The newly announced “Netflix Button” violates the spirit, and possibly the letter of the new “net neutrality” rules established by the FCC. At the very least, those who have lobbied so hard for “net neutrality,” should be up in arms about the dominant streaming video service’s plans to preempt a “fast lane” into consumer’s homes by paying for priority. We’ll see.

Should the government ban the “free” shipping service offered through “Amazon Prime?” What about Wal-Mart’s announcement last week that they would provide free shipping through Christmas on thousands of different items in response to the success Amazon has had? A key proposal from “Net Neutrality” lobbyists is that the government should prohibit Internet content providers from offering free delivery.

There’s an old saying that you never know how deep a puddle is until you step in it. Well, the lobbying groups favoring “net neutrality” regulations stepped in a puddle last week, and they’re going to have trouble coming up for air. The “puddle” was deciding to include the “retransmission consent” battle going on between Cablevision and Fox in the “net neutrality” rhetoric. The classic “just hold your nose and jump” line came from Public Knowledge, when they opined that Fox’s blocking of online access to their programs on Cablevision’s broadband connection was one of the “the grossest violations of the open Internet committed by a U.S. company.”

Studies and statistics have limited value if the numbers used and the conclusions reached don’t really reflect what is actually happening. A recent Scientific American editorial falls into the trap of making recommendations for major regulatory changes based on a significant misunderstanding of the data they used in their own analysis.

Is an “open architecture” Internet the only way to promote innovation? Several of the most innovative new broadband services, which have triggered major consumer use, have come from different designs, and new ones are being proposed all the time. At the same time, the history of government mandates and how they impact innovation suggests a very poor track record.

Who do you trust; Business or Government? Given the news this week that some in the administration want wiretap and decryption authority over broadband, many “net neutrality” advocates may be reassessing their position.

The effort at publicity and “sending a message” by the folks at Free Press at the end of last week by standing in front of the FCC building handing out waffles to urge that the Commission not ”waffle” on “protecting” the Internet was cute. But that’s about all it was.

I had the pleasure of speaking with Barbara van Schewick the other day. She’s the Stanford law professor and author of “Internet Architecture and Innovation.” She’s both smart and charming and expresses a far more nuanced view of the Internet and Internet architecture than you may have been led to believe from the reviews and drum beat about her book.

Just by way of introduction to Digital Society readers, I’m a “cable guy.” Just wanted to get that right out front as I start blogging as opposed to what I have been doing for the past 35 years, which is writing a column on cable law, politics, technology, business and the like.