Congress is once again threatening to implement Net neutrality in order to prevent service providers from offering tiered content distributions services.

Specifically, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) says he may introduce a bill to make it an anti-trust violation for Internet providers to charge higher fees for “priority” access to the Internet.

The problem with this debate has long been that words like “discriminatory” and “priority” are used to mean the same thing. Internet service providers argue that offering “priority” Internet content deliver is no different than offering first class seats on an airline or overnight service from a delivery company.

But Net neutrality proponents insist that any “priority” service is, by definition, discriminatory against anyone not able to pay for that priority. This is an argument that has never made any sense to me.

Do I resent having to walk through the first-class section on my way to a cramped seat in coach? Sure I do, especially these days when every flight is packed to the gills. But forcing everyone to be less comfortable doesn’t increase my comfort, nor that of my fellow coach passengers.

As the Internet becomes more crowded, especially with video traffic, ISPs will need to invest more in their backbone networks -- not the access networks paid for with customers bucks, but the backbone and distribution portion of the network -- and to do that, they need to be able to generate revenues to justify that investment. They also need the ability to manage traffic to protect latency-sensitive applications, such as voice and video, from being trampled in the packet flood and to ensure that some applications, such as peer-to-peer traffic, don’t overwhelm the network and degrade its performance.

If Conyers’ bill, which has been introduced before but not considered by the full House, goes into law, we will all be sitting in Internet coach before long.

E-mail me at cwilson3@telephonyonline.com.