More generally, net neutrality proponents argue that changes in the Internet’s architecture could make it harder for the creation of new application innovations, yet such innovations—like e-mail, Web browsers, Ajax and new search capabilities—are responsible for most of the Internet’s growth to date. In addition, something as complicated as changing how the core of the Internet works doesn’t happen overnight. Indeed, some of the telecoms’ attempts to develop new network technologies for the core of the Internet have been less than successful. For instance, network-based standards that the telecommunications companies introduced, like ATM and IP multicasting, were supposed to revolutionize the Internet by guaranteeing quality of service. Instead, they proved to be so expensive that they never caught on outside of the telecommunications companies’ own networks and a handful of private corporate networks.

In addition, while a network owner like AT&T is busy experimenting with different architectures, device and application makers would be forced to delay releasing their innovative products until they knew how to make them compatible with the new network technology, says Gary Bachula, vice president for external affairs for Internet2, the ultra-high-speed network that connects more than 200 colleges and universities. Furthermore, letting network owners adopt different standards will inevitably lead to interoperability problems, proponents of net neutrality argue. Look no further than the wireless phone system, they say. The United States had competing and incompatible standards for years. Even today, phones that use U.S. networks don’t work in Europe and other parts of the world. The introduction of a new IP by a telecommunications company could have the same effect.

"It is not inconceivable that the optimal number of networks may be greater than one," Yoo says. In general, he adds, it is in network owners’ best interests to make their product compatible with everyone else’s. However, if people develop a new technology that they believe is a large enough improvement on what came before, Yoo argues they should be free to try to sell it and let the market either punish or reward the decision. And that prospect concerns CIOs and other observers.

"If you had to have a different architecture for every single provider that is out there, it would mean Balkanization of the Internet," Bachula says.

How to Navigate the New Terrain

One thing’s for sure: It will be up to the CIO to make sure that his company can negotiate the new landscape. Tiered service alone "is going to transfer a lot of responsibility to the [CIO]," says Steve Novak, CIO of the law firm Kirkland and Ellis. Telecommunications costs will go up, and these decisions will become more strategic, says Novak, because they will no longer just be about how much bandwidth to buy, but also what level of service to purchase from each carrier.