No fabulous prizes aside from smug self-satisfaction (which truly should be prize enough for anyone)...

Find me someone advancing an argument against Net Neutrality who *isn't* being funded by the telecom/cable/ISP industry.I'm not looking for random posts on a forum or Slashdot or something -- I want a real op-ed piece or column or other substantive expression of opinion.

I'm curious about this because all I've heard so far is telecom/cable/ISP stooges trying to sell Net Neutrality as "socialism for the Internet" (some telecom/cable/ISP stooge used that phrase on NPR this morning) that will turn the Web into a dull gray place because all the innovators will go away. Is there a rational argument out there, apart from a massive cash grab for Verizon and AT&T?

One of these telecom/cable/ISP-funded campaigns asks, "Do you want a smart Internet or a dumb pipe?" I'll take the dumb pipe, thanks, because that's exactly what I want the Internet to be. I don't want my ISP to decide which sites are fast and which sites are slow. I don't want them to decide that I'll get a small fraction of the bandwidth I'm paying for for actual Net access, and devote the rest to the VOD or VOIP service they have a marketing agreement with. (Or, more to the point, give me insufficient bandwidth to run my choice of VOIP or VOD, but plenty of space for their "strategic partners.")

Click on the obnoxious orange link over there under the burning fiddle to learn more.

UPDATE/EDIT: We may have a winner. I'm not sure I agree with it, but at least it looks like a relatively independent viewpoint.

My basic opinion still stands, though -- the anti-NN argument (as seen in the linked article) seems to be that the the ISP should decide what is most important to deliver over your Net connection. I'd rather just have a connection, and utilize it as I see fit.