Unfortunately for us, Harvard law school professor Lawrence Lessig does not describe how Google and Verizon are “unmaking” the Internet. It appears to me that both companies need the Internet today just as much as they did yesterday prior to announcing their framework.

When I look at the market for digital information, I see no harm to information consumers from an agreement between one broadband access provider and one, albeit very big, content provider.

On the contrary, if broadband access providers and content providers are not allowed to work out traffic priority solutions on their own, there will be a negative impact on consumers, especially minority consumers. The resulting higher prices that will be passed on to consumers will only make larger the digital divide.

I admit that when I read Bianca Bosker’s The Huffington Post’s article and reviewed portions of S.3480, Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, I had visions of Keifer Sutherland running through the streets trying to stop a terrorist while Dennis Haysbert sits in the Oval Office with his finger over a big red button.

Okay, I’m also suffering from “24” withdrawal and it sounds like Senator Joe Lieberman, Independent from Connecticut, is suffering from it, too. At the risk of channeling Representative John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, it sounds like we are using a nuclear bomb to kill an ant.

This bill is just another example of the overreach the Commerce Clause can be used to commit. While aimed at protecting our federal information infrastructure, let’s face it, anything or anyone could be a source of disruption to the infrastructure via the Internet. All this bill does is create the potential of killing the whole body in pursuit of destroying one cancer cell.

Maine’s Republican Senator Susan Collins is correct that “kill the switch” may be the wrong moniker for the bill. Overkill of Internet commerce may be more like it.