules put in place to maintain a neutral web hurt the ISPs, then so be it -- free enterprise on the Internet is worth the alleged price that they would have to pay.  

The good news

The good news is that the new regulations serve as adequate protection for the free flow of content. They bar ISPs from banning access to any website. "No authority should have the power to pick winners or losers on the Internet," said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. The rules also include a clause to prevent ISPs from "unreasonably discriminating" against traffic on their networks. I'm not a lawyer, but the word "unreasonably" seems weak. However, the FCC is confident this will be enough. Finally, users will still be able to pay a premium for faster Internet. 

Glenn Beck knows a Marxist plot when he sees one.

The bad news

Unfortunately, the complications have piled up.

The FCC didn't apply the same stern rules to wireless Internet. The regulations only prohibit mobile-service providers from discriminating or blocking applications and websites that compete against their telephone-call or video-call capabilities. While this isn't a problem now, in five or six years most people will access the Internet wirelessly. At that point, consumers would benefit if these regulations were already in place. 

However, detractors hope that in five or six years these rules won't even be on the book. Net neutrality currently faces two legal challenges -- one from Verizon and another from MetroPCS. Both are broadband-service providers who claim that the FCC has no authority to regulate wired ISPs. The FCC is trying to get these lawsuits thrown out, but this case will end up in front of a judge eventually.

The GOP has also vowed to use any method available to undo the progress of the FCC. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference last week about net neutrality, calling it the "single largest unilateral imposition of executive authority" in a generation. "If there was ever a cause to rally the Conservative movement, it should be the nationalization of our most innovative economic sector," said the congresswoman. 

This is the face of the opposition.

A campaign of misinformation led by lobbyists for ISPs and right-wing radio hosts is adding to Congresswoman Blackburn's fire. "[Net neutrality is] about eliminating traditional, constitutional points of view from the public arena," said Glenn Beck on his Fox News show in April of 2010. "But that's not the way it's being built. It is about stopping debate. But nobody will tell you that. It's about ending free speech. It is about Marxism." It is really difficult to interpret this, and somehow apply Beck's reasoning to reality. Which of the regulations end free speech isn't clear, but that is beside the point. People legitimately oppose these regulations, and while their facts may be wrong, their lobbies and audiences are vast and politically active. 

Gamers, entrepreneurs, media outlets, and Glenn Beck should all be for net neutrality. Even the ISPs should support this effort -- it is in their best, long term interest. A robust, competitive network where a small company with a good idea can compete on equal footing with established giants is the best possible web. It raises the value for consumers who are constantly gaining access to bigger and better things, which keeps them coming back and giving their money to the ISPs.

The House of Representatives' amendment to kill Net Neutrality was added to the omnibus spending bill, which is the law that provides the government with money to continue operating. The politics behind this are very complicated, and it is possible that, in fighting for their own pet projects, the Democrats may let this get past them. If they do, nothing will stand in the way of a greedy, myopic executive taking your favorite games hostage and saying, "Watch more Parks and Recreation or else your level 85 Night Elf dies!"