Game Theory supports Network Neutrality

I've been saying this for well over a year now: a non-neutral network provides a DISINCENTIVE for telcos to invest in infrastructure. Now the argument has gotten a bit of lift from a University of Florida (UF) study. Apparently some researchers at UF have released a (PDF) study demonstrating how Game Theory supports the same conclusion:

". . . the researchers found that the incentive for broadband service providers to expand and upgrade their service actually declines if net neutrality ends."

Duh! I first mentioned this in a comment on Susan Crawford's blog in early February 2006:

". . . one might argue that allowing 'tiering' would actually provide a disincentive for investment in capacity, as it would only undermine the telcos' justification for lucrative 'tiering' of services. "

and again in a short response to Ofcom's bullet points for a discussion of Next Generation Networks.

I haven't read the study in detail yet, but I'm curious to see what definition of "network neutrality" was used. It occurs to me that enabling QoS tiering of "services" would have the same inhibiting effect as enabling QoS tiering for commercial "content" providers. How can we communicate to thinkers like Wu and Lessig that IPTV is still just IP packets and that allowing QoS based prioritization for such "services" is as bad for a neutral network as allowing it on the basis of commercial contract to "content" providers? Allowing such "services" based tiering is the thin-edge-of-the-wedge and "network neutrality" supporters will sincerely regret the passage of any legislation that allows for it. For similar reasons a number of prominent voices pointed to deficiencies in the AT&T/BellSouth merger agreement. We ignore these voices at our peril.

I remain convinced that an ISO layers-like regulatory approach is STILL the best solution to the regulatory quagmire we presently operate under. Furthermore, I just want to say that the argument that such a framework would lock us into a particular technology is hogwash. An ISO layers, or similar, model is as abstract as any legal framework, but directly reflects the digital nature of the internet and for that reason alone is vastly superior to the present antiquated system (even - especially - after the 96 Telecommunications Act and Brand-X).