The Internet neutrality debate covers a wide spectrum of issues from piracy to free speech to network management. A key issue is whether the government needs to legislate or regulate policies over how Internet service providers manage their networks. Many Web companies and public interest groups are concerned that allowing ISPs to manage traffic free from government oversight would result in network operators giving preferential treatment to their own services, or those that make side deals with the providers for faster delivery.

Some industry groups have countered that government oversight would only stifle broadband deployment, and that self-regulation has allowed the Internet to flourish.

After last week's FCC hearing, Lessig wrote in his blog, "tiered access for consumers does not violate 'network neutrality' principles.Obviously I'd prefer a world of flat rate, fast service. And if we actually had any meaningful ISP competition, we might get to that. But the narrow question I've addressed here is whether it would violate neutrality principles for ISPs to offer different bandwidth commitments for different prices. I don't believe it does."

For the entertainment industry, the debate reopens the issue that was at the heart of the recent writers' strike: compensation and distribution of online content.

Dan Glickman, chairman and chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America, has already declared his opposition to Net neutrality legislation, warning that it would lead to rampant piracy by giving open license to p-to-p sites.

But some content producers are concerned that a nonneutral Internet could lead to network operators brokering sweetheart deals with entertainment companies to choke off distribution of rival artists.

The issue was been showcased recently by Comcast's controversial throttling of traffic on the p-to-p site BitTorrent, which sparked protests from consumer advocacy groups.

Legislative efforts in both branches to codify Net neutrality are stalled. After his first attempt was shot down in June 2006, U.S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a milder version of Net neutrality legislation in February with the Internet Freedom Preservation Act. In the Senate, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) introduced a more forceful bill last January, but it has sat in committee since.

The Senate bill is assured of a contentious markup process before it has a chance to emerge from committee. Then, garnering the 60 votes required to pass is a very real challenge, given that Snowe is the lone Republican cosponsor of a bill along with Dorgan and several other Democrats. Markey's bill in the House is a different version, which means that if both were to pass, the two chambers would have to agree on a common final format, which would then return to the respective floors for another vote.

Blogging on the site firedoglake.com on Friday, U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said, "Look, this doesn't mean we're going to apply a prescriptive, heavy-handed bureaucratic approach to how network providers are permitted to serve subscribers," Kerry wrote. "But we need to insist on basic fairness and an open, content-neutral approach to how users can access the backbone of our telecommunications system."

Demo.com is an InfoWorld affiliate.