Who Benefits From A Non-Neutral Net?

The new question on Net Neutrality is "who benefits?" There's been a lot of talk on both sides of the issue, and it can be difficult for those outside the Internet industry to get a handle on what's true. Perhaps if we look at who is talking, and from what pedestal, we can better understand. When The Washington Post Online and the Chicago Tribune both published Fact #1 The Washington Post is owned by the Washington Post Company. The Washington Post Company Cable One, operating in midwestern, western and southern states. Fact # 2 The Chicago Tribune is owned by the Tribune Company. While the Tribune Company (to my knowledge) offers no internet access services, it is heavily involved with the cable industry as a content distribution agent (owning the relationship with AOL Time Warner (19 of 26 Tribune-owned TV stations are WB affiliates). The Tribune also owns a significant promised to filibuster Stevens' bill, which Stevens doesn't have enough votes to break. Who Benefits and Who Is Affected So we've illustrated that the loudest voices opposed to Net Neutrality have been telecommunications and cable companies, election year legislators with telco and cable contributors, spokespersons for telcos and cable companies, and editorial staffs with parent companies heavily involved in the cable industry. Who is in favor of Net Neutrality? Pretty much everybody else, stragglers aside. This week Hitwise released some interesting