The Heartland Institute flags in an article that two prominent State Attorney Generals are now backing NN.

Like the kid that doesn't like what one parent says, goes and asks the other to get the answer they seek, neutrality-ites don't want to hear the "NO!" that they got from the FCC, the DOJ antitrust division, the House of Representatives and the Senate Commerce Committee.
 
In Washington this transparent maneuver is called "forum shopping." It is the common practice for those with weak or losing arguments.

The NN debate between Tim Berners-Lee and David Farber on NPR was useful.

My takeaway from David Farber was two main points: First, no one can define the problem NN is trying to solve; and second, that there are sufficient laws and mechanisms already in place to address any net neutrality concerns, if they transform from being hypothetical to real. 

My big takeaway from Tim Berners-Lee's comments was his over-simplification that left the impression that NN is what everyone has now and have always had.  

To make NN sound less radical and controversial, net neutrality proponents routinely like to imply they just want to restore the situation to the way it was before the FCC's 2005 decision to declare DSL an unregulated information service.

However, if that was truly the NN game plan, and there was no other agenda:

Why are none of the NN bills (Snowe-Drogan or Markey Bills) written as restoring or reinstating what existed in regulation or legislation before if that is truly the case? (Why is it completely new language that applies to all the non-copper technologies it never applied to before?)

Why is net neutrality so hard to define? (If NN is the way its always been, couldn't we just use past definitions?)

Why is the term NN a relatively new term used for the first time on the Internet -- just a few years ago?

For those who are interested in an outstanding Op Ed on the folly of net neutrality I encourage you to read the Op Ed of David Cohen of Comcast in the Philadelphia Enquirer from earlier this week. its dead on.

I am in the midst of reading a new and very interesting book called "The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More"  written by "Wired" editor in chief Chris Anderson. His core brilliant insight is that Internet and digital technology create the "new economics of abundance" in that there is as much opportunity on the long tail of the demand curve as there is in the "head" of the curve where most companies focus. Simply, there is huge growth and revenue opportunity and potential in serving niche markets! 

The Washington Post reports today that the Indian government ordered Indian ISPs to block acccess to many websites and blogs. Now the second most populous country, India, in addition to China, the most populous country, are blocking free and open access to the Internet.

Why oh why do the american neutrality-ites think it is a good idea to invite the Federal government of the world's third most populous country into the business of policing bit traffic, when there isn't even a problem? Is it because neutrality-ites trust the government more than business? I think so. At the core of the net neutrality movement is a deep anti-business, anti-capitalism, pro-big-government bent. 

Dave Farber, former FCC Chief technologist and professor to Vint Cerf, made one of the most profound and important comments I have ever heard in this NN debate yesterday. As reported in today's Communications Daily: "The chief threat to Internet culture isn't bit discrimination, but DRM, (Digital Rights Management) a peril to the Web's information-sharing ethos, Farber said. And DRM comes from content providers and content owners, not network providers, he said."

I've been ruminating on this truly profound insight for most of the day and had to comment on it here. Farber is right. Dead right. The neutrality-ites have organized around the wrong boogeyman.