Network Neutrality -- part deux

OK... has all of the mainstream media now officially jumped on board to talk about network neutrality?  When I wrote a week ago, I thought the New York Times was the last to reach the issue.  Today's Washington Post offers its own op-ed titled The Coming Tug of War Over the Internet.  Although condescending to anyone who's actually heard of the issue in the past few months, the piece covers all the main points -- Whitacre's opening blast, BellSouth's piling-on, Verizon's "high-road" consideration of all the options.  Mr. Stern does offer one interesting point, however:

One of the few conditions that the FCC put on the merged companies was that they abide by the concept of network neutrality for at least two years. But it's not clear if companies would even be in violation of the relatively vague FCC language if BellSouth or AT&T proceeded with their plan to give one company "priority" over others on the Internet. Last week I asked several telecommunications lawyers, including some FCC staffers, if AT&T would be in violation of its merger agreement if it granted "priority" status to some companies for a fee. The consistent response I got was, "That's a really good question."

I remain convinced that the ultimate result will be a "voluntary" industry declaration of neutrality in exchange for a bigger piece of the regulatory concessions in the telecom reform effort.  And the industry trade rags like Communications Daily are suggesting that the insiders see a bill getting through in 2006 -- meaning that all the well-intentioned efforts to support neutrality may just result in a bigger giveaway to the local telcos.  Unfortunately, that may be the price of progress (or at least maintaining the status quo) in an unsettled environment.