Debunking NN Myth #4

Neutrality-ites claim Network neturality is a principle.

Their defense of it belies the fact that NN is NOT principled.

They justify new NN regulation by asserting there is a duopoly and market failure. If the motivation is principled, why do Snowe-Dorgan and the Markey bills apply monopoly net neutrality rules to competitive broadband providers like wireless, new entrants like WiMax and free services like WiFi? If it is truly a necessary "competitive" principle, why not apply it to Microsoft, which the government ruled a monopoly, or Google and Yahoo which are quickly becoming the defacto duoploists of search? Real principles are not double standards like NN.

If NN was originally really about opposing the creation of a two-tier Internet, why is backing off that position and saying they are not opposed to Internet tiering based on speed and price? Could that be becuase it was not a principled position to begin with, but just a cheap ploy to inflame the Internet base? Could it be that positioning against a two-tier Internet was just a preposterously stupid stance given because everyone in America already knew that the Internet already has a slow lane of millions of users called dial-up and a fast lane called broadband? Oops! Guess that wasn't a principle after all. Nice try.  

If net neutrality is principled and cares about First Amendment free speech protection on the Internet why doesn't Snowe-Dorgan even mention the words free speech and First Amendment? 
Why oppose the Stevens bill that has explicit and strong language protecting first amendment rights, one of the "Principles" NN supposedly stands for? 

Could their be an integrity problem with the so-called "principle" of net neutrality?