Nobody involved in the net neutrality debate is taking a neutral stance, writes Jeff Birnbaum in
The Washington Post. At the heart of the issue lies the question: who should pay for
improvements to the Internet? Telecom companies are spending billions to upgrade their networks, and they believe someone should have to pay--notably Google, Yahoo, and anyone else who benefits from
the speedy delivery of Web traffic over big telecom's pipes. Forcing companies to pay for faster delivery would likely prove to be a hardship for smaller companies, which to date have benefited from
free traffic and equal opportunity, net neutrality advocates say. Birnbaum says there are three key things to keep in mind when considering the advertising of pro and con net neutrality groups. First,
legislators are deciding this one. Not consumers. You can call your senator or whatever, but I'm sure the millions of lobbying dollars on either side count for more on this one. Second, online firms
already pay billions of dollars to network operators. The question here is whether they should have to pay for additional or premium services like streaming video. Thirdly, no matter what, consumers
will have to pay. We're either paying the telecoms premiums for faster service or online publishers' costs will trickle down to us somehow. That's economics 101, Birnbaum says. So in essence, we'll be
paying for "the Future of the Internet" either way.
Read the whole story at Washington Post »
