Net Neutrality, Brought To Light Once More

When you hear or read the term “Net neutrality,” what do you think? “Yes, please?” “We still talking about that stuff?” Perhaps you don’t really care one way or another.

Whatever your opinion on the subject might be, the fact of the matter is that we’ve got a ways to go before it’s a dead one. With members of the US Senate Commerce Committee now looking into cases involving ISPs and charges against them having to do with inaccurate (and maybe even illegal) marketing and consumer management tactics, we may very well find the already-beaten-and-battered discussion of Net neutrality pumped with new life once more.

For weeks now - after several seasons in which Net neutrality seemed to be a cloud hanging over all issues concerning Web developments and new product and service announcements – the fight for unhindered freedom in the tubular realm of the WWW looked to have been all but halted completely, as those operating various parts of the Internet backbone in the US seemed to successfully lobby Washington for the power to determine the priority of bits and bytes as they saw fit.

The anti-Net-neutrality argument: That the bandwidth supply was getting mighty tight, and it required action on the part of ISPs to determine how best to deliver data from Point A to Point B. Whether that meant halting the flow of some information for an unspecified amount of time whilst other packets were free to travel freely and far more expeditiously, was more or less up to those running said networks to decide.

Those promoting the continuance of a free-for-all (a.k.a., the backers of net neutrality), of course simply requested that those overseeing things in D.C. allow traffic to move about as it has thus far, without needless limits or the threat of extra fees or taxes muddying the playing field (and its players).

Late last week, however, American Congressional members Byron Dorgan (Democrat – North Dakota) and Olympia Snowe (Republican - Maine), publicly acknowledged arguments made by parties critical of several ISPs, including Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, and now seek to determine “if the lack of network neutrality rules were causing problems for Americans.”

What problems, precisely? Well, there’s the charge against AT&T for censoring a webcast performed by the musical ensemble Pearl Jam for political statements made. And Verizon’s block of a mass messaging effort by the group NARAL Pro-Choice America. And Comcast’s forced diversion of resources from those using BitTorrent, both on the distribution end and terminals making request for data.

The list goes on.

The basic point to be made here is that ISPs are certainly not in the clear, and that they must be disallowed from infringing on consumers’ rights. And in order for those rights to be protected, ISPs might have to be forced to abandon any notion that a non-neutral system will be something tolerated by “the people” or the government of the people.

Whether this inquiry by the Congressional duo mentioned above leads to an investigation of current and past practices by ISPs, it’s simply too early to speculate. But this might just mark the start of a turnaround for the better – for all.

Cross your fingers, folks.