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?