One thing lost in the haze of worries over the "net neutrality" thing is what would likely happen under a "neutrality" regime. My take is that it would regulate the "pipes" (in the US) through which the net flows as a "public facility". You know, like the airwaves. Now, stop and consider that for a moment - the FCC enforces all sorts of fascinating rules about what you can and can't do over the airwaves, and it runs flat into free speech too - the campaign finance laws in the US regulate political speech over the public airwaves.

Well. Seems to me that once the internet is a regulated, "neutral" public facility, we'll have out-clevered ourselves and let the camel's nose in the tent. In will rush all the "for the children" protections. In will rush all the content restrictions that the FCC enforces over the air. Is that what any of the net neutrality advocates really want? I rather doubt it - but they seem to have some utopian vision that allows for government to regulate only in ways that they like.

Sorry boys and girls, that's not how it works. I'd be very, very careful what you wish for here - because if you get it, you'll be utterly astonished at how little you like it.