What’s next for Net neutrality?

You really have to feel sorry for the folks over at savethenet.org.

Several years ago, they embarked on a mission to save consumers from the evils that were certain to occur at the hands of insufficiently regulated broadband service providers. In addition to a gaggle of interest groups and lobbyists, savethenet.com was joined by Internet titans Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, eBay and Microsoft. Fighting the good fight; large, deep-pocketed friends at your side; a Congress (as of 2006) much more inclined to buy into your worldview, ditto the FCC — it sure looked like net neutrality legislation was a slam dunk.

Now they have to be wondering, “What went wrong?” The aforementioned Internet titans long ago (and quietly) left savethenet’s list of members, but at least Google continued to offer support and publicly claimed to be in complete agreement with savethenet’s goals. Now, by striking an agreement with Verizon, Google has officially decamped, leaving savethenet like a jilted lover in the lurch. In fact, so distraught was savethenet that it adorned its Web site with a Google logo made to look like the devil (see above) and said in a plea to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski , “Don’t let Google be evil.”

Although savethenet, and its creator Free Press, will undoubtedly move forward, they do so with considerably less support. The motley assortment of 847 entities listed as members include dozens of broken links, personal blogs, MySpace pages, a yoga studio and a salmon fishing camp in Quebec.

The question now begs itself: “Has the Net neutrality push run aground?” It is certainly the case that the problems savethenet points to are not the problems consumers are worried about. Just watch former comedian and now U.S. Sen. Al Franken hold forth at last week’s “The Future of the Internet” public hearing. He insists Net neutrality regulation is necessary to prevent collusion between a few powerful giants. If they get too much power, the thinking goes, they’ll control what information consumers are able to access (a common fear in Washington). In fact, Sen. Franken characterizes the whole debate as a First Amendment issue — fighting words if ever there were any.

But consumers are generally pretty happy with their broadband services. According to FCC data, 95% of Americans have access to broadband and 91% are “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with the speed they get at home. Additionally, the FCC’s National Broadband Plan points to a fairly vibrant competitive environment with the vast majority of consumers able to choose among multiple broadband suppliers.

What consumers and broadband operators do worry about is employing a best-effort network to deliver quality sensitive voice-over-IP, online gaming and streaming video traffic. While large and growing, this segment of the Internet traffic pool has thus far failed to satisfy mass-market quality expectations. For those who believe the consumer broadband connection will eventually deliver all communications, information and entertainment services into the home (with POTS and cable TV being disconnected), steps must be taken to improve service delivery for certain types of traffic. This is not a nefarious plot to build “toll lanes," but rather it is an attempt by broadband operators to satisfy the demands of their customers.

It’s not that the concerns of savethenet, et al, are without merit. In fact those on the other side of the debate aren’t really arguing that the beliefs held by Net neutralists are wrong – they are arguing that their proposals are unnecessary and potentially counterproductive