Now this is a breath of fresh air from America’s heartland:

“Though attempts are being made to position net neutrality as pro-consumer, in reality it is very anti-consumer. With net neutrality, Web-based companies would avoid compensating network owners for use of their facilities, leaving consumers and network owners to pay those costs. This would force the majority of consumers to pay for the high costs driven by a minority of Internet users….”

The author is Dan Hesse, CEO of Kansas-based Embarq, who penned this great column on the absurdity of net neutrality for the current issue of Chief Executive. As Hesse notes, in 2007 alone, communications companies are investing $70 billion to upgrade the country’s network infrastructure. With America already behind more than a dozen other nations in broadband access, such investment is indispensable and, as Hesse rightly observes, this investment would not continue if Congress enacts net neutrality pricing regulations.

Less than 10 years ago, wired broadband costs ran as high as $60 a month and wireless broadband was a myth. Today, inflation-adjusted prices have plunged 50 percent or more depending on location, while choices have expanded and wireless has become an instant mass-market phenom. Given this, Hesse’s warnings about the cost to consumers of net neutrality’s ultimate cost seem not only correct but downright commonsensical.

Incidentally, on this lovely fall afternoon, we’ll throw another bouquet to the company: that green “origami jet” logo is really cool.