On Monday, at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, the FCC held a public hearing on "broadband network management practices". The hearing essentially asked if Comcast and other access providers should have the ability to favor one type of content over another on their networks.

The consensus seems to be "No": today, the New York Attorney General's office subpoenaed Comcast on its network practices.

There are other opinions, some of which are easily dismissed, like this one:

"I am happy to report that I have no opinion on the subject of net neutrality, but I do not like the tone of the FCC in this report".

Others try a little harder, like Andy Kessler, who tortures a gas station metaphor beyond all rhetorical tolerance. Once you get past that, his argument is basically free market:

"With net neutrality, there will be no new competition and no incentives for build outs. Bandwidth speeds will stagnate, and new services will wither from bandwidth starvation."

John Dvorak, over at PC Magazine, takes Mr. Kessler to task in his typically non-combative, conciliatory style:

"Kessler's crazy logic seems to smash into itself with its loony diatribe. He says that Comcast needs the leeway to jack down the bandwidth to protect its cable TV business. After all, we can't have movies delivered off the Net, can we? But wait, how does that encourage progress? Hey, Andy, how does this attitude foster the 'innovation' you're so concerned about? You can't have it both ways. "

(Incidentally, is it just me, or is the auto-generated ad on the 2nd page of Mr. Dvorak's article too hilarious to be unintentional: the world "broadband" is a pop-out ad for Comcast!)

There is a bit of substance behind Mr. Dvorak's prose, but for a clear-headed explanation of the issues at stake, turn to the New York Times. Better still, listen to David Weinberger:

"Letting carriers violate Net neutrality actually gives them an incentive to keep bandwidth low: By keeping bandwidth inadequate, the carriers give customers a reason to pay the carriers extra for adequate delivery.

An Internet delivered by a tiny handful of old-technology providers... doesn't give us access laid like a blanket over the entire country, rich and poor alike. It doesn't give us a Net that we make together, rather than a Net the contents of which we consume.

We have to have Net neutrality, but we should not settle for it."

Hear, hear.