Debunking NN Myth #2

My friends Paul Meisner of Amazon, and Chris Libertelli of Skype-eBay, whom I personally respect, regularly say NN is not about philosophy in their frequent public defenses of the Net Neutrality. That may be nice and self-reassuring PR mantra, but it does not withstand scrutiny.  

I most respectfully have to disagree with Paul and Chris on this; net neutrality is the classic and central philosophical debate of the techcom era. 

NN is just a techcom version of the constant American struggle between the dual American political values that Americans hold dear: freedom and equality. When issues such as NN put these values in conflict, taking away commercial and individual freedoms to create net equality, it is a philosophical debate. Conservatives and Republicans tend to favor protecting freedom over promoting equality. Liberals and Democrats tend to favor promoting equality over protecting freedoms. 

The 269-152 vote against NN in the People's House of Representatives, broke down largely on philosophical lines, with ~95% of Republicans voting one way and ~70% of Democrats the other way.  

The neutrality-ites have argued that NN is the best way to promote "Internet freedom, Net democracy, and protecting First Amendment free speech. That sounds philosophical to me. 

NN is a classic philosphical debate between:  

Free market Internet vs a Socialized Internet
Competition vs. regulation
Private Property rights vs Government control

Make no mistake about it. NN is a classic clash of philosophies. To say otherwise is brushing an "inconvenient truth" under the rug.