A scabrous and successful champion of the everyman, Louis C. K. decided last week to go direct with his fans: no cable special, no middleman, just a simple download for $5 on his website to see his comedy show Louis C. K.: Live at the Beacon Theater.

The show could be viewed as the consumer wished, with no rights protection or expensive subscription. A buy-it-and-watch-it proposition, no cable company involved. He was also, of course, enabling people to watch it free--without digital rights management, it was there for the pirating--and some went right to the torrent sites and did so.

How many people did? Close to 200,000, which means the comedian could earn somewhere in the neighborhood of $750,000. But more interesting was his take on the modern media landscape:

"OK, so NBC is this huge company and they have all these studios and these satellites to beam stuff out," he said, "but on the Web, both NBC.com and LouisCK.com have the same amount of bandwidth. We are equals and there are things you can do with that. This has been a fun little experiment."

That, in a nutshell, is what the discussion about net neutrality should be about.

Really? Well it turns out the poll was conducted by Scott Rasmussen, whose polling has made him a favorite at Fox News Channel. The real story here is that the poll question was clearly cooked up to achieve the desired outcome. As Amy Lee noted near the bottom of the piece,  Rasmussen asked this question: "Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?"

But the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules do not at all resemble regulation of radio and television, which (among other things) requires station owners obtain a government license to broadcast on the public airwaves. Lee writes that the question "defines net neutrality in a very restricted way." But that's putting it way too kindly. The poll is a fraud, and a familiar one. In 2009 Rasmussen did a survey about the Fairness Doctrine, which was debunked here at the FAIR Blog (2/17/09). Rasmussen asked respondents if "the government should require all radio stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary." The Fairness Doctrine never did any such thing, but conservatives have long argued that it would squelch right-wing talk radio. They've been trying to do something similar with net neutrality, scaring people about a supposed government takeover of the internet.

The plan from the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission to ensure an open and neutral Internet drew mixed reviews on Wednesday from consumer advocates and Internet service providers, presenting the agency with an uncertain way forward as it considers new broadband regulation.

Of course, there are many who think the plan most assuredly does not "ensure an open and neutral Internet"--leading to some decidedly unmixed reviews.  See the response from Free Press president Josh Silver, for instance: "FCC Chairman Announces Fake Net Neutrality Proposal."

In an unrelated bonus, the Times offers a novel explanation for relying on an anonymous source:

Now, Mr. Genachowski thinks he has found a way around the court's ruling, according to a senior FCC official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the chairman's proposal was subject to change.

Well, if that's the standard for granting anonymity--which would seem to violate Times policy--then sources can only be named when discussing events and policies that will never change. Like the Times' use of anonymity to shield the powerful from accountability, apparently.

the future of the Internet as we know it depends on maintaining freedom and openness online. This crucial legislation will help to ensure that the public--not big phone and cable companies--controls the fate of the Internet.

The rules that govern the Internet must protect economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. If we don't make Net Neutrality the law once and for all, we could see the innovation and promise of the Internet derailed forever.

While warning that "an army of lobbyists has been unleashed by the phone and cable companies to kill Net Neutrality so they can become the Internet's gatekeepers," Scott maintains that "the momentum is shifting in the public's favor," with "popular support...growing every day"--as evidenced by the fact that "millions have already called on our lawmakers to take action."