There is great debate now as to how service providers should charge for the internet access they provide, and wether or not they should be able to charge for users who use a lot of traffic capacity or who want higher speed services. The merits of the arguments aside we should be very clear what allowing such pricing will cause, it will cause the attempt to charge for content to gain much more traction.
Right now content providers raise most of their income via advertising, and most operate at a loss, this has been acceptable so far because the idea is that the medium is too important. Establishing a foothold is the important thing from there a profit model can evolve. This is compounded by the problem of being the first to charge for content. Perhaps someone with very unique content will find it easier to charge for what they offer but that only opens the door for competitors to offer similar content for free. One must be very secure in the loyalty of ones customer base at this point to charge for content.
But if service providers can charge the Wall Street Journals and The New York Times more for their access and traffic, and charge them actual business rates based on the idea that they can make money, then the playing field from an expense standpoint becomes leveled, and it becomes easier, if not necessary, to charge for content to cover the cost of operating a high tarffic high speed site.
So while the argument around charging for service levels centers around a sort of democratic access to the internet there is a side that is ignored, and that is that one can expect the cost of using the internet to go up for everyone.