Paul Kapustka's Blog

The above link, which routes you to a C/Net pickup of a Reuters story, is interesting on several levels: Not only does it explore the idea that without net neutrality rules, we may all be paying more for online banking; but it also signals more "mainstreaming" of the debate, with well-respected news operation Reuters seeing it as a significant place to break a news story.

It's fun on one level to watch this turn into a real debate, instead of just another example of the big telcos using their influence to pummel regulators into accepting their world-view of things. You can almost feel the frustration when you read posts like this one by Randall May of the Progress & Freedom Foundation -- a group that has lots of smart people, but also an apparent inability to accept any version of the truth other than their own. (C'mon Randy -- when you start arguing about the semantics of the word "neutrality," you're grasping at straws.)

Here's Randy's reasoning:

BTW, I believe that imposing anticipatory broad-brush mandates preventing any differentiation of services on the net will diminish investment in new high-speed facilities and innovative applications, thereby neutering the net. So, in my view what the proponents of new Internet regulations are arguing for is Net Neutering, not Net Neutrality.

To which one can easily reply: You mean those high-speed facilities and innovative applications we are enjoying now? With billions in profits, how much more "incentive to invest" is needed?

But back to the battle: Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., is already back up off the canvas with a new standalone version of a net neutrality bill; and D.C. insiders expect Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, to launch their own "net neut" bill any day now.

Senate commerce committee leader Ted Stevens, meanwhile, has launched the mother ship of telecom bills, a monster that observers are only starting to digest. The network neutrality component right now calls for the FCC to examine the situation on a year-to-year basis and report back to the Senate. Given the toe-the-line adherance to a GOP/RBOC agenda by current chairman-for-the-rest-of-the-second-term Martin, it's hard to believe that net neutrality proponents would agree to such an arrangement.

The analysts at Stifel, Nicolaus are pessimisstic about Steven's bill becoming law, as they say:

We thus expect the Stevens draft will undergo significant changes (and probably deletions) if it is to move through the Senate and be reconciled with a narrower House bill focused on video franchise relief and a few other areas -- and even that's no guarantee of legislative success.

And don't forget Alyssa Milano, the star of stage and screen who added her name to the growing list of Internet users who want there to be real discussion about the issue, not back-room deals. Sure, it's easy to be snarky and silly about Ms. Milano, but (besides her fame), she's far from frothy and is, in many ways, no different from other small businesspersons who are worried about the potential for gatekeeping and tiered services that only the rich (of both users and providers) can afford.

So why not Alyssa -- in fact, why aren't more independent voices joining the debate? You don't have to be a lobbyist to play, and heck, you might even earn some coin for your efforts. Not a bad way for the second part of this debate to begin.