Lessig's got a great piece up about the Wall Street Journal's non-story about a fictional shift in his position on Net Neutrality (and on Google trying to site local caching servers in some network operators' operations servers):
As I testified in 2006, in my view that minimal strategy right now marries the basic principles of “Internet Freedom” first outlined by Chairman Michael Powell, and modified more recently by the FCC, to one additional requirement – a ban on discriminatory access tiering. While broadband providers should be free, in my view, to price consumer access to the Internet differently – setting a higher price, for example, for faster or greater access – they should not be free to apply discriminatory surcharges to those who make content or applications available on the Internet. As I testified, in my view, such “access tiering” risks creating a strong incentive among Internet providers to favor some companies over others; that incentive in turn tends to support business models that exploit scarcity rather than abundance. If Google, for example, knew if could buy a kind of access for its video content that iFilm couldn’t, then it could exploit its advantage to create an even greater disadvantage for its competitors; network providers in turn could deliver on that disadvantage only if the non-privileged service was inferior to the privileged service.
The made-up dramas of the Wall Street Journal
Update: David Isenberg does a hell of a job explaining, in detail, how the WSJ majorly blew this one.