After months of Google, Savetheinternet.org and itsournet.org warning ominously of the horrors of a "two-tiered Internet" where Americans might have to pay more to get more, it
appears that Vint Cerf, Google's net neutrality evangelist, is finally conceding on their core argument -- saying "Noone objects to charging users more for faster access, Cerf said" according to Communications Daily August 17, 2006.
Huh!? I thought that was what the whole NN debate was about!? Could broadband providers charge more if they provided more? Thank you Mr. Cerf for saying broadband capitalism is now OK!
Google and Mr. Cerf's hypocrisy on this central tenet in the NN debate would be comical if their lobbying crusade for NN was not so deadly serious. For months these online giants have been shamelessly fear-mongering that the Internet must be saved from the differential market pricing of a..."two-tiered Internet!"
The Neutr-elites have had to back off their absurd opposition to a "two-tiered Internet", because everyone knows that the Internet has long been multi-tiered: free WiFi, low cost dial-up and various prices for various speeds of broadband. (The Internet backbone has also long been tiered)
Now that Mr. Cerf has conceded on the core principle that the Net is not neutral -- i.e. that people who get more speed should pay more -- what is the remaining principle behind their objection that people who want to get more services than they currently get, should not have to pay more?
The only principle here is self-serving. Google, Microsoft, eBay, and Yahoo don't want their costs to go up even if they get more. They all want to use the Internet more (by distributing bandwidth -intensive video) and shift all of that new cost burden to the consumer. These online giants are manipulating the public policy and election process to protect their market leading 80-90% gross profit margins. Make no mistake. NN is corporate welfare for dotcom billionaires.
