Many consumer advocacy groups, web companies and startups are ranting about the perils of losing net neutrality. Net neutrality, they say, is what made the Internet what it is today by giving small companies the opportunity to become big companies, and it rightly puts the user in full control of what he views on the Internet.

Huge telecommunication companies like Verizon, and cable providers like Time Warner, however, could potentially profit a good deal from charging websites like YouTubeYouTube for priority treatment and faster loading times. They argue that prioritization is necessary for a functional internet and that regulated net neutrality will stunt innovation. Thus the battle between the two groups has commenced.

A federal court decided in April that the FCC lacked the authority to impose net neutrality. The FCC fought back in May by deciding to reclassify broadband transmission as a “regulable telecommunications service.” Verizon and Google spurred additional controversy this month by releasing a joint proposal for a legal regulatory framework.

Both sides –- those opposed to FCC regulation of net neutrality and those who think it’s necessary –- proclaim that their defeat would be Armageddon. But should we really be this worked up about this? The following are the worst-case scenarios that might emerge from how the conflict could pan out.

1. Government Regulation Makes the Internet More Like TV

When the FCC starts regulating an industry, it has a tendency to continue to add regulations. Some fear that if the FCC starts enforcing net neutrality it would open the door for the FCC to decide what is appropriate content for the web.

“The government already attempts to determine what’s appropriate for you to so see, like R-rated movies during prime time,” says Dave Farber, a former chief technologist for the FCC and a professor of computer science and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. “You could see a future FCC doing the same thing with the InternetInternet.”

2. Provider Discrimination Makes the Internet More Like TV

If the FCC doesn’t regulate net neutrality, there’s still a chance that the Internet will increasingly end up functioning like television. The fear is that if priority access becomes available, only giant companies will be able to purchase it. Whereas now consumers have infinite choices of Internet content that loads the same way, there will be limited sites available that will enjoy superior access.

“It could be like cable: A company delivering mediocre content and ads to your home for an inflated fee,” says Chris Riley, a policy council at a public advocacy organization that promotes net neutrality called Free Press.

Art Brodsky, the communications manager for consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, says that this sort of content restriction would most likely take the form of a “select channel” section of the Internet. “I don’t know if they would prevent anybody from surfing,” he says. “But they could do it the opposite way and say, ‘here are the best things.’”

3. Government Regulation Stunts Innovation

A technological detail that many miss in the net neutrality debate is that some web services require differential treatment in order to be functional. Faber, who says he switches between defending and attacking net neutrality based on his mood and the definition in use, points out that innovations like voice over IP would be useless if there were no way of prioritizing that traffic.

Wireless, too, has different technological hurdles than broadband Internet that a strict net neutrality policy might make impossible to clear. Opening up the ability to purchase better access times would pave the way for innovations that require superior bandwidth, like high-definition or 3D video. Restrictions on net neutrality, however, could cut off these potentially profitable new innovations.

“We want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation,” argued Verizon and GoogleGoogle in their joint blog post. “Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services… It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options.”

4. An Unfair Playing Field Stunts Innovation

Giving priority treatment to companies that can pay fees also raises some concerns about fair play.

“It freezes out the potential for the next innovators and puts the smaller guys at a disadvantage,” Brodsky says. “And as we know, it’s the smaller guys who made the Internet what it is today. And they had a chance to grow into big guys because the Internet is an open place.”

Instead of becoming the next Google, the fear is that the next Google will instead have to pitch their idea to Google itself. Startups won’t be able to afford the fast-lane fee themselves.

5. Consumers Pay to Access Internet Content

As with cable TV, it’s possible that some of the cost to put websites on the Internet’s “fast lane” will be passed on to the consumer.

“Suppose someone set up a system where, if only I paid a certain amount of money would my IP address get through — a sort of cable-ization of the net,” Brodsky says. “The worst case scenario is that if you want to go to ESPN, it will cost you so much.”

Faber thinks it’s more likely that the fees would be passed on to consumers in the form of a micro-increase in the prices of advertisers’ products. For instance, the price of a bottle of Coke might go up a cent because the websites that Coke advertises on are paying a fee for priority treatment.

6. Wireless Networks Overload, the Internet Slows Down

Verizon and Google included a phrase in their proposal that allows service providers “to engage in a reasonable network management.” This would include the power “to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network.”

Which begs the question: What would happen if the FCC created regulations that banned service providers from mitigating these effects? Would the Internet overload?

Well, actually yes, according to some. Steve Largent, the president and CEO of CTIA, the trade association of the wireless communications industry, argues in an editorial for USA Today that the wireless Internet has a finite amount of spectrum that needs to be managed.

7. Super Mergers Control the World

Some fear that without net neutrality, an Internet provider would be able to merge with a media company and make its own content the fastest to access, leaving the consumer with a choice between a long download or viewing that company’s content. Some fear that it could get even worse than a collaboration between provider and media company.

“It might not be Comcast and NBC. It might be Microsoft, Comcast, and NBC,” Riley says. “They’d control the software, they’d control the content, and they’d control the pipeline that delivers that content to you.”

Others, like Faber, argue that a super merger would violate existing Federal Trade Commission regulations and anti-trust laws. Also, aligning with one media company wouldn’t be the most profitable route.

“I just don’t understand the economic motive to do it that way,” Faber says. “If there’s any competition at all, that’s not going to work.”

Faber says he has no problem with some companies buying priority treatment from Internet providers as long as all companies have the opportunity buy equal access. As long as everyone can have it, he says, it’s fair and far preferable to government regulation.

Now that you’ve read the worst that can happen, what do you think? Will any of these become reality? Is the future rosie? Tell us in the comments below.

More Tech Resources from Mashable:

- HOW TO: Self-Publish Anything Online
- 5 Innovative Tech Camps for Kids and Teens
- 10 Great Behind-the-Scenes Glimpses of Google [VIDEOS]
- 10 Fun Microsoft Facts You Might Not Know
- Can Robots Run the News?

Images courtesy of iStockphotoiStockphoto, CostinT, Camrocker, subju, titaniumdoughnut.