There is a big story making the rounds right now of JavaLobby getting delisted by Google.
Lots of different takes on how bad this is :
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000767.html
http://www.skrenta.com/2007/01/winnertakeall_google_and_the_t.html
One post in particular makes an analogy between search engine neutrality, and network neutrality : http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/2007/01/an_argument_for.html
I think this comparison is totally off base.
There is a huge difference between google and the networks. Google is powerful because people use it. They are free to switch (back) to Yahoo, or dogpile, or anything else.
The networks were granted monopolies. People have no choice about how their traffic is routed. Only in the last mile (Am I using cable or DSL, or (oh god) Dial up) do I have any say in the matter. .
The destination sites that people go to for their media have no control at all over my network.
If networks start using onerous, non-neutral policies, there is no way for the vast majority of people to switch.
If you take away the monopolies (force networks to share infrastructure with other companies), then im fine with abandoning net neutrality, because someone can just share the infrastructure and use better policies to steal the customers.
With the (in many cases government enforced) monopolies in place, Neutrality is mandatory.
Yes google has a lot of power. And if you get delisted it can kill your company. But google is in the same position as the companies they delist.
If firefox makes dogpile their default search engine tommorow, or people get fed up with delistings, they will switch. And google will pass into the night.