Dan Kaminsky has a
great essay on why Net Neutrality matters over at ComputerWorld. If you’re not aware of this issue (and even if you are), go read it. It’s one of the more accessible explanations of the debate I’ve seen and provides some excellent analogies for introducing the concept to the uninformed.

“Oh, sure, there’s UPS and DHL and the US Postal Service. But imagine if they were all proposing that, because people make money based on the contents of packages other people shipped, that they should see some of that money. Imagine they implied that, if you or your company did not pay a reception fee… well, things might happen. Packages might get lost, you see.

“Now imagine they informed you that they were going to deploy equipment that could analyze the contents of the packages they shipped. A six-ounce letter might contain a multimillion dollar contract, while a twenty pound box might just have some intern’s new laptop. Suppose their equipment could tell the difference. Would you pay to not have that contract “lost” in a sorting facility?

“Of course you’d pay. You’d also pay not to have your knees broken. But kneecap integrity should not be a business expense.”

Just read it.

I find that Kaminsky doesn’t make his case - it comes across rather as a baseless allegation against broadband providers. FCC already has and enforces regulations against illegally blocking sites and services.

I find that Richard Bennett offers a better analysis over at http://bennett.com/blog/

I took the opportunity at Usenix to ask some of the nework engineers about their opinions. We tend to agree that things should be left as is and that additional regulations will most likely make things worse rather than better. Ted Stevens did get it right when he said he wasn’t going to support legislation on Net Neutrality when there is no common definition of it.