The potential for companies to charge for different types of content is a contentious one, more so when the average British internet user might not be aware of the argument raging, both on and offline, about Net Neutrality.

Net-neutrality describes the concept that all web traffic should be treated equally, but with ISPs considering throttling, or restricting, access it has the potential to affect our freedoms and to stifle competition. Whilst you might agree with some of what is said by the net neutrality critics, agreeing with the ideal of net neutrality is a different kettle of fish.

The future of the discussion may see a scalable charging system (such as BT’s Content Connect) in common usage. It’s logical to assume that as society’s demand for greater bandwidth increases, so will the desire to pay only for what is used. This can be likened to the Dell PC configurator, or a customisable online insurance quote, where the company responds directly to your needs, building a bespoke and often unique product.

Whilst an ISP might not be able to offer a completely bespoke service, there are two ways in which they can “package” content: the first is where the customer can choose which services they want to access more of, and the second when ISPs pre-negotiate this with the online service providers - pay me more and I’ll let you have more of my bandwidth and reach more of my customers. Whilst the later may provide fruitful business relationships for ISPs, it could seriously affect the experience we have on-line, particularly for economically disadvantaged and hard to reach communities.

The issues are further compounded by our familiarity with a “wired infrastructure”, where a provider runs cables under the ground and allows us to connect to them. But even today, for many in our forgotten rural areas, broadband access is far from universal, meaning access to content is limited.

Access via a mobile dongle, or via satellite, allow non-city dwellers to gain that all important access, but the costs are comparatively high intended as they are for international roaming. This in turn limits what a user is likely to access.

By accepting physical constraints such as file size or cost, the user must compromise the ideal of neutrality based on their location - a far from democratic approach.

Businesses are increasingly driving efficiency, revenue growth and improved customer experience through the use of a User-Centered Design philosophy. This results in services that are increasingly tailored to an individual customers needs. The same could be said in the argument about Net Neutrality; will we only pay for what we use, and how will this be limited – by bandwidth or content?

Consumers will undoubtedly want to be free to choose to have less of one thing (such as video on demand),  and more of another (such as social media). But if ISP’s choose what to provide then we may all pay the price for deals done over which the customer has no control.

A pertinent example of this can be seen by looking at the loss of the SkyOne service experienced by NTL/Telewest customers when their provider was taken over by Virgin. In the emerging markets we could see this being taken one step further, with “sponsored” corporate material prioritised over basic content

Perhaps paying for what you use is a more equitable system, and clinging on to an ideal of “Neutrality” may quickly seem out-dated. But surely the user should concern themselves more about how access would be restricted, and what the Government and other public bodies can do to ensure fair and transparent pricing models, and that changes to access are suitably communicated.

Whatever system is decided upon needs to be regulated effectively while avoiding an unreasonable burden being placed on business, and in turn, the taxpayer.