Depending on the phrasing and interpretation of the various competing "net-neutrality" proposals, the result would vary from a full free-market to a fully regulated market.
At its core, net-neutrality as presented in congress, is about compulsory licensing; about forcing telcos to sell all their levels of bandwidth service to would-be competitors at the same price.
(One proposal would've forced google to carry yahoo or MSN ads and might've even forced Amazon or eBay to provide space on their web sites to would-be competitors.)
Of course, buried in the same bills is the abolition of local cable system regulation, which has more immediate impact and which hardly anybody is talking about.
http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/06/quietly_your_ri.html
It is gotten to the point that the intended beneficiaries of these bills, the cable operators, would prefer to see no bill come out of Congress.
http://news.com.com/Net+neutrality+M...3-6082444.html
"Would you rather see the telecommunications bill as approved by the House become law--or would you rather have no new legislation at all?
Tauke: No legislation at all."