John McCain, arguably the most nontechnical of all U.S. Senators (which is quite a feat), has officially thrown his hat into the anti-Net neutrality ring and introduced a bill similar to the amendment sponsored by Senator Kay Bailey-Hutchinson a few weeks ago. This bill would essentially remove the FCC's control over network carriers and ISPs, preventing any form of Net neutrality regulation, and in keeping with the trend of titling bills the exact opposite of their intent, it's called the "Internet Freedom Act". Like Bailey-Hutchinson's amendment, it flies in the face of common sense and the service of government for the people.

In fact, the arguments against Net neutrality are so ridiculous as to be funny -- if those spouting them weren't so serious.

[ InfoWorld's Paul Venezia also offers an open letter to the enemies of Net neutrality. | Keep up on the day's tech news headlines with InfoWorld's Today's Headlines: First Look newsletter. ]

Take, for instance, this quote from Barbara Esbin, senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation:

I remain concerned ... that the FCC is poised to take intrusive action into a well-functioning Internet ecosystem without either the demonstrated need or clear legal authority to do so. I know of no empirical evidence suggesting that the openness of the Internet that we all value is under threat today, or is likely to be under threat tomorrow. In the absence of evidence of market failure or demonstrable consumer harms, the costs of government intervention are more likely to outweigh the benefits.

This is basically the same thing as saying that you shouldn't apply the brakes on your car until you've already driven over the cliff. You shouldn't worry about the fellow pointing a gun at your head because he hasn't shot you yet. Even better, you shouldn't go to the doctor until you're dead. And yes, Ms. Esbin, there have been many examples of ISPs interfering with network traffic. They backed down when they were caught, but their frameworks for blocking certain traffic are ready for action at the drop of a hat.

Most people just don't seem to get that the FCC's proposal is essentially a confirmation of the status quo. I would object to any organization -- much less the government -- who attempted to control, restrict, or otherwise impair the Internet as a end-to-end network. But what the FCC has proposed wouldn't introduce new restrictions. It would instead formalize the Internet as an open, unrestricted network, exactly as it always has been, and is today. That's it.