Perhaps you've heard the President talk about "net neutrality." That's the idea that the Internet should continue in on its merry way: people can go to the sites they like, do what they want and their web providers will allow them to do so. It's really quite utopian. Well, that practice could come to an end if evil telecommunications giants have their way.

The National Cable and Telecommunications Assn. and its ilk think that providers should reserve the right to pick-and-choose which sites get preferential treatment on their bandwidth. More than that, they're toying with the idea of increasing rates for video sites, meaning those of you who watch movies or television on your computer could pay more than people who use it simply for news and the such. According to the association, this is simply how the market works. And does it ever!

The current marketplace is working well to bring consumers the services and features they want at prices they can afford. Lawmakers should be very reluctant to replace that flexible, market-driven success story with a system of intrusive regulation.

Though the Obama administration insists it will fight for net neutrality, it may be in for quite the fight. Telecommunications companies give millions to lawmakers — Comcast employees and its PAC, which is fighting against net neutrality, spent $2.9 million in the political realm during the 2008 election and has already given about $700,000 since then — and, as we all know, lawmakers aren't immune to hefty checks. (It's worth noting that the FCC slapped Comcast's wrist last year, when the company put up barriers to block or slow down file-sharing services.)

Luckily for all of us, new FCC head Julius Genachowski vowed to back Obama and company, saying:

One thing I would say so that there is no confusion out there is that this FCC will support net neutrality and will enforce any violation of net neutrality principles.

This would please the New York Times, whose editorial team demanded this weekend that the President keep the Internet open and free.

The issue isn't simply about money — making it and spending it — but about which sites load faster or are more accessible. If, for example, one Internet provider prefers NBC News, that means CBS readers will be shit out of luck. And, if that's the case, we'll be one step closer to this "destroyed democracy" thing Glenn Beck and others keep barking about.

As much as some would like to believe it, the free market's not our democracy's defining characteristic. Nor should it be. And if there's one place to prove that, it's here, on the wild, wild Internet. Regardless of what happens, it's clear that the Internet won't be what it once was — and that makes us sad.

Image via aLii's flickr.

In theory, smartphones will detect when a wireless mic is in use in the area, and not interfere with it. In practice, who are they kidding? New York City's Broadway League is campaigning to keep that part of the radio spectrum free for roughly 450 wireless microphones used in Manhattan's theater district. Out here, I'll be furious if Journey's next show at Shoreline is ruined when 853 Google employees check their mail during "Wheel in the Sky." (Photo by Getty Images/Justin Sullivan)

Where to even begin. First off, the concept of frequency "hopping" is total flawed. When the CDPD protocol tried to ride the airwaves in the analog cellular days by hopping it turned out that LOTS OF PEOPLE LIKE CELLPHONES, and so there were insufficient "blank spaces" to hop from and to. So that brilliant, frequency hopping technology ended up taking a dedicated cellular frequency to run. The same problem is going to plague Larry's smoke-and-mirrors technology.

He is trying to get something for free here, use of EXTREMELY VALUABLE frequencies, by claiming that he will hop out of the way of the current users of these frequencies. Then when they test his product in a stadium full of current frequency users, he can't hop out of their way. Then he goes crying to the government that the test was not fair. Boo hoo, I'm rich and I want to get something for free, boo hoo.

His product, at scale, will directly interfere with the current users of those frequencies. There is no way around it. When you are at 100% capacity where do you hop to? The hopping promise is the kind of BS that hardware vendors have to push in order to get their product out into the market, and the FCC knows it is a false promise. When all those new products are jamming the airwaves and an existing user turns on his device what do you think is going to happen?

Just pray your kid's vitals are not being remotely monitored at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital with the old tech when a few hundred feet away on Sand Hill Road some VC turns on his Android phone to show his secretary. But then again, maybe the nurses will notice your kid's blue complexion in time. So sure Larry, go ahead and roll out that product that can't even pass a controlled test. Why not?

The test was rigged deliberately. That's the kind of thing we've been up against here, and I find it despicable.

Google explained that the wireless microphone frequency was hidden behind broadcast television signals. When asked if Page felt the FCC aided in the subterfuge, Page demurred, blaming broadcasters instead. A spokesperson for microphone manufacturer Shure, Mark Brunner, shot down the accusation, "These tests were open to the public, and those who choose to discount the results — which have not yet been published — had every option to be present and to witness them for themselves." Just remember, Larry: It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. (Photo by AP/Paul Sakuma)

High-speed Internet access is so important to the welfare of U.S. consumers that America can't afford not to offer it — free of charge — to anybody who wants it, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin says. Martin would like to use an old $6 billion federal subsidy for land lines to subsidize broadband instead. Only 38% of rural households are broadband customers, and only 25% of households with incomes less than $20,000. A chunk of wireless airwaves known as AWS-3 (Advanced Wireless Services) is due to be auctioned to carriers next year. Martin wants to attach a requirement to reserve 25% of AWS-3 network capacity for free broadband.

T-Mobile paid $4 billion two years ago to buy AWS-1 spectrum, which abuts AWS-3. T-Mobile's chief technical officer says wireless broadband for rural customers in the AWS-3 spectrum would interfere with paying T-Mobile customers. Martin says FCC engineers are studying the interference issue.

Not in USAT's report: Martin wants to content-filter the free stuff. (Photo by AP/Jeff Roberson)

The problem for Comcast and other Internet service providers is that they can no longer block file-sharing traffic from their networks. And yet file-sharing usage is consuming more and more bandwidth, which they must pay for. Broadband providers are businesses, not charities. So they are increasingly considering charging their users by the bit for bandwidth over a certain level. Most users won't be affected, but file-sharing downloaders will be.

The prospect of pay-by-the-bit bandwidth had immediate consequences for BitTorrent's two main businesses: an online-media store delivered via file sharing, and a content-delivery network which competed with the likes of Akamai and Limelight Networks.

For users who would have to pay bandwidth fees to their ISPs on top of paying the usual charges, BitTorrent's Torrent Entertainment Network store would soon look uncompetitive with the likes of Apple's iTunes Store and Microsoft's Xbox Marketplace — which prompted Best Buy to back out of talks to acquire TEN for $15 million.

As for BitTorrent's content-delivery network, it was premised on the notion that BitTorrent would negotiate with ISPs to get privileged delivery for their file-sharing packets, while Comcast blocked others. With the FCC forcing Comcast to treat all file-sharing traffic equally, the promise of that business evaporated.

Which leaves BitTorrent with not much of a business. As the first Napster showed, peer-to-peer file sharing is easy to make popular — and surpassingly hard to make profitable. BitTorrent may have improved on Napster's technology. But it never solved the fundamental business problem.

What's important is that if the vote passes, it will set a precedent that strengthens the FCC's claim on jurisdiction over regulating the Internet by giving some teeth to the agency's Internet Policy Statement from 2005. Republican chairman Kevin Martin can count on majority, thanks to the support of the two Democrats on the commission, and the motion is expected to pass.

But not unanimously, as Republican commissioner Robert McDowell doesn't approve. He penned a dissenting opinion piece in the Washington Post arguing for the preservation of the laissez faire status quo for ISPs: "If we choose regulation over collaboration, we will be setting a precedent by thrusting politicians and bureaucrats into engineering decisions." (Photo by AP/Stephan Savoia)

Google's wireless dreams have been thwarted at every turn, from the botched Wi-Fi effort with Earthlink to Verizon reneging on open-access provisions after the spectrum auction. I doubt Page's blatant desire to line his own pockets will win the FCC over. Perhaps he should refine his pitch and mention the possibility of 10 percent more campaign donations. (Photo by Danny Sullivan)

In recognition of the rules, Verizon will also make available much-more expensive devices that abide by Google's "open access" rules, but the company doesn't plan to market them. Upset, petition-filing Google lawyers say "Verizon's position would completely reverse the meaning of the rule." (Photo by mtcool1988)

Readers voted that I should attend the hearings as a Comcast representative. In true Comcast spirit, I stayed home, just like the telcos, and watched it online at VON TV. (Besides, I don't have an appropriately ugly suit to play the role.) Only one actual network provider showed up — Lariat.net CEO Brett Glass from Laramie, Wyoming — but the anti-regulation argument was still well-represented on the panels, if not in the audience.

The main arguments against government regulation basically amounted to the typical accusation that regulation will restrain free market competition; if network operators aren't allowed to manage traffic and content, that will prevent them from policing the Internet for child pornography and copyright infringement; and that ten percent of users are using 75 percent of available bandwidth — presumably to trade child pornography and infringe on copyrights using file sharing protocols.

The man of the hour, Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, gave one of his typical speeches accompanied by slides. He turned the free market arguments against the telcos, paraphrasing Adam Smith in observing that producers rarely meet but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public. But the most interesting perspective in favor of network neutrality came from the Christian Coalition's Michele Combs. She argued that the cable companies would be happy to let the porn industry pay for access to consumers, whereas "grassroots" organizations like her own would be silenced.

Of the public commenters, none came to the defense of ISPs. Most brought up free speech issues. An impassioned "Tiny" Lisa Gray Garcia from Poor Magazine brought up the issue of the digital divide and how a tilted Web playing field could potentially restrict access to Internet adoption among communities, such as immigrants, who are just starting to get online and access media. No wonder Comcast didn't show up — public opinion was stacked against them. Thankfully, they don't have to worry about the average American truly understanding the issues, and game knee-jerk politics to their advantage if necessary.

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

(Illustration by Victor Agreda, Jr.)

As Google's auction team — led by product manager Larry Alder — ratcheted up its billion-dollar bids to meet the reserve price, the competition stayed away. Top Google executives and the board suddenly decided to become concerned. Alder and his team were pulled into a board meeting and asked to explain again why Google was bidding against itself for spectrum it didn't want to own. "There were definitely some people at the company that had cold feet," Adler told the Times. "People had to be convinced that it was the right business decision." No wonder people on his team were getting sick.