Internet users take it for granted that once they've paid a service provider - usually their phone or cable television company - they have unrestrained access to whatever they want in the vast electronic universe. Soon, telecommunications law won't guarantee it, however, which is why the issue dubbed "Net neutrality" is being hotly contested in Congress.

Without lawmakers fixing the problem, here is what could happen: The big phone and cable companies could try to make content providers both large and small - from Yahoo and voice-over-Internet phone services to the latest blog - pay more for high-speed access to their services. That would stifle creativity at the very least, and possibly make certain Web sites noncompetitive or unavailable to Internet users.

Phone and cable companies, who control the broadband wires into most houses, could gain an unfair advantage. They could use their newfound power to promote their own content. Under the worst scenario, a few big players could transform the Internet from an unruly but vibrant democracy into a dictatorship.

The phone and cable companies deny that's their intention. However, there have been some abuses already. Last year, a rural phone company blocked its broadband customers from using that service to make phone calls over the Internet, a low-cost alternative to the phone company. And a Canadian phone company blocked its users from accessing a Web site that was sympathetic to the union during a labor dispute.

Bills in both the House and Senate would stop such potential threats. One bill (HB 5417) cleared the House Judiciary Committee recently and could be up for a full vote soon. It would make it "unlawful for an Internet service provider to block, impair or discriminate against any lawful Internet content or applications," according to Common Cause.

Such issues are understandably boring to most Internet users. Yet broadband access has become a vital link in our economic and social lives. It is time to pay attention and to urge members of Congress to protect Net neutrality.

Democratic Pipes
The Daily News Leader (Stanton, VA) - June 7, 2006

One of the reasons the Internet is such a (insert your adjective of choice here) place is its absolute democracy. A blog dedicated to rhapsodizing about hairless sphinx cats can exist on an equal footing alongside the Web sites of the world's largest corporations. To put it in less jarring terms, we all have equal access to the Web and that, as Martha Stewart famously says, is "a good thing."

That philosophy of equal treatment is known popularly as Net neutrality and it's in danger of becoming a victim of corporate greed.

What is at issue involves the creation of a two-tiered Internet composed of sites that can pay enough to ensure that the public will be able to reach them effortlessly and the rest of us, including bloggers of all the colors of the political spectrum.

Guess who'll have instant access and who'll get the blank screen?

It's not that we're against the idea of paying what the market will bear, just that we cannot bear to see the market turn into the mediocrity now exemplified by our cable and telephone companies the prime culprits behind the push to sabotage Net neutrality. They're the last joints in the Internet pipeline, and they're jealous of the fact that they're not getting a cut of all the profit-making action. They favor giving preferential treatment to those who will pay them the most and turning a cold shoulder to the rest of us. That's wrong, especially when you consider that we are not getting this for nothing.

Only a fool believes the Internet is free. We pay for DSL; we pay for Internet access via cable modems in addition to the TV programs that come across it. We pay for dial-up, at the lowest common denominator.

The telecoms and cable companies are already making a profit from the Internet. We're willing to pay them for the privilege of accessing it via their pipes.

We should not, however, allow them to dictate what goes through those pipes or have them set up an extra set of toll gates when we are already paying tolls to ride their highways. Bottom line? It's a marketplace issue and Congress should keep its mitts off it.

No Tolls on the I-Highway
Palm Beach Post (Florida) - June 7, 2006

"Net neutrality," as the techies call it, is the promise that you can access and send lawful information anywhere on the Internet without Net service providers interfering. That principle ensured the growth of communication and innovation through the democratic medium built with public money. It's what some telecommunications companies now want to mine for profit.

House Joint Resolution 5252 would allow telecoms to impose a "tiered" system. They could control where, how fast and how much you pay to go on the Internet. Companies that control most broadband wires "want to set up a tollbooth in the middle of the information superhighway, charge everybody who uses the fast lane, and put everybody else in the slow lane," said Dawn Holian of the citizen advocacy group Common Cause, which opposes the bill.

Called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act, the major rewrite of telecommunications law would do more than violate "Net neutrality." The legislation would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from writing or enforcing rules to protect Internet freedom against the telecoms that want to privatize the Internet. Imagine the damage to small businesses, not-for-profits, entrepreneurs and innovation if Amazon.com, for example, could be persuaded to pay more so its Web site would load much quicker than those of other booksellers.

At stake is the open-access culture of the Internet. You expect that when you search for health information that you will get responses based on your need. Under HJR 5252, however, a company could determine what you see. So the House Rules Committee, in amendments it will consider today, should ensure an open Internet. HB 5417, the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act, would make it "unlawful for an Internet service provider to block, impair or discriminate against any lawful Internet content or applications," according to Common Cause. The bill has passed the Judiciary Committee.

Telecom lobbyists will continue to argue that the public travels the information highway on their wires. But as Ms. Holian notes, the companies "have been paid both ways for their bandwidth. On one end, you and I pay our Internet service provider. On the other end, so do the Googles and Amazons."

There's plenty of money to be made on the Internet. Keep that source of profit the same Internet that the public has come to like.

Keep Toll Takers Off The Info Superhighway
Albuquerque Journal - June 8, 2006

Traffic is getting heavier out on the information superhighway, but all of it is moving at the same pace. Network neutrality means there are no fast lanes.

When everything is equal, when all Web pages load on a computer screen at the same rate, users' choices of the sites they order up are based on content or utility, not on some third-party judgment of what's commercial or what the traffic can bear.

Network neutrality is a little too democratic for those who prefer to pay for preferential treatment and some communications companies that would like to charge more.

Accordingly, they are pushing Congress for change. On the other side, Internet companies that flourished under the status quo and consumer groups are lobbying Congress to perpetuate neutrality.

Without it, the superhighway would be split into a toll road and the slow lanes, and the choices users make, could be skewed by the way traffic is directed.

Though you may now prefer to Yahoo, you could end up Googling, because it pays extra to load faster. You could end up Googling because it cut a deal with cable, and Yahoo allied with the phone company. That's annoying, and it's annoying that both are cluttered with more ads to pay the extra freight.

But what's really annoying is when the user, who pays the cable or phone company for access, has to pay again in higher prices for delivery of the service. Communications company executives say retail giants Amazon or iTunes can afford to pay the toll. But giants just pass it on to the little guy in higher prices.

Take a look at your monthly bill for access - users have paid for their Internet and, judging by its growth, like it the way it is.

Preserving Democracy on the Internet: Telecom Bill Needs Net Neutrality Rule
Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) - June 8, 2006

With the explosive growth of eBay, Travelocity and other forms of Web commerce, it was inevitable that the telephone and cable companies who bring the Internet into your home would seek a bigger piece of the action.

That moment has come this week, as Congress considers a bill to rewrite the nation's major telecommunications law. But the version sought by Verizon, AT&T and other telecom companies has the potential to introduce economic discrimination into the Internet and threaten what makes the Web such a great tool of democracy and innovation. Lawmakers in both chambers have introduced bipartisan amendments ensuring a principle known as "net neutrality," and it should be part of any telecom bill that passes this year.

At the heart of the debate is a plan by phone and cable companies to introduce faster tiers of Internet service, then charge an extra fee to companies, such as AOL or Lands' End, who use them. The telecom industry argues that these Internet traffickers are, in effect, using its wires for free and that it needs to raise more capital to keep improving the infrastructure.

It's true that the telephone and cable infrastructure is valuable to consumers and costly to the companies who maintain it. But they already charge for it at both ends of the wire: consumers pay firms such as Qwest and AT&T to receive Internet service, and content providers pay at the other end to get on board.

Introducing a new tier of fees could create a superhighway for commercial giants such as Amazon or AOL, but it could also relegate the struggling political candidate and the next genius blogger to a backroad of slow and unreliable service. That's why a remarkable coalition of groups - from Common Cause to Consumers Union to the American Library Association - support "net neutrality" legislation.

The genius of the Web is that it doesn't discriminate between the mightiest media outlet and the loneliest scribe, between a corporate titan and a business startup. That genius is worth protecting.

Extra Internet Fees: They Would Take a Toll
Philadelphia Inquirer - June 11, 2006

The democratic openness of the Internet - where pretty much anyone can open a laptop and reach a wide audience - is a key to its world-changing power.

Here's the irony: The Internet may need the U.S. Congress to pass a law to preserve its freewheeling nature.

On Thursday, sadly, the U.S. House missed a chance to do the right thing. It rejected a proposal to prevent cable and phone companies from levying extra fees on large Internet users.

A sizable, bipartisan majority decided to leave cable firms such as local heavyweight Comcast and Bell successors such as Verizon free to exact a tariff or toll on Internet users who pump out high-volume content.

It's up to the Senate, then, to protect the Internet as a radically democratic gathering place to share ideas and innovations.

As you sit at your home computer, the issue may seem arcane, the concern overstated. Your broadband connection is working just fine, so what's the problem?

One way to think through the issue is to jot a list of the killer applications the Internet has spawned, such as Google's search engine, eBay's online auction, or the various Weblog programs.

Did any of them emerge from the bowels of a phone or cable company? Nope, they were innovations that started small, but found huge publics thanks to the Internet's openness.

Now imagine that the next infant innovation had to buy its way onto the Internet - by paying steep fees to get on a digital fast lane. Talk about a way to turn Yahoo! into Uh-oh!

If the Internet had begun as a toll road with tariffs set by a few powerful gatekeepers, would we still be thumbing through the hardbound World Book for elusive facts, trudging to the mall for Top 40 hits, hawking cast-offs at yard sales? Hyperbole? Perhaps, but you get the point.

There are no special tolls just yet. The Web remains affordable for innovators and browsers thanks to its tradition of equal treatment for most traffic, called "Net neutrality."

But cable and phone companies say they need to manage the burgeoning data better. One way would be to charge higher rates for preferential treatment. The firms say they need revenue to expand their networks.

Their case sounds reasonable. But it raises legitimate fears that what corporations really want is to be the Internet's gatekeepers - with the lucrative power to favor their content or that of business partners. That would be a major shift from today, where Web surfers pick winners and losers by voting with their mouses.

It would be terrible if the Web moved from populism to plutocracy.

It's good to hear that cable and phone officials pledge not to block any Web sites or traffic. But fiscal barriers can be as imposing as technical ones. The Federal Communications Commission vows to monitor to see that all Web users are getting a fair shake.

The U.S. government helped to invent the Internet. It should protect its amazing offspring. Congress should enact a ban on tolls for Internet traffic - including a sunset provision requiring a fresh look at the Internet's vitality in a few years.

Package Deal: Let's Not Let the Internet Get Chopped and Channeled
Cape Cod Times (MA) - June 13, 2006

If the Internet is a big part of your life, something called ''net neutrality'' may be the biggest news you never heard of.

A quiet fight is brewing in Congress over whether the Internet should remain as it has been since the beginning - more or less democratic and free flowing, with the hand at the keyboard able to click on the lowliest blog or the densest academic analysis with equal speed and access - or be subject to toll gates and tariffs set up by today's biggest high-speed service providers, the phone and cable companies.

The companies are lobbying heavily for freedom to make more money off the Internet when the Federal Communications Commission's one-year moratorium on any changes to net neutrality expires later this summer.

The people raising the alarm make interesting bedfellows, ranging from the Christian Coalition of America and the National Religious Broadcasters to MoveOn.org. Internet visionaries and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are aboard because the principle of network neutrality stoked the explosion of software that made the Internet the world-changing technology it is.

How could this be hurt by the telecom giants?

Edward Whitacre of AT&T was quoted Nov. 7 in BusinessWeek: ''Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it.''

If it were just your monthly bill they were talking about, there would be no problem. But they're talking about asking big, powerful content providers to pay extra for preferred treatment, or establish tiers of content, like cable TV. Picture a bidding war between Yahoo and Google, with the winner's site opening faster on your Comcast DSL. In that environment sites with power and money could come to predominate.

Everyone is looking for ways to make money off the Internet, including newspaper companies like this one. But managing your own site for profit is not the issue. Repackaging the free-flowing content of the Internet is the threat, because it would crimp the creation of new Internet products and applications that depend on universal access.

Not to mention the free flow of ideas.

In the House, the ''Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006'' (H.R. 5417) was endorsed by a bipartisan majority of the House Judiciary Committee. In the Senate, the ''Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006'' (S. 2197) from Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Byron Dorgan, R-N.D., supports net neutrality and may be introduced as an amendment when the Senate takes up its own rewrite of the Telecommunications Act later this summer.

Information drives human potential. The special genius of the Internet deserves protection from the day-to-day instincts of the marketplace.

Congress vs. The Internet
The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin) - June 13, 2006

The First Amendment of the Internet -- the governing principle of "net neutrality," which prevents telecommunications corporations from rigging the Web so it is easier to visit sites that pay for preferential treatment -- took a blow from the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday.

Bowing to an intense lobbying campaign that spent tens of millions of dollars -- and held out the promise of hefty campaign contributions for those members who did the bidding of interested firms -- the House voted 321-101 for the disingenuously named Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act. That bill, which does not include meaningful network-neutrality protections, creates an opening that powerful telephone and cable companies hope to exploit by expanding their reach while doing away with requirements that they maintain a level playing field for access to Internet sites.

"Special interest advocates from telephone and cable companies have flooded the Congress with misinformation delivered by an army of lobbyists to undermine decades-long federal practice of prohibiting network owners from discriminating against competitors to shut out competition. Unless the Senate steps in, (Thursday's) vote marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as an engine of new competition, entrepreneurship and innovation," says Jeannine Kenney, a senior policy analyst for Consumers Union.

Proving Kenney's point, the House voted 269-152 against an amendment, offered by Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey, which would have codified net neutrality regulations into federal law. The Markey amendment would have prevented broadband providers from rigging their services to create two-tier access to the Internet -- with an "information superhighway" for sites that pay fees for preferential treatment and a dirt road for sites that can't pay the toll.

The bill drew overwhelming support from Republican members of the House, with the GOP caucus voting 215-8 in favor of it. But Democrats also favored the proposal, albeit by a narrower vote of 106-92.

Voting against the legislation were Wisconsin Democrats Tammy Baldwin, Gwen Moore and Dave Obey. Among the small group of honest conservatives who voted to defend open discourse on the Internet was Wisconsin Republican James Sensenbrenner.

Siding with the telephone and cable company lobbies, and against consumers, were Wisconsin Republicans Mark Green, Paul Ryan and Tom Petri. Also voting the wrong way was Wisconsin Democrat Ron Kind, a so-called "new Democrat" who frequently splits with his party on issues of interest to corporate donors.

The fight over net neutrality now moves to the Senate, where Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan have introduced legislation to codify the net neutrality principles into federal law.

Mark Cooper, the director of research for the Consumers Federation of America, thinks net neutrality will find more friends in the Senate, at least in part because the "Save the Internet" coalition -- which includes such unlikely political bedfellows as the Christian Coalition of America, MoveOn.org, National Religious Broadcasters, the Service Employees International Union, the American Library Association, AARP, the American Civil Liberties Union and all of the nation's major consumer groups -- is rapidly expanding.

Cooper's correct to be more hopeful about the Senate. But the House vote points up the need to get Democrats united on this issue. There's little question that a united Democratic caucus could combine with principled Republicans in the Senate to defend net neutrality. But if so-called "new Democrats" in the Senate side with the telephone and cable lobbies, the information superhighway will become a toll road.

An Internet Test
San Francisco Chronicle - June 14, 2006

"Net Neutrality" will never make it on a bumper-sticker or flame-red T-shirt. But the clunky phrase has become a worthy battle cry: Keep the Internet free, level and open to all.

In Washington, the House went the wrong way last week, siding with phone and cable companies who want toll lanes on the Internet. If Google wants to beam its services along the digital superhighway, it will have to pay extra for fast connections. Not all net traffic is equal.

Now it's the Senate's turn to consider the issue this week. On one level it's a battle of industrial goliaths pitting Verizon and AT&T against the likes of Microsoft, eBay and Google. The Internet pipeline-providers want to charge Internet businesses extra for quicker service.

But the notion of two tiers should bother even a casual net user dabbing at a laptop on the kitchen counter. One of the Internet's many glories is its open and equal design: Everyone travels the same superhighway and can enter or exit at will. That's what net neutrality means.

This isn't a folksy, outdated notion. Religious groups, political bloggers, unions and consumer groups fear that Internet toll roads will stifle access. Innovation, debate and community spirit could all lose out.

The Senate may want to duck a showdown, believing the Internet is too unpredictable to regulate. Why not let the phone and cable companies have their way and ask the Federal Communications Commission to jump on them later, if abuses surface?

If only Washington worked that way. Once the phone and cable industry has its way, it will be hard to rein them in. Net neutrality should remain a basic, not a negotiating point to be weighed and measured later on.

Congress Must Be Pressured to Preserve Internet Neutrality
San Jose Mercury News - June 14, 2006

The proposition that the Internet should remain an open, decentralized network where all users and Web sites are treated equally suffered a blow last week when the House of Representatives defeated an "Internet neutrality'' amendment that was part of a larger bill to reform telecommunications laws.

And on Tuesday, Senate Commerce Committee chair Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who is crafting companion legislation, said Internet neutrality isn't likely to be part of his bill, either.

But this battle is too important to give up. Without Internet-neutrality rules, the telephone and cable companies that control Internet access are sure to go ahead with a plan to divide the Internet into a two-tiered network. Companies that pay them a toll will see their content and services cruise at high speeds. Everyone else will be stuck in a slow lane. Worse, cable and phone companies would have the freedom to decide who gets quick access and who doesn't. As a result, consumer choice and innovation will suffer.

Senators who support Net neutrality -- most Democrats and a few Republicans -- must threaten to derail the entire telecom bill unless it preserves openness and choice on the Internet.

A campaign launched by consumer groups and major Internet companies including eBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo should help. It included a letter from eBay CEO Meg Whitman urging the millions of buyers and sellers who use the Internet auction site to show their support for Internet neutrality. As a result, tens of thousands of letters from eBay users are expected to be delivered to senators before next Tuesday's committee vote on the Stevens bill. Google, too, has used its Web site to urge users to contact members of Congress.

The telecom and cable companies want lawmakers to believe Internet neutrality would amount to burdensome new regulations. But Internet neutrality isn't new. It was the law until late last year, when a U.S. Supreme Court decision and a vote by the Federal Communications Commission changed things. One of the best arguments for it is that Internet neutrality has worked.

The neutrality rules have allowed innovators to create content and services without worrying that they would be squeezed out by cable or phone companies who didn't like what they were doing. Absent Internet neutrality, phone companies would not have allowed the Internet telephone industry to blossom. Without it, cable companies won't let the burgeoning Internet-video industry come into its own. And industries ranging from health care to finance, retailing to education, will face huge new tolls to guarantee access to the Net's high-speed lanes.

If you want the Internet to remain a force for innovation and free speech, urge our senators not to sell off cyberspace to special interests.

A Neutral Net
Bangor Daily News (Maine) - June 17, 2006

Using the Internet to talk, shop, study or pester your friends with well-worn jokes already takes up enough of your time so you may not have learned about "net neutrality." But if you want to keep the Web unimpeded for these valuable pursuits and for, say, creating a business or an entirely new industry, you will likely want to ensure your access via the Internet remains unfettered.

The net neutrality bill, announced this week by Sens. Olympia Snowe and Byron Dorgan, a Democrat from North Dakota, requires broadband service providers to allow all content, whether affiliated with the provider or not, to move with the same speed, quality and price. The bill, called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, anticipates and prevents a tiered system of Web access, in which service providers - the telephone and cable companies that have benefited from regulated service - give preferential treatment to content that pays more for access or is politically preferable or for any reason. It also assures consumers of having the option of purchasing a stand-alone connection, one not bundled with cable, phone or voice-over-Internet service.

Whether the problem this bill is trying to solve is imminent is much debated. As Sen. Snowe observes on the op-ed page today, "In the months since broadband was fully deregulated, executives from the largest network operators have publicly announced their intentions to charge or provide preferential treatment to certain Internet companies to get to consumers, a change that would do away with the Internet as we know it."

Advocates of net neutrality point to comments such as those from AT&T Chief Edward Whitacre, who in Businessweek said of content providers, "Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using."

Customers by the millions already pay for those pipes through broadband access, but the opportunity to make more money, Congress figures, will be irresistible to service providers, which, in fairness, increasingly are in competition with voice-over-Internet companies.

The Web has been a marvel in part because it is so wide open - its pages are cheap to put up, its discussions are endless and its appeal is that nearly any interest can be found or invented on it. Changing the way Web sites are charged or how accessible those sites are reduces the chances of tiny sites getting launched and increases the ability of service providers to pick winners and losers. Congress is right to try to head this off.

The Snowe-Dorgan bill is strong in establishing equal access for sites but appropriately modest in its use of regulatory language. It reasserts providers' ability to protect their service, but it draws the line at content. The importance of this was highlighted recently at a press conference announcing the bill, when 20 groups, from Moveon.org to the Christian Coalition, stood in support of the legislation.

Operating the Internet in a nondiscriminatory manner is what has made the Web so useful and it is what will keep it useful. The Snowe-Dorgan legislation is a thoughtful way to do that.

Net Gains, Losses and Ties
Los Angeles Times - June 23, 2006

Hyperbole may be the native language of Washington lobbyists, but the debate over regulating high-speed Internet providers has unleashed a rare apocalyptic synchronicity. Both sides make the same dire warning: The future of the Internet is at stake. And both respond in the wrong way.

At issue is whether broadband providers will be able to offer websites and services a faster route into their customers' homes and offices. Some want to prioritize traffic on the last mile for a fee. This way, they say, Web-based companies can ensure the quality of the movies, music and other services they deliver online. It also would help broadband providers raise the money they say they need to keep up with the growing demand for space on their networks.

This kind of prioritizing scares some high-tech firms and advocacy groups, which worry about phone and cable companies picking winners and losers online. Such interference, they say, would stifle innovation by making it harder for start-ups and interest groups to compete with well-funded media powerhouses. They want Congress to preserve "network neutrality" by banning network operators from prioritizing data in a discriminatory way.

As we've said before, the best protection for websites and Internet users is to have more broadband providers competing with the phone and cable companies. Until that happens, notwithstanding the fiery rhetoric by both sides, there is a way to split the baby. Cable operators already divide their wires into two sections: one for prioritized data, which is used for television and related services, and another for Internet access. As phone companies add capacity to their networks, they should be able to take a similar path.

This approach is also consistent with what Internet users expect when they sign up for broadband. Having paid a premium for better Internet access, they don't want their broadband provider cutting deals that could put their favorite sites at the tail end of the pipe. Meanwhile, Web-based companies shouldn't be forced to pay more just to continue delivering the experience they deliver today.

Unfortunately, that's not the route taken by the House earlier this month when it passed a bill to make it easier for phone companies to offer cable TV-like services. The Senate Commerce Committee is about to take up an even less attractive alternative that would provide a weak guarantee of users' rights but no protection for websites against discrimination by broadband providers.

Opponents of net neutrality have carried the day so far on Capitol Hill, arguing that all the evils associated with prioritization are merely hypothetical. Not to be hyperbolic ourselves, but the same argument would rule out missile defense systems. The Internet is a hotbed of innovation largely because there are no barriers to entry on the last mile. Broadband providers should be free to experiment as they add capacity, but not at the expense of the Internet access they deliver to customers today.

Internet: Toll Road
Charleston Gazette (West Virginia) - June 26, 2006

Wonders of the Internet keep changing individual lives, American business and almost the whole world. Internet users enjoy quick access to volumes of information about the fine arts, history, sports, music, cooking, politics, crossword puzzles, medicines and just about everything else.

Internet sites help individuals, bloggers, small groups and major political parties spread their views and connect with like-minded people. Those sites are starting to do the same thing in China, much to the consternation of that nation's repressive leaders.

Internet equality puts ordinary, everyday people on the same footing as the biggest companies. Now, some of those big companies want a change. Powerful special interests want Congress to allow some Internet sites to run much faster -- for a fee -- than Internet sites operated by the average Joe.

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed a bill making it easier for telecommunications companies and others to create two tiers of Internet users, which would end today's "network neutrality."

Network neutrality means all Internet sites must be treated equally, so their contents move at the same speed through cyberspace. Internet service providers cannot discriminate.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who ran for vice president in 2004, thinks the House bill spells trouble.

"When MoveOn and the Christian Coalition agree about something, it's a good bet they're right," Edwards wrote. "Groups as wide ranging as Gun Owners of America on one side and U.S. PIRG [Public Interest Research Group, a liberal watchdog organization] and the One America Committee on the other are fighting to keep the Internet the way it is now -- free and open to anyone with a computer."

The American Library Association, AARP, National Religious Broadcasters and nearly every consumer group also question the House bill.

That legislation would allow big Internet operators -- such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast -- to start charging fees to Web site owners such as Google or Microsoft to ensure they remain on the Internet's "fast lane."

But site owners who don't have extra cash to pay protection fees might soon find themselves dragging along winding backroads on the information highway.

The Internet might become more like commercial television. Those who can pay get their message across. Those who can't, don't.

The U.S. Senate will soon begin debating this issue. Communications professors Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney, writing on CommonDreams.org, said the question before the Senate is simple:

"Should the Internet be handed over to the handful of cable and telephone companies that control online access for 98 percent of the broadband market? Only a Congress besieged by high-priced telecom lobbyists and stuffed with campaign contributions could possibly even consider such an absurd act."

With John Edwards, MoveOn.org and the Christian Coalition, we urge citizens everywhere to ask their senators to protect and preserve freedom of speech on the Internet.

Declare Neutrality for the Internet
St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri) - July 1, 2006

People think of the Internet as a gift that fell to us from technology heaven. Actually, much of it is private property. It belongs to the companies that control the wires and switches through which all those e-mails, data, songs and videos flow.

Now, the owners -- mainly phone companies and cable companies --are thinking it's time to set some new rules for the use of their property.

One more thing: They also want to raise the rent.

Congress is debating whether to let them do that. The debate is over a concept called "Net neutrality." It's probably a good idea -- if not taken too far.

Think of the Internet as the world's widest superhighway with a zillion lanes and no cops. Right now, almost all bits (and bytes) of information are treated equally. A piece of your e-mail flows alongside a sliver of streaming video and a chunk of somebody's bank record. Very few transmissions get priority treatment.

That free-flowing, uncontrolled character is one of the things that makes the Internet such a great medium for creative concepts in every field from entertainment to commerce. Anyone with a good idea has the potential to make a viable business over the Net, knowing that his data will move just as fast as Microsoft's. Anybody with a bone to pick and an opinion to spout can create a blog and become influential. It is the open market on steroids.

All this works well because, despite all the traffic, the capacity of the highway is so immense that things still are not very crowded. That may change, however, as more streaming videos, phone calls and other high-content material merge into traffic.

Now come AT&T -- America's Big Kahuna of the Internet -- and the cable companies with new technology that can separate the cars into lanes according to speed. Some lanes would be extremely fast, others more sluggish and still others downright clunky.

If the highway gets crowded, that might make some sense. After all, a half-second delay wouldn't mean much to an e-mail, but it would make for a maddening Internet phone call. Then again, you could accomplish the same thing without slowing anyone down just by widening the broadband highway.

Now, here's the economic rub: Lately, the owners are talking about charging companies that depend on fast Internet service -- such as Google, E-Bay and the like -- for tickets to the fast lane. Refuse to pay, and your data could end up on Highway 40 during a MoDOT project.

The owners note in their defense that they're expanding capacity and extending it to homes across the nation. Besides, they like making money. Nothing wrong with that.

As AT&T chief executive Edward Whitacre told BusinessWeek recently, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts!"

Naturally, Internet-dependent companies don't like this. They note that they're already paying for lots of broadband access and that their customers already pay for Internet access as well.

Introduce too many toll lanes to the Internet, and the entrepreneurial spirit could be stifled. Microsoft and Google could afford to pay up, but how would an overnight sensation such as YouTube have popped up from nowhere if it had to pay top dollar to send video?

And how about the bedroom blogger ranting about politics? Should his data move more slowly than the pages of the Post-Dispatch on stltoday.com?

And what about direct competitors? Companies such as AT&T compete against Internet telephone companies. They also are very interested in providing pay TV, which requires huge amounts of Internet capacity. Might they give high-speed preference to their own content while sending their competitors into the slow lane?

Thus the Googles and Microsofts of the world are pushing Congress to require "Net neutrality." It would prohibit the owners of the wires and switches from giving one provider's content preference over another's. In other words: no toll lanes.

The Internet has prospered precisely because it is so free-wheeling. We would not want to see the Internet regulated the way most utilities are, with governments approving rates and expansion plans.

But neither do we want it to fall utterly under the thumb of the companies that own the machinery of access and movement and that could abuse their power solely for their own profit. Perhaps it's best to keep things the way they are, with homeowners and businesses paying for access, but with no discrimination based on content. The costs of broadband expansion can continue to be shared among everybody who uses the Net.

For the moment, Net neutrality seems like a good idea. If traffic jams develop down the road, though, we may have to consider other options.

Net Equality, Neutrality
Seattle Times - July 7, 2006

The U.S. Senate still has a chance to ensure that the Internet remains universally accessible and a powerful tool for consumers and businesses. This will only happen if lawmakers ensure computer network neutrality.

The Senate Commerce Committee stuck a blow to an open Internet last week when it sent the telecommunications bill, called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006, to the Senate for a vote without a guarantee of network neutrality.

The tactics used by the telecom lobby to push for a two-tired Internet have been effectively confusing. Despite the panic-fanned flames surrounding the issue, its core is simple. Network neutrality is good for the consumer and democracy because it would ensure that all Internet content is treated equally.

The Internet will become an anti-democratic device if Congress is able to push the telecom bill through this summer session. Web sites, or companies, would pay a network provider a fee to speedily load its pages to computers. Web sites that do not pay the extra fee would be slowed down so the preferred sites can zip past. It is a safe bet that the fast-lane price would be passed on to the consumer.

Lobbyists from big telecom companies such as Verizon and AT&T are spending like compulsive shoppers on eBay to get their message out. The campaign has painted neutrality as a government restriction that would stifle competition. That's hardly the case.

The Internet has fostered numerous innovations because everything from a family's Web page to Verizon's site are treated the same through the broadband that feeds computers. What happens to services such as iTunes if the telecoms provide a rival music site? Potentially, iTunes could be slowed down while a home-grown proprietary rival gets preferential treatment. How does that serve the consumer?

Lawmakers need to insert language that perpetuates the Internet as a breeding ground for divergent voices and services, even if that means taking a whack at a new telecom bill next session.

Save the Internet
Brunswick Times Record (Maine) - July 20, 2006

While the Republicans have controlled Congress, the determination of big business to increase profits at any cost has been relentless. Rolling back environmental protections, attempting to eliminate local food safety regulations (usually more stringent) by imposing nationwide federal oversight, seeking to undermine the health supplement industry, trying to change copyright laws to rob artists of ownership of their works — to name just a few.

Now corporations want to erect toll booths in cyberspace, ending a free and open Internet. Companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast would be allowed to charge extra for some Web sites or e-mails to be delivered at full speed. It's all about money and control.

Recently, one million petitions were delivered in Washington, D.C., by the Save the Internet coalition. Meanwhile, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., have been championing Internet freedom, or "net neutrality."

"The broadband operator will become a gatekeeper, capable of deciding who can get through to a consumer, who can get special deals, faster speeds and better access to the consumer," they said in a press release Tuesday.

If a Web site doesn't pay the extra charge, people would have trouble accessing it or downloading content. Thinking the site was having problems, not that the Internet provider was responsible, visitors would look elsewhere. Clearly, the site would be at a competitive disadvantage.

Sens. Snowe and Dorgan's amendment suffered a tie vote in the Senate Commerce Committee in June, but they have vowed to take it to the Senate floor when the telecommunications bill comes up. They are trying to prevent the largest phone and cable companies from blocking or slowing access to Web sites.

"Net neutrality and equality is one of the found principles of the Internet," Sen. Snowe says. "It guarantees the unfettered, unfiltered, collection and dissemination of ideas and ideals."

It is in the best interest of this nation's democratic principles.

"We believe a majority of the Senate will vote to preserve Internet freedom," Sens. Snowe and Dorgan said Tuesday.

We sincerely hope so, because that's not what happened in the House.

Keep Net Neutrality
The Providence Journal (Rhode Island) - August 6, 2006

One of the great things about the Internet (there are some bad things) is that it's free to anyone with a computer. But some big telephone and cable companies want to change that.

They seek to have toll roads on the Internet by creating a two-tiered Net. In this, Web sites whose owners pay fees to the Internet-service providers (ISPs) -- which are mostly the aforementioned tele-communications companies -- would get priority for high-speed service. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the World Wide Web would become utterly dominated by Web sites whose owners can pay the fees, such as big corporations. Web sites run by poorer folk would get slow service -- or maybe no service, if the ISPs didn't like them.

What a fine way for the phone and cable companies both to make lots of money and to keep unwanted opinions and topics off the Web!

This bonanza for the ISPs would be terrible for the many innovative people and organizations that have Web sites but not necessarily money to pay for them. It would also be terrible for consumers, whose choice of Web sites to look at would be circumscribed according to the site owners' ability to pay the ISPs.

Timothy Berners-Lee, inventor and namer of the Web, envisioned a system in which everyone with a computer could communicate on an equal basis. Indeed, an open, democratic, nondiscriminatory Internet powerfully benefits society -- culturally and economically. It must be protected.

Heavily funded efforts to get Congress to allow a two-tiered Internet would undo much of the Web's greatness. They should be blocked, and "Net neutrality" preserved.

Net Neutrality: Congress Should Ensure Internet Providers Don't Play Favorites
Anchorage Daily News (Alaska) - September 4, 2006

Advocates of wide-open access to the nation's information superhighway are at odds with Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens. They're worried that congressional update of the 1996 Telecommunications Act will allow companies that control Internet connections to play favorites with the content they deliver. Sen. Stevens chairs the key Senate committee on the issue, Commerce, and he does not share their concern.

The advocates point out that Internet providers are free to fast-track content from favored Web sites or companies, while slowing down transmissions from everybody else. To prevent those abuses, the access advocates want the new federal law to ensure "net neutrality." That's shorthand for saying Internet companies can't discriminate in delivering content to your computer.

You would be free to search the Web with the browser you chose, not one pushed on you by your Internet company. You would be free to see any legal Web site you want, at the fastest speed your connection allows, without worrying whether your Internet company is manipulating access rights to further its own commercial interests.

This is not a hypothetical concern.

In February, the Washington Post reported that "executives at other telecom companies, such as AT&T Inc. chief executive Edward E. Whitacre Jr., have suggested that Google, Yahoo Inc. and other such Internet services should have to pay fees for preferred access to consumers over (local high-speed Internet) lines." Already, a phone company in North Carolina tried to prevent its high-speed internet customers from switching to a competing Internet service to make their long-distance calls.

That phone company got in trouble, because a neutrality, or nondiscrimination, federal rule already applies to regular telephone service. Extending the same nondiscrimination principle to the Internet makes good sense. Internet providers have a lot more financial incentive and technical capability to exploit their control over the connection into your house. It's easy to imagine, for example, that the cable company supplying high-speed internet might want to discourage competition from an Internet-based movie-on-demand service by charging extra fees.

Sen. Stevens has said he doesn't see an immediate problem that requires regulation. In other words, he's reluctant to have the government set the playing rules until more companies are caught cheating. Apparently he thinks competition can be counted on to prevent any abuses.

Only problem is, local Internet service is not a fluid, totally free market with a lot of competitors. Many markets are served by only one or two high-speed Internet companies. Switching providers is not as easy as driving to the next gas station or grocery store. Special expertise and special equipment are required to switch. Many consumers may not even be sophisticated enough to know when their Internet service is playing favorites in sending content.

Net neutrality is hardly a heavy-handed government intrusion into the free-wheeling world of the Internet. It is a simple antitrust rule that protects consumers by keeping Internet companies from exploiting their control over connections. Congress should get ahead of the curve and ensure net neutrality before abuses begin to spread.

Bottom Line: Net neutrality is a good idea. Sen. Ted Stevens should support it.

Pass Net neutrality bill; Keep the Internet playing field level, so that all have equal online access

Buffalo News (New York) - January 19, 2007

The reintroduction of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act is right on target and should bring more attention to the issue of Net neutrality. The bill's early reintroduction in the new session is a positive sign that this issue is getting the focus it deserves.

The Senate bill, originally introduced by Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan last year, stands a better chance in the new Democrat-controlled Congress. It should be passed.

Under the legislation, Internet network operators would not be able to "block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair or degrade" access to content or prevent users from attaching devices of their choosing to the network.

Network operators also would be barred from making special deals with content providers to ensure speedier delivery or improved quality of service, and would be required to offer all Internet material on an "equivalent" basis.

In other words, the Internet would remain democratic. The playing field would stay level for everyone either posting or looking up information on the computer-linking system.

And some large companies would be blocked from tilting that playing field in ways that might make things easier for their customers, but would leave others with less than state-of-the-art access.

Consumer groups and a large number of Internet companies do support this bill. They include Amazon.com, eBay, Google, InterActiveCorp, Microsoft and Yahoo.

Think of it this way: The Internet has evolved as a public highway, and the big phone and cable companies want to turn it into a toll road. Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and all the big phone and cable providers would become like the Thruway Authority, offering a major and faster highway than Routes 5 or 20, but at a cost.

Network neutrality is a legal safeguard against this kind of pay-as-you-go, pay-as-you-surf Internet.

The Internet's development was supported by a federal policy requiring phone companies not to discriminate against content. The phone and cable companies did not want to see that safeguard remain on the Internet so, in 2005, they went to the Federal Communications Commission and essentially eliminated the nondiscrimination safeguard.

Network neutrality restores nondiscrimination and creates a level playing field for all Web sites, reflecting how the Internet developed. The battle over network neutrality is to help ensure that there will be real competition on the Internet, so small businesses, nonprofits and education will have an equal digital playing field.

The fact that some of the most powerful Internet companies in the world are troubled by the phone and cable companies' plans and are part of the coalition for this bill just illustrates what is at stake. As one expert said, if Bill Gates is shaking in his digital boots, then small, independent start-up entrepreneurs should be very alarmed.

Sign Up for Email Alerts

Newspapers Weigh in on Net Neutrality

Protect Neutrality of the Net St. Petersburg Times (Florida) - June 6, 2006

Democratic Pipes The Daily News Leader (Stanton, VA) - June 7, 2006

No Tolls on the I-Highway Palm Beach Post (Florida) - June 7, 2006

Keep Toll Takers Off The Info Superhighway Albuquerque Journal - June 8, 2006

Preserving Democracy on the Internet: Telecom Bill Needs Net Neutrality Rule Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) - June 8, 2006

Extra Internet Fees: They Would Take a Toll Philadelphia Inquirer - June 11, 2006

Package Deal: Let's Not Let the Internet Get Chopped and Channeled Cape Cod Times (MA) - June 13, 2006

Congress vs. The Internet The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin) - June 13, 2006

An Internet Test San Francisco Chronicle - June 14, 2006

Congress Must Be Pressured to Preserve Internet Neutrality San Jose Mercury News - June 14, 2006

A Neutral Net Bangor Daily News (Maine) - June 17, 2006

Net Gains, Losses and Ties Los Angeles Times - June 23, 2006

Internet: Toll Road Charleston Gazette (West Virginia) - June 26, 2006

Declare Neutrality for the Internet St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri) - July 1, 2006

Net Equality, Neutrality Seattle Times - July 7, 2006

Save the Internet Brunswick Times Record (Maine) - July 20, 2006

Keep Net Neutrality The Providence Journal (Rhode Island) - August 6, 2006

Net Neutrality: Congress Should Ensure Internet Providers Don't Play Favorites Anchorage Daily News (Alaska) - September 4, 2006

Protect Neutrality of the Net
St. Petersburg Times (Florida) - June 6, 2006