The anti-net neutrality Washington Post op-ed by former FCC advisers Dave Farber and Michael Katz from last week generated considerable buzz in the blogosphere, a great deal of it positive. Here’s a sample:

Richard Bennett, one of our favorite bloggers, says:

Most of the people who’ve made substantial contributions to the Internet in the past are converging on this point of view: it’s harmful to make too many restrictions on the services the network provides to users and applications. Contrast this view, which is empirically provable, with the assertion on the other side that there’s are mystical and unprovable reasons to favor a dearth of network services. The evidence is all on the side of de-regulation.

At Verizon’s Policy Blog Link Hoewing comments:

First, while the debate around net neutrality is centered around possible dangers that could undermine the Internet, the fact is that way the Internet works can be improved and we have see no problems emerge despite the fears that have been expressed.

Second, the Internet is a highly adaptive and competitive environment that has evolved through the investments and ideas of countless players who have been free to try things out. It has grown successfully in the past and there is no good reason to think that it will not do so in the future. Legislating or trying to impose regulations in this environment makes no sense and could do harm.

Here’s Scott Cleland:

Like David and Mike, I am well aware of the potential problems that market power could have. I have a long and public record of standing up to monopoly behavior that I viewed as out of bounds. But I am also a fact and analysis person. The facts and the analysis show this is a competitive marketplace becoming even more competitive in the future.

And Cynthia Brumfield of IP Democracy, always a thoughtful commentator on technoglogy issues, reiterates her position that there’s no compelling need for net neutrality laws:

I’m on the record as saying that net neutrality legislation gives me the willies, and mostly because I don’t trust the government not to screw up what is a very vibrant, yet fragile, marketplace. I agree with Farber, Katz, et. all. that “we should wait until there is a problem before rushing to enact solutions.”

Welcome comments all. Congress should pay careful attention to the experts here, and take the political activists with a grain of salt. Net neutrality ain’t all that and a bag of potato chips. Heck, it’s not even a bag of potato chips.