Several bills will be debated in the new Congress regarding Internet “network neutrality.” No such bill passed in the last Congress, but the likelihood of passage is greater over the next two years. Should investors care?

Allied on one side of the debate are high tech and e-commerce companies such as Microsoft, Google, eBay, Yahoo, and Amazon. These companies are concerned that Internet consumers may be channeled by their Internet provider toward services affiliated or under contract with that provider. Under this theory, wholesale commercial contracts, rather than consumer choices, could determine which Web sites a consumer visits.

On the other side of the debate are the companies that own much of the broadband network capacity in the country: AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner. These companies are concerned about restrictions on commercial contracts. Parties on both sides of the issue claim worry about reduced Internet investment and innovation.

Congress closely monitors the network neutrality debate. Senator Snowe, a Republican of Maine, and Senator Dorgan, a Democrat of North Dakota, introduced a bill to mandate network neutrality. More bills will likely be introduced. These bills offer various definitions of network neutrality. Most would restrict broadband network carriers from offering services or entering into contracts that would favor specific types of content, or specific Web sites.

Some congressmen applauded the conditions AT&T stipulated to the FCC in merging with BellSouth. AT&T said for two years, for its residential customers, it would not “provide or to sell to Internet content, application, or service providers … any service that privileges, degrades, or prioritizes any packet … based on is source, ownership, or destination.” The AT&T language is controversial. Proponents view it as the foundation for legislation on permanent network neutrality, while opponents see it as regulatory overkill AT&T conceded under duress.

Before rushing to legislate, Congress might reflect on three questions. Are there current remedies in law to prohibit network discrimination? Most complaints about network neutrality pertain to hypothetical behavior. Our government has some of the best-articulated antitrust laws in the world. The threat of these laws would discourage most forms of anticompetitive use of contracts to harm competitors. Where our antitrust laws fall short, Congress may find it easier to amend them instead of making new laws.

Even our communications laws may be sufficient. In 2005, Madison River Communications agreed to stop blocking calls with Vonage customers. The agreement was reached with existing communications laws.

Second, how would a federal network neutrality law function within an international network? Most Web sites, most consumers, and most of the Internet are located outside America. A federal law could effectively address service offerings in America and contracts between network carriers and Web sites in America. The coverage of such a law would be significant, but hardly comprehensive for American consumers who frequently access international Web sites, often reached by network providers outside America. Nor would a federal law likely reach contracts between American networks and offshore Web sites.

Network neutrality is not a universally recognized virtue. Iran and other countries limit the speed of Internet services to discourage use. China is one of several countries that limits consumer access to many Web sites and shuts down others. Google, Yahoo, and other American companies operating in China have not steadfastly been bound to network neutrality principles. It is unclear how an America committed to network neutrality interacts with many countries dedicated to principles antithetical to network neutrality.

Third, what does network neutrality mean in the future? Other than perhaps for the Swiss, neutrality is rarely a permanent condition. “Neutrality” has a positive connotation today; it was less so in the 1940s. Today’s advocates of neutrality for an infant Internet may become tomorrow’s zealots for a non-neutral, more mature Internet.

Ultimately, investors should and do care about the network neutrality debate. Less clear, however, is what the outcome of that debate will actually mean for the future prospects of individual companies.

A former FCC commissioner, Mr. Furchtgott-Roth is president of Furchtgott-Roth Economic Enterprises. He can be reached at hfr@furchtgott-roth.com.