For most of us, the roles(s) we play in life color our perspective of the world. Because of this, it's sometimes challenging to see things from "other people's shoes." This begs the question though... is it harder for a billionaire CEO of a billion+ dollar corporation to understand the perspective of the average working-class American consumer, or is it harder for them to understand his point of view? Regardless of the philosophical debate that question might spark, we have a prime example of this to share with you today. Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam recently made some potentially inflammatory statements. He makes the bold claim that users who use the internet more should be required to pay more. He actually makes some decent arguments regarding this point of view; however, he also tries to tie his perspective directly to net neutrality. It's a strange "leap of logic" to mash these two diametrically opposed concepts together. For reference, here's a quote with some of his statements, I am not sure how he is bridging the idea of net neutrality with the idea that charging heavy users more will "keep the Web healthy." Regardless, the overall issue is a complicated one, but sometimes asking a different question can offer additional perspective. Here's an example, Should our state and/or local government charge heavy drivers more for using the roads more? The internet and the U.S. roadway/highway system are very similar in that they are designed to get important "traffic" from one place to another quickly. There are definitely folks out there who use the roads far more or far less than others. Should we charge the truck drivers and heavy commuters a premium price to use the roadways? Obviously this isn't a direct comparison since it's actually tax dollars contributed by all of us which help build and repair the roads. In fact, some folks do pay more for the roads (even if they don't use them more). For the most part roads are built using property taxes. If someone owns more expensive property than the next person, they technically paid more for the roads, yet everyone gets to use the roads as freely and openly as they want. Of course, we don't pay for internet use with our tax dollars. It isn't a "public" service per se. Yet, perhaps it should still be regulated as if it were... After-all, having our internet stay as "free and open" as possible will continue to improve competition and innovation. If different levels of customers had to pay more for different levels of internet usage, then the incentive would be to use it less, not more. That doesn't seem like a concept which will "keep the Web healthy." Perhaps in this instance, the divide is too great between Mr. McAdams corporate-focused perspective and the perspective of our national interests as a whole. What do you think?