Everyone Favors A "Neutral Net." These principles need to be renamed to reflect the true debate. 

This label confuses the issue so much that even commenters on this site are misunderstanding one another. The true debate is that the pro-regulation and anti-regulation crowds have different ideas on how to achieve "net neutrality." It is unfair for the pro-regulators to imply that regulation is the only means.

This is unfair because I and others believe that although these principles ostensibly guarantee rights of equality will be guaranteed, they will necessarily manipulate a previously free market industry - (a non-neutral situation). And to take my opinion one step further just to lend it legitimacy, the industry players will inevitably manipulate the rules and labels that apply to them. The regulations will then be superfluous at best, but burdensome, stifling and costly in all likelihood.

So for the purpose of this debate here and with the greater public, I think it should be renamed to "Net Adherence Principles" or "Network Practice Principles." This is, after all, an imposition of rules - not a vow of non-participation as "neutrality" implies.

Internet regulation, like spectrum regulation will retard innovation, create inefficiencies and ultimately prove inadequate. 

Net Neutrality is inherently paradoxical; it imposes new government over an already self-sustaining system. I find these rules unnecessary much in the way I would say the FCC is largely unnecessary to spectrum regulation.

The FCC we have today was empowered to annex, license and govern all spectrum, at a time when the broadcast market was learning to regulate itself via the courts under common property law principles. This was done well before radio technology had advanced - to preserve the "public interest", and to protect us from risk of monopolies/oligopolies. Nevertheless, the Commission has struggled with these very problems ever since. Moreover, the side effects of FCC regulation are vast inefficiencies recognized in part by the recent and TRULY neutral White Spaces initiative.

So I believe moving forward with this similarly premature regulation of the internet is a big mistake. The communications and ideas that we've gained from the internet so far have been immensely beneficial. There isn't any principle, no matter how earnest, that will unanimously promote the freedom of communication if it is reduced to the English language in the form of an enforceable regulation.

Secondly, even if prospective regulation is needed it will always be inadequate. If injustice pervades the internet medium, as everyone seems to fear, why can't we see exactly what injustices materialize and leave it to the DOJ's antitrust division?