Peter Huber, a senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute, writes in Forbes that a "net neutrality" bill won't solve any issue, but will slow new capital investment in faster digital pipes and create complicated and confusing legislation. He says that net neutrality proponents focus on "last mile" and "end user" neutrality, but claims that this approach only raises further questions: How long is a mile, and where does it end?

In addition, he states there is a problem with the perception that neutrality exists today:

The network that's lighting your screen today isn't neutral at all. Google, Amazon, Citicorp -- all pay a privately negotiated price for better connections from their huge banks of servers to the Internet. What they get are fast connections from their premises -- and for just their content -- to one of the several dozen "network access points" that channel data into the Internet's sprawling, ultrahigh-speed backbone.

Then they buy still more speed -- for their content and no one else's -- from companies like Akamai. Akamai provides neutrality-busting service. The company has deployed a global array of servers that cache content supplied by its customers so that it's sitting out there when it's needed, much closer to the people who need it. Akamai can push its strategy a long way by cuddling up close to, say, Comcast or Verizon. The net neutralizers may regulate some of that, but nobody yet knows how much.

"The Inegalitarian Web"