Developments in the “net neutrality” debate over the past week took a major turn, and I’m not talking about the political maneuvering on Capitol Hill. I’m talking about the sudden realization by a lot of folks who had wanted the federal government to assert a whole lot of regulatory control over Broadband suppliers by having the FCC declare such service a “common carrier” offering under Title II of the Communications Act, that maybe getting into bed with the government is not such a great idea.

The news hit on Monday that there is an administration proposal floating around to seek legislation requiring legal access to all communications on the Internet. “Wire Tapping” would be extended to broadband. Assistance would have to be given, and all technology designed, to assure that encrypted communications could be decrypted assuming the appropriate court orders had been issued. The reactions were strong and loud. A compilation of concerned comments and somewhat breathless political analysis can be found here.

My favorite quote was from James X. Dempsey, vice President for the Center for Democracy and Technology:  “They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet,” he reportedly said. “They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function.”

Kevin Bankston, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation summed it up by saying  “This proposal is a drastic anti-privacy, anti-security, anti-innovation solution in search of a problem.“

Let’s see, …turn back the clock to make the Internet function (or maybe be regulated) like a telephone system, based on seeking a solution in search of a problem. Sound familiar?  Those are the words that have pervaded the debate over net neutrality for past several years. The government is being asked to regulate broadband delivery in the name of “net neutrality” not based on a current “problem,” but the fear of one in the future. The “solution in search of that problem” is Title II common carrier regulation. In other words, regulate it by turning back the clock to the old telephone regime.

But now there is a new dimension. The regulatory advocates have suddenly seen that the government, once it gets such authority, can do a whole lot more than just “protect” the Internet! Indeed, the first thing they are thinking about is assuring control and the ability to intercept any and all of that “free and open” communication.

So now the dilemma unfolds: do you trust the businesses that built broadband, and, for the past fifteen years have protected it from untoward intrusion through marketplace forces that have been very effective in correcting the few stray conflicts, such as the BitTorrent imbroglio, which even that company acknowledges was resolved well, or do you trust the government to take a whole lot more control of the Internet architecture and hope that they won’t do bad things?  I suspect a lot of folks are in the process of reassessing their positions.