Yes, that can happen a lot. :-)

“Do I think pro-net-neutrality legislation incompatible with the notion of free-market? No, definitely not.”

Ah. This is where my misunderstanding came from. I got that you were pro-net-neutrality-legislation *and* pro-free-market, but mistakenly thought that you saw a fundamental tension or incompatibility between the two positions. I’ve noticed a lot of people on the intarwebs have the notion that a free market is necessarily a deregulated one – a confusion that businesses (mostly large ones) seem to perpetuate.

“I’m still a bit skeptic about pro-net-neutrality legislation, simply because the term doesn’t seem to have a letter-of-the-law definition anywhere in the world, and therefore could be used to smuggle any sort of legal shenanigans under its cover.”

Oh yes, I can completely agree on the need to keep a *very* close eye on legislators.

So, we are on the same page after all. :-)

Let’s do a quick point-by-point to see if we’re on the same page:

Did you interpret my OP as pro or contra net-neutrality? Because I’m in favor of it, at least on principle. Which is to say I’m neither in favor of any specific legislation I’ve seen which tried to achieve it, nor against achieving it without further regulation, but I find it unlikely we should manage without extra regulation, which is currently – to the best of my knowledge – not in place anywhere (and this is a point I should have stressed before: I think the current free-market rules can’t cut it, but new ones might).

Do I think pro-net-neutrality legislation incompatible with the notion of free-market? No, definitely not. I see it as a nudge in the right direction. (Incidentally, “nudge” gives a pretty good idea of the kind of force I envision such legislation having)

I also agree that there’s a myth of the anti-free-market being perpetuated, but the quote you took seems a bit off in that context. My argument that the current (should have stressed this) “rules might not be enough to stymie the abuse of power” in no way attempts to align pro-net-neutrality legislation with anti-free-market legislation. Precisely the opposite. The only diverging part is the “current”, as in: “the current free-market can’t hold its own, but with a legal nudge, it might”.

[This paragraph sounds like preaching to the choir, so don't interpret it as a counter-argument]
You said it yourself with the example of food products: they need some minimal specific legal framework to work as a safety net for the customers. This framework – like the “best before” example – probably wouldn’t make sense in any other market besides products with a limited shelf life, but is invaluable in this given market. The same IMHO applies to the Internet. It’s a market with its own characteristics and needs some minor legal tweaking to ensure the same basic liberties and safeguards to customers.
(Here we could probably inject devil’s-advocate arguments about privacy expectations online, but that’s a whole new discussion; I’d propose another post to base this discussion on, care to write it? :) )

In the end, the only thing I still see us – perhaps – disagreeing about, is the fact that I’m still a bit skeptic about pro-net-neutrality legislation, simply because the term doesn’t seem to have a letter-of-the-law definition anywhere in the world, and therefore could be used to smuggle any sort of legal shenanigans under its cover. But that’s unfortunately pretty standard with any sort of new legislation nowadays, so I’m not particularly affected by this particular line of thought.
And again: I’m still on principle for net-neutrality, with or without new specific legislation.

There is no reason to assume that pro-net-neutrality legislation is somehow opposed to a “free market”, or makes a the market for network services “non-free”. The two may be (and probably are, IMHO) entirely compatible.

Is there a free market for food products in your country? Yes? What about legislation that requires that that food is prepared in hygienic conditions, has a list of ingredients on the packaging and some kind of “use by” or “best before” date? Does that interfere with the freedom of suppliers of food products? Well … that depends. It does not interfere with the freedom of suppliers to enter the market, and to compete with each other on a level playing field, as they must all abide by the same rules. It does interfere with their freedom to provide incredibly cheap food that might poison you, but that’s not a freedom we think is important due to the harm it could cause, even though it might be a differentiator that businesses might want to compete on in order to maximise profits for their shareholders.

Pro-net-neutrality legislation is rather similar. If in place, it should do nothing to prevent network providers from entering the market and competing with each other on a level playing field. In that manner, such legislation is entirely compatible with the market remaining “free” in all ways that matter.

It does prevent businesses from providing crappy services to their customers, which is something that businesses would like to do if they could get away with it because it’s cheap. So, by claiming that rules in general, and pro-net-neutrality legislation in particular, is somehow anti-free-market, (and by implicit association therefore anti-capitalistic, and by further association socialist/communist) they manage to perpetuate the idea/myth that “the free-market has rules [...] but what I fear is the possibility that these general rules might not be enough to stymie the abuse of power”.

No! Pro-net-neutrality legislation can legitimately be *part of* the capitalistic free-market rules in the networks services provider sector.

But hopefully I’m wrong. Either that or someone comes up with effective legislation in some influential country.