The term "net neutrality" has the magical property of making most people's eyes glaze over. First, it sounds like a gambling term. "I have a system and net neutrality -- I can't lose!" Second, no one using the Internet calls it "the net" anymore. Just like no one in San Francisco calls it "Frisco." So the term "net neutrality" either sounds super techie and over-your-head, or more dated than the 1995 Sandra Bullock movie called...The Net.
The concept of net neutrality is simple: all content should be treated equally. The Internet should be, as it has been, on a virtual level playing field.
Google and Verizon announced at the beginning of August their agreement for an "Open Internet." In their statement the FCC will continue to lack the power to enforce an open Internet, and it excludes wireless broadband from transparency, citing proprietary concerns. This is worrisome since wireless broadband is the future of the Internet. Plus, in order to ensure "openness," wireless or not, the Internet should be regulated like any other public utility.
So as soon as the word "regulation" is uttered, a Frankenstein monster of a faux populist movement arises to dispute and/or cloud the issue. With corporate sponsorship they've become a loud lobbying spectacle for business interests. Cleverly they use pro-working people language, and often working people themselves, to sell policies of freedom for corporations. Yes, the Tea Party or the Grand Old Party on caffeine, is (of course) against net neutrality.
The Tea Party and its coalition of "grassroots" think tanks want corporations to be in control of the Internet so it will "stay open." In a signed letter sent to the FCC and the media the day after the Google/Verizon agreement was announced, the Tea Party groups' statement added that government regulation, "could also remove the ability for parents and ISPs to prevent inappropriate material from entering the home."
Catch that? Let business do what it wants or you won't be able to protect your children from smut. It's the most vulgar thing I've ever heard. Horribly untrue. And a cynical attempt at fear-mongering. "Your children are at risk!" Deplorable.
Government regulation is always annoying -- unless we can't swim in the Gulf of Mexico, or eat eggs, spinach, beef or peanut butter. But wait -- annoying to whom? Government regulation irks corporations. For those of us who drive the cars, eat the food or take the medications made by corporations, government regulations are in the most basic way -- lifesavers.
Personally, I would like a government bureaucrat between me and salmonella.
The Tea Party would have opposed the National Parks system. Sectioning off millions of acres of land which otherwise could be privately developed is a job killer! Letting places like Yosemite Valley just sit there without allowing business to "improve the experience" is an affront to freedom! Uncle Sam's telling Americans where they can and can't build is government overreach! The whole scheme will raise your taxes! Taxes -- and they'll take your guns!
But no, Republican leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt saw how these parks should be nationalized, saved for future generations to have and enjoy. Lincoln did coin the phrase "for the people, by the people," the perfect slogan for a walk through a government-regulated and, therefore, pristine forest.
And our more perfect union needs to ensure that the Internet can be open and indifferent to content (even if you disagree with said content). Congress didn't just sit on their hands and hope that just because no one had yet developed Yellowstone it wasn't at risk of such a fate. No, they acted. They protected it. Yellowstone is still there for all of us to enjoy. It's ours.
What needs to happen? Earlier this year, the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia handed down the Comcast Decision stating under current law, the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate equality of content. This means the law must be changed.
Congressman Henry Waxman, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that oversees the FCC, said he is for net neutrality. Waxman said any bill about the issue would have to come out of his committee. What's taking so long? The hold up is that the term "net neutrality" sounds like a fishing ordinance instead of what Senator Al Franken describes as "the free speech issue of our time."
Follow Tina Dupuy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TinaDupuy
Art Brodsky: PTSD at the FCC -- An Unhappy Anniversary
Loading comments… 
The Internet is definitely NOT like any other public utility. Public utilities, for one thing, are the slowest-mo
There is a more delicate balance at work here, one that your too-one-si
For a more even-hande
Where do the consumers turn when every company in the industry decides that since everyone else is doing it, they have no choice but to do it in order to compete with the rest? What then?
That is where government regulation comes in. It sets a threshhold so that they can only 'sink so low' in order to get the edge on their competitio
But the issue with Net Neutrality is not the goal; everyone agrees the goal is an open, content neutral, vibrant, and useful Internet.
The issue we need to discuss is an basic architectu
If you consider the Internet a public entity, as you appear to, help me understand exactly what you mean. Where does the "public" part start and stop? Are only the physical backbone pipes public? Or are the backbone pipes and the routers public? Are all routers connected to the Internet public or are only certain routers public, and if only certain routers public, which ones are they? Is Network management a public function? How about the local access pipes are they public? Or what about the network access device on my property is that Public? Or what about the applicatio
If the Internet is Public, can I set up a Virtual Private Network (VPN) on a public backbone? If I can, do I have to get permission from the central planners to set up a VPN? Do I have the option to do what I want to do on my VPN, or do I have to follow the same Net Neutrality rules on my VPN that exists on the Public Internet.
If it is public, who pays for it? Does everyone pay the same? Or are there tiers of services? And would the central planners decide those tiers, like they did in the old days with AT&T tariffs?
I really have not decided where I stand on Net Neutrality yet. I understand the fear that companies, if left alone, will do bad things to the commons, just look at the banking, oil, health care, and mining industries as glaring examples. But on the other hand, central planners have tried to regulate telecommun
Does any of this make sense?
And if their traffic is of a higher priority, then the majority in America - democracy in America - will be "preempted
I'll repeat my common refrain and be done: Where has prioritiza
So I can tell you one thing that would happen if Fox News was able to purchase - or have their users purchase - priority:
Now that they have infinite corporate money to spend, regional GOP elements would hit Fox URLs and leave 'em up 24x7 in the month before an election in the hopes of disrupting traffic between the American people and Democratic and other known-to-b
And the expense wouldn't be all that great; if you know where someone's servers are physically located (very easy to find out; for instance, Huffington
Name aside, our politician
The issue needs high visibility
Surely you save popular culture WITH popular culture.
Get the focus off politician
Must every facet of our daily life be OWNED by moneyed interests?
Should not the air we breathe and the ether we surf be free?
I think we need to be careful about over-legis
But other than that (prioritiz
Make noise, people. Make noise.
Your comment is important when you say that you want to ensure that this "public infrastruc
The question is; is the Internet a public entity operated by government central planners or a commercial entity operated by commerical providers. If you consider the Internet a public entity, as you appear to, help me understand exacty what you mean. Where does the "public" part start and stop? Are only the physical backbone pipes public? Or are the backbone pipes and the routers public? What about the Network management software is that public? How about the local access pipes are they public? Or what about the network access device on my property is that Public? Or what about the applicatio
Commercial providers have set up a tiered system based upon bandwidth. Dial-up, DSL, T1, etc. Everyone is fine with that. What is being fought is the ability of commercial providers to prioritize content within that bandwidth that you have purchased. Basically, the idea is that you might want to go to some reliable but little trafficked site for informatio
So, do you think it is OK for Verizon to tell you where and how fast you can get your informatio