The neutrality of the internet with regard to applications (e.g. search, social networking, email, to mention only three) has been central to innovation and growth in the knowledge-economy over the past two decades. Until recently, neutrality was built into the internet's design via its core standard, Internet Protocol (IP), which rendered obsolete many of the "normal" restrictive business practises deployed by dominant telecoms companies. As both legal scholars and technologists have explained, the engineering "purity" of IP made the internet a platform for development that was truly generative: Useful innovations inapplications of the internet could take hold easily, and it was difficult – or indeed impossible - for incumbent business interests to disrupt or sabotage them. However, this neutrality is now under threat. New technologies have given incumbent businesses the ability to discriminate between applications and engage in a form of rent-seeking that threatens the generativity of the internet. A "Network Neutrality" regulatory arena has thus emerged as the subject of intense and heated debate among politicians, policy-makers and business leaders. At stake is not just who profits from the internet, but also whether it remains an open platform for future growth and innovation. This paperexamines the interaction between the key professions driving Network Neutrality policymaking, namely Lawyers, Economists and Engineers. Combining a mapping of their observable policy inputs with a critical analysis of their respective operational paradigms, the paper seeks to understand who is framing thedebate, how they are doing so, and to what (systemic) effect.