Why the Fuss over Net Neutrality?

So far this semester, I’ve assumed that the Internet will persist in its free and open incarnation unless the government decides to regulate it otherwise.  Never did it occur to me, until reading up on net neutrality, that the government should potentially be charged with regulating the Internet so that it doesn’t deviate from its present operating structure.  Because I’ve been so focused on the dangers derived from the Internet as it exists now, with a non-commodified, non-stratified design leading to its remarkable spread yet also leaving it vulnerable to exploitation, I still have a hard time coming around to the prospect of abuses on the part of mercenary providers, as opposed to irresponsible (or plain clueless) users.

The principle of net neutrality is simple enough to understand, if the YouTube clip is any indication.  In essence, the telecom megaliths, such as Comcast and Time Warner, shouldn’t have a say in what their clients are able to view online.  This is no different from their having stewardship over telephone cables and the like, but not over the actual conversations transmitted through them, or to whom those conversations are directed.  To some degree, there will always be gatekeepers to the Internet in the form of ISPs, BSPs (as the Time Warner document kept referring to), or whatever the right acronym is.  But I agree with the proponents of net neutrality that ISPs shouldn't have license to strike deals with select web-based companies and effectively discriminate against those companies' competitors by making it a privilege--or chore--for subscribers to access them.

In practice, however, I don't buy into the doomsday perspective that an end to net neutrality is on the horizon or already here.  For one, it's doubtful that the tech companies will enter into a "corrupt bargain" with the wily ISPs, because they're more or less wedded to the Internet's founding ideal of open access.  From the perspective of the telecom giants that would stand to gain from such a bargain, there might be fallout not just in terms of public perception--if, all of a sudden and on a variable basis, they slowed down connectivity or jacked up premiums--but also in terms of market share.  Though I'm mindful of the tendency for firms to collude and conglomerate if given the opportunity to, I don't think that's an eventuality on the Internet, so long as the barriers to entry remain low and the choice among ISPs remains plentiful.  

Even if the market isn't capable, on its own, of seeing to net neutrality, I am skeptical of legislation or even adjudication being able to do the trick.  Clearly I'm coming at this issue with a different motivation from Time Warner, but its lawyers make a seductive point nonetheless: that governmental management of the Internet stands to be just as detrimental to speech rights as corporate management.  As much as I want to side against the ISP bigwigs in this debate, I'm ultimately swayed by their appeal to the free market, as providing them with incentives to maintain net neutrality; by their concern, from a procedural standpoint, that any regulation would take effect post hoc and thereby chill speech ex ante; and by their resort to the First Amendment in equating themselves to private speakers.  No matter the objective, whether it's to limit or expand access to speech, the government is prohibited from interfering with privately-held outlets' decisions as to what that speech is, how it is to be purveyed, and to whom (so long as people aren't being systematically excluded on the basis of an incontrovertible and identifiable trait like age or race).

I'm left with two questions following from that last point: 

1)  Has the Internet taken on the cast of a public good rather than a discretionary commodity, and if so, what responsibilities and limitations does the government have in seeing to its provision?

2)  How does (or doesn't) Time Warner's criticism of net neutrality square with Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC's conclusion that the government is legitimately disposed toward regulation when it has a compelling interest, the regulation is content-neutral, and speech is restricted in the least extent possible?