A striking aspect of the neutrality debate is the amount heat being generated in light of the generally non-existent controversies sparking them. Proponents of more regulation, by their own admission, don’t have much in the way of specific examples to bolster their case that telecoms are out to get anyone.

Take a look at the examples listed on the Save The Internet website. They cite four examples to “prove” that federal neutrality regulations are necessary. But two of those four didn’t even take place in the U.S. — they’re from Canada! For those who may not know, Canada is a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, and even though it supplies an apparent majority of the United States’ most successful comedians, it is not, in fact, a U.S state. What we mean is, Canada has a different regulatory scheme than our own, and there are too many differences to make a fair comparison.

But the other examples are equally specious — a third involves an issue that is more of a trademark issue than one indicating a need for federal Internet regulations. An organization used the trademarked name of AOL in order to promote itself, DearAOL.com. AOL objected on grounds of consumer confusion. Guess what? DearAOL is still coming through loud and clear.

The fourth example did involve a small DSL provider that interfered with an unaffiliated VOIP provider. But nowhere on Save the Internet do they mention that there was swift federal action that put an end to this practice — and sent a strong pro-consumer warning shot to every other broadband provider. Not to mention, this situation is the exception that proves the rule — Internet providers as a rule are not in the business of limiting what you or anyone else sends over the pipes.

Funny thing – that was two years ago and no one’s tried anything similar since then. But you’ll never hear that from our friends at Save The Internet.