Ryan, while there is a good deal of ignorance surrounding the net neutrality debate, I wouldn't say this legislation has anything to do with the issue.  

In my work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition I have seen numerous misinformed views or baseless claims on the matter.  I certainly concede that Senator Stevens isn't the most eloquent commentator in this debate, yet, like Senator Stevens I am opposed to "net neutrality" legislation.  

I would imagine we can both agree to support the four principles of net neutrality: Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.  However, legislative proposals such as Snowe-Dorgan go far beyond these principles to the detriment of users and the development of the internet.

We don't need restrictive regulations based merely on hypothetical situations that feed on claims that ISPs are bad.  Additionally, nobody has proved that the anti-trust laws and regulations that we have on the books are insufficient to deal with these possible scenarios.  

You may find this recent article from the Guardian to be an interesting read on the issue.  Robert Kahn's comments are particularly interesting,

"Save The Internet took full advantage of rational fears, argues veteran internet engineer Richard Bennett, but in doing so, it created "an Intelligent Design for the Left".

The gap between fear and reality is even more stark when the technical issues are examined. The Neutrality amendments rejected by Congress last year would have made many of today's private contracts illegal, and outlawed the techniques such as "traffic shaping" that ISPs use to curb bandwidth hogs, says Bennett.

Even worse was the long-term chilling effect.  Neutrality would have made designing a better internet much harder, says the man commonly described as the father of the internet.

Dr Robert Kahn says that Neutrality legislation poses a fundamental threat to internet research because it misunderstands what the internet really is; it's a network of networks, and experimentation on private networks must be encouraged.'The internet has never been neutral,' explains Crowcroft. 'Without traffic shaping, we won't get the convergence that allows the innovation on TV and online games that we've seen in data and telephony.'"

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2049763,00.html

Thanks.  

TLDR!

My apologies, I'll keep it short and sweet next time.

Although I must say my first comment is brief compared with many I've seen on net neutrality . .  it's not a simple issue.  Thanks.