"is based on a misunderstanding of the way in which the open Internet works,"

As in "a series of tubes"?

The left isn't going after the Fairness Doctrine, but we can be damn sure that the right will try to kill net neutrality if and when they get a chance. We shouldn't take it for granted. They'll work hard to chip away at it.

Lessig says it is a "made-up drama" here:
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html

There are a few different disputes going on here.

One is between net-neutrality advocates and Google. I'm trying to figure out if this one's real; it depends on what you think of something called "edge caching," where ISPs cache frequently accessed Web pages in servers close to the end users, and something else called "colocation" where content providers such as Google would provide caching servers, presumably solely containing that content provider's own content, within broadband providers' own facilities.

The question is, as long as any content provider can do the same thing, is there really a problem? It's true that Google's less frequently accessed content would also be closer to the end user, but it still wouldn't get a preferential path through the 'tubes.

Another is between net-neutrality advocates and Lessig. Lessig thinks it's OK for there to be high-speed lanes on the Web, as long as they're open to anyone who wants to pay to use them. I agree with Matt Stoller that this has the potential to make the Web a lot more like cable, with most of the bandwidth being taken over by those who'd pay for the high-speed service, and everyone else squeezed into what's left.

Then there's the fake controversy ginned up by the WSJ, which says that this represents a change in Lessig's position. Lessig has apparently taken this position all along, contra the WSJ.

Mr Murdoch is again attempting to say a lie loud, and long, hoping it will become truth.

Goerring would be proud of the way Mr. Murdoch has purchased his way to media prominence.
Mr. Rupert Murdoch is a a fine, proud example of a Corporate Fascist and will continue to undermine Democracy for many years to come.

He is an upstanding example of why the Right Wing of political thought needs to be treated as the social pariah they are.

They don't know the difference between a content-delivery network (like Akamai Technologies), which places servers inside ISP networks to deliver heavy stuff like video, and preferential quality-of-service, where you put some people's packets to the front of the queue if they pay you.

The thing about CDN-ing is that it doesn't disadvantage people who aren't customers of the CDN. You simply bring the source of the traffic close to the destination. If you're not being served by the CDN, well, every packet carried by the CDN is one that isn't carried over the backbone networks, so you actually benefit as well.

Non-neutrality means that the people who pay only benefit because the others suffer. In reality, you're offering a WORSE service to everybody else.