Staying neutral...

PC World reports that Scott Cleland of Precursor LLC released a report last week claiming that Google uses 21 times more bandwidth than it pays for. Facts like this are used to argue for an end to net neutrality, but maybe there's a better way.

Put simply, an end to net neutrality would mean that people pay more the more bandwidth they use. This at first sight seems fair enough, but isn't it like saying that if you make more calls on your mobile phone, you'll be charged more? And what about if your web site becomes popular through no fault of your own and becomes "slashdotted"? What if you're the victim of low level botnet attack designed to bankrupt you through increased ISP bandwidth charges? Has no one considered this may be a vulnerability waiting to happen?

It's probably also worth speculating here that an end to net neutrality might potentially even see people being charged more by their ISPs for receiving more spam than average. It's improbable, but certainly possible.

So, perhaps rather than abandoning net neutrality to charge the likes of Google more due to its success, maybe it would be better to give such companies tax breaks for investing in companies that provide bandwidth in the first place so that they can in turn create more bandwidth. That way, everyone wins.