It takes some courage to come right out and disagree with the prevailing wisdom that “net neutrality” is the best thing since the two-button mouse, but UC Berkeley professor Larry Downes is one of the brave ones.

Last July he wrote a provocative, yet common-sensical argument against net neutrality legislation for CIO Insight, and he follows up again this month with another worthy essay, published by Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society. Let’s quote a bit:

Discriminating may be necessary to optimize network performance - Uses for broadband infrastructure are emerging rapidly, and it isn’t entirely clear that discriminating based on content wouldn’t be the best way to optimize network performance, whether doing so would add to profits or not for the provider. The cable networks already “discriminate” in favor of programming over Internet traffic for subscribers who get both from the cable company, because the programming needs priority. Content providers are worried that if broadband providers aren’t banned from discriminating, they’ll someday (soon, perhaps) extract premiums from content providers to get their stuff delivered, or give competitors that option. But some kinds of content should get higher or lower priority as a matter of optimization, and blanket bans on prioritizing may end up making a mess of traffic overall.

And there’s more:

Maybe the Internet has worked so well because neutrality has been a persistent part of the architecture. Maybe it’s worked so well because there has been minimal government regulation of its design and operation. Maybe both. More of the latter to shore up the former is a dangerous trade-off.

Agreed. And not to be a broken record, but while we have our disagreements with Downes on a few specific policy points, those differences are minor and can be addressed later – after we’ve agreed to keep government regulators’ hands off the Internet.