Internet access has been defined by the right of the user to determine which content they want to see. This right of free and unfettered access is currently under threat from certain vested interests that want to curtail that right. But why in a democracy would our legislators ever consider this idea? In fact, as you start to dig a little deeper one begins to see the issue of net neutrality exposes the great contradiction of modern democracy. Few commentators are making the connection between the issue of net neutrality and the fundamental assumption underlying modern capitalism. Once this connection is exposed, it becomes very clear why conservative forces are fighting very hard to curtail the user’s right to determine content. It also throws into interesting relief the business models of companies like youtube.com and digg.com which use content management systems that are user determined. Many commentators have called into question the business models of these pioneering companies - but no one seems to have noticed that these companies stand in the way of an economic model that has been in place since the twenties - a model the neo-conservatives are trying very hard to protect.

The idea of a content management system that is user determined is promoting a revolution in the way we interact with our communities and the world at large. No longer is what we see or hear determined by editors and corporations - but by the people themselves. This is not just in our ability to google something we want, but through content management systems used by sites like digg and youtube where users get to vote for the content they like the most. An old elitist vanguard, some say, is being swept away by the new web 2.0 environment.

But why would anyone which to curtail this revolution? Many have noted that the telecom companies want to get greater return on their investment in networks and infrastructure. Some have accused them of greed; others have defended their right to create value for their shareholders. The issue, however, is far more involved and interesting than just this. These telecom companies are all preparing to evolve into media companies. What is a media company? It’s a company that creates, and determines content. With net neutrality in place these media\telco companies will have no power to channel users into seeing the content they want them to see. Hence, right at the point these companies were looking to expand themselves into a huge, new growth opportunity, which is being taken away from them by these various web based competitors.

None of this explains why the neo-conservatives over on Capitol Hill want to defend the Telco companies. After all they preach the virtues of democracy as much as everybody else. Certainly they want to prevent users from accessing content that doesn’t match the conservative standards they think we should aspire to. But it’s also because they want to protect the economic system they believe is the basis to a safe, prosperous society.

To realise why this is so we need to understand a little about the revolution in public relations that occurred in the nineteen twenties. A man by the name of Edward Bernays invented the industry of public relations. He was the nephew of Sigmund Freud - and like Freud, he believed that people were governed by deep seated irrational forces that if left unfettered could lead to the collapse of democratic societies. They were confirmed in this belief when they watched the horror of events like the first world war and the stock market crash of 1929.

Edward Bernays developed techniques which he believed could be used to control people - to satisfy their primal irrational urges and turn them into passive consumers. These methods involved techniques which are common today - but were totally innovative in the twenties. Bernays discovered that you could make people want something by associating a product with a symbol that represented the irrational drive that people wanted to satisfy. For example, he was approached by tobacco companies to find a way to make women smoke, which in the twenties was taboo. He consulted a psychoanalyst and was told that he should find a way to associate the cigarette with the idea of male sexual power. He did this by having a group of young, attractive women light up cigarettes at a planned media event, and told the media they were so doing in protest of the suffragettes who were fighting for the right of women to vote. The cigarettes were labeled “Torches of Freedom”. The campaign was a great success and from then on there was a consistent rise in the levels of women smokers. The ideas of power and freedom were attached to something which in reality had nothing to do with those concepts.

The large corporations were captivated by these new techniques. In the twenties and thirties they had become worried that in America people were reaching a point of prosperity whereby they had come to have just about everything they needed. Unless they could be made to buy things they didn’t need - the economic basis underpinning capitalism would collapse. The companies that produced the goods would not be able to make enough sales, the main drivers of growth and wealth creation would disappear. Bernays provided the solution to this problem.

Hence two massive problems were solved with one solution. If people could be turned into passive consumers then the engine of wealth and economic prosperity could be assured - and the dark, irrational forces of human beings would be satisfied and made passive.

Throughout the twentieth century - marketing programs were developed to manage consumers in this way. The advent of mass media made it even easier to control people through the marketing techniques that Bernays invented. These days we are being subjected to ever more sophisticated marketing techniques like online marketing, internet marketing, online promotions and the like.

But given this we can begin to see why the issue of net neutrality is so important. In order for the techniques of Bernays to work - the corporations need to have control over media content. For if they lose control over the management of content then those methods which control consumer behaviour by the association of powerful symbolic imagery with products will lose their effectiveness. We can begin to see now why the neo-conservatives are so worried. Net neutrality is a potential threat to the economic engine that drives western capitalism.

These considerations throw into doubt the business models currently being pursued by sites like youtube.com because it shows the reluctance marketers will have in allowing advertisements placed in front of user determined content. If someone wants to promote their product by associating it with symbols of power and success - they might feel that association would be damaged if placed in front of a short video showing some nerd stuffing mentos up his nose and then washing them out with coke. The tech heads and prophets of web 2.0 are criticising the marketers for not coming to party. I’ve heard it said many times by those in the tech industry that the marketers are behind the times and haven’t yet become savvy to the new media landscape.

A good example of this is Arik Czerniak - the CEO of Metacafe - who complains in his blog that marketers are not willing to accept 5 second video ads. Of course, he ignores that they have a very good reason for not accepting such a format. Five seconds is not enough time in which to make the kinds of psychological associations that marketers need in order to build brands.

I want to emphasise at this point my own support for net neutrality and the concept of user determined content, but the tech community desperately needs to get its head out of the sand and confront the huge challenge it faces. Business models must be developed that either satisfy the corporations, the marketers and the neo-conservatives, or show the way to a new economic model that does not rely on the elitism of the past - the elitism the conservatives are trying to protect. They’ll not only have to fight the extremely powerful vested interests that want that elitism protected (and their own privileged position in society) - but also those that believe that people can not be trusted to govern themselves and determine what they can and can’t see. These challenges are immense - but not insurmountable. Before any of this can happen, however, an awareness of the problem needs to developed and sustained in the wider community.