Folks probably tire of my comments on net neutrality. Obviously, I am a fan of maintaining what I would describe as an open Internet. As a provider of free content, I want to keep my server costs as low as possible and I do not want large companies to be able to reduce the efficiency of access to my content because they can purchase fast track access. From the beginning, I saw the value of the Internet as what used to be called a Read/Write web. The implication is all whether wealthy or not would have a chance to write.
This would not be much of a controversy if there was not another side. Rather than try to explain the complexity of the controversy, I refer you to a recent edition of This Week in Tech mostly featuring a give and take on this issue.
The way I think about the competing positions might be explain as who do you trust. Do you trust the government or do you trust the access providers (e.g., AT&T, Comcast)? Some folks just assume the government should stay out of as many functions of things as possible. The success of the US according to some is based on business competition leading to innovation and efficiency. While true in many sectors, this does not happen to be true for online access. Most folks have the option of two providers and some of us have a single provider. Hence, the pro-business argument makes some sense BUT not in a situation when there is very little actual competition. The business argument is that this sector must operate differently (phone, cable) because of the cost of infrastructure. True, BUT the companies in this sector have already paid for their investments and are now making huge profits. Anyone dealing with a cell phone company probably has an opinion of the responsibility these companies feel toward their customers.
Anyway, watch the video. It does a good job of offering the competing positions and explaining some of the complexities.