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)

It's all about net neutrality. What's "net neutrality"? As far as we can tell, it's a bunch of rhetoric that amounts to regulations that affirm Google's God-given right to avoid giving Internet service providers a cut of advertising revenues. An Obama presidency would mean Google can save money on lobbying fees. Well, times are tough, and every penny counts. It's good to know that even the saintly Vint Cerf votes on pocketbook issues. He's the father of the Internet, and he approved this message.

Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas didn't confirm or deny the plan to BroadbandReports, only saying "Comcast is currently evaluating this service and pricing model." Earlier this week, the company ditched the proposed "P2P bill of rights" it was developing with file sharing startup Pando. (Photo by AP/Paul Sakuma)

3. General Requirements and Rules of Conduct Services will only be provided to those who meet the following requirements:

• applicants must be 18yrs old or above
• condom must be used, except if the applicant prefers to release his semen upon Tania's body without any oral or vaginal contact
• Anal sex is negotiable, although Tania will cease the performance immediately if any form of 'surprise buttsex' occurs
• multiple participants are not allowed, but applicants are entitled to have an audience observe the performance
• if anywhere along the process, it becomes clear that the applicant is not a virgin, Tania reserves the right to terminate all activity
• applicant must be able to provide sufficient evidence that clearly shows he has been defending net neutrality (eg. a print-out of a forum post, a link to a vlog)
• applicant agrees that in the event of the applicant infringing upon Terms of Service during the process of the act, Tania is not responsible for any genital injury that the applicant may suffer
• Tania may deny service for hygiene reasons

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.)

1. Facebook stays independent and private, strikes a meaningful deal that legitimizes its business plan, and buys a startup.
2. Born out of the writers' strike, at least one "Funny or Die" style site gets big buzz and maybe even gets bought, but it fails to produce any videos near the quality of FoD or Super Deluxe.
3. Google releases some limited version of voice search beyond GOOG 411. During the year, the company's stock tops $800.
4. Digg sells to a major media company for at least $200 million, and founder Kevin Rose starts a non-web-based company.
5. YouTube announces it's adding HD video, but the feature doesn't arrive until 2009.
6. Gawker Media, publisher of this site, starts a men's site and a Web show.
7. Yahoo suffers major layoffs, leading the press to dub it the next AOL.
8. Yet AOL is spun off and reframes itself. At the end of 2008, the company's future is still uncertain.
9. Apple releases a second-generation iPhone, and at least one New York Times article tries to draw a "middle class/rich" line between those who upgrade and those who stick with the first generation.
10. A new videoblogger emerges as the go-to example for slick independent daily vlogging, following Amanda Congdon and Ze Frank.
11. Tumblr, the pared down blogging service, enjoys the popularity that 2007 brought Twitter.
12. Twitter remains independent and spins off a new service.
13. The Internet again fails to drive one presidential candidate to success. So does Chuck Norris.
14. Jason Calacanis, still running his online directory Mahalo, starts another project.
15. A new meme started in a geeky part of the web infiltrates the "normal" population even more deeply than LOLcats.
16. Yet another e-book reader comes out and no one cares.
17. Blog search engine Technorati collapses after failing to get enough funding to stay afloat.
18. The Wall Street Journal announces it will soon be free online.
19. Blog platform maker Six Apart, having spun off LiveJournal and rearranged its exec staff, gets bought.
20. Dell screws up the good will it won in 2007 with another customer-service or bad-parts scandal.
21. Net Neutrality takes another hit from a telco-friendly Congressional bill.
22. Second Life plods along.
23. The TechCrunch blog network lands a regular TV appearance, if not a show.
24. The country tires of the last round of famous-for-being-famous celebs, and gossip blogger Perez Hilton's TV show gets cancelled.
25. A minor medical incident renews the "can Apple survive without Steve Jobs" argument.

It's going to cost $42 billion to $55 billion to keep up with North American demand alone, the research firm said. Maybe net-neutrality advocates — those who say the government should regulate how Internet service providers profit from their wires — will foot the bill. Anybody got MoveOn.org's number?

(Photo by currybet)

"Sandvine already counts top U.S. cable provider Comcast Corp (CMCSA) among its customers, Barron's said." - Easing network debate may aid Allot/Sandvine-paper, Reuters, Sun Apr 8, 2007

Here's the orginal Barron's article (subscription required): Here's How the Drama Over 'Net Neutrality End

Sandvine also posted the article in the press archives section on their very own website.

Oops. Hard to play the no comment game when the facts are already in print.

PREVIOUSLY:
LEAKS: Insider Tells Us There's Proof Comcast Contracts BitTorrent Sabotaging To Sandvine
Comcast's "We Don't Throttle BitTorrent" Internal Talking Points Memo

Boucher basically told Comcast to cut the crap:

Comcast has made a major mistake in attempting to hinder peer-to-peer file sharing as an aspect of its network management. The inability of customers to [share files] significantly diminishes their ability to utilize the Internet for one of its most important applications, which is user-to-user content.

We're not big on regulatory solutions, and apparently, neither is Boucher. Surprisingly for a Democrat, he rejected calls for net neutrality regulations and wants to fix the problem through competition and market forces. That's about right. You don't like it? Go lay your own fiber, bub. Or, better yet, dump them for another ISP. That's Comcastic!

(Photo by AP/Douglas C. Pizac)

"A new bipartisan poll released today finds that an overwhelming majority of American voters favor video choice over onerous 'Net Neutrality' regulations," shouts the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. But the same, "only 5 percent of likely voters had even heard of 'Net Neutrality.'"

So respondents knew nothing about the questions they answered. Why does the Senate care about their answers? Because this poll was not a poll. It was propaganda.

The Senate committee ran a push poll, a fake survey skewed not to measure public opinion, but to manipulate it. Before the hired survey-takers asked voters whether they wanted a law "delivering TV and video choice" or one "enhancing Net Neutrality," they briefed respondents on a bill that would let TV providers get more competitive. (They didn't mention the Net Neutrality bill.) Pollsters then asked questions like, "In your opinion, which is the MOST important reason for your Senator to vote for this legislation?"

But it gets so much worse.

The poll also asked respondents which benefits they thought they'd see from letting cable companies compete. It never mentioned whether these benefits were real; instead of suggesting "lower prices" and "higher quality programming," the poll may as well have named "magical unicorn festivals" and "everyone gets to be on the Daily Show." It's a classic priming method — instead of demonstrating actual benefits of legislation, the Committee just shows that people think there are benefits. If America ran its government like that, we'd be voting for short-sighted $200 tax returns!

Oh. Right.

This poll is brought to you by the Senate committee controlled by Ted "series of tubes" Stevens. It's not just pro-big-business, it's completely abandoned reasoned debate in favor of rhetoric. It didn't just beat supporters of free speech and a fair Internet, it kicked them in the nuts and spit in their eyes.

Bipartisan Poll Shows the Majority of Americans Favor Video Choice Over Onerous Net Neutrality Regulations [Senate Commerce Committee]

• Comcast blocks e-mails from The WELL [Mercury News]
• Comcast gives the worst. customer support. ever. [Consumerist]
• Comcast sells premium service that gives customers the interference-free Internet they should already get. [NewsForge]

This clip features Peter Pan the Tron Guy, and other famous net weirdos. The song is dorkier than a Disney hit; listen to this one with headphones to avoid your coworkers' giggles.

We Are the Web [Official site]

YouTube uses Limelight Networks to deliver [Update: some of] its video. (Limelight's revenues have grown about 36% recently, according to a client. Nearly all of that is from YouTube.)

Limelight's broadband providers know that. They're starting the Limelight slowdown, via a technology called packet shaping. In other words, Net Neutrality is over. The telecom companies won. We can bet there are back room conversations with ATT/Yahoo, Comcast, Roadrunner, and other providers for Limelight and YouTube to pay to travel on their tubes. That'll jack up the cost of doing business for YouTube — with no new income to offset it.

Earlier: Feature: Why YouTube is about to die

When, exactly, did the press decide that all our hope lies in the gutsier of the two Google co-founders? The issue of net neutrality (the fight against a haves/have-nots split for Internet content suppliers) depends on so many big players' input. But The Guardian, a paper usually not prone to Google-worship, gives the slightest of nods to Amazon and eBay's efforts before spending two paragraphs on Brin's ambassadorship to Washington.

It's as if the man didn't jet around in his Google plane all the time. And it's that sort of cockiness that makes the reminder so very harsh — Sergey-boy, no one cares about you in Washington.

Is it the end for net neutrality? [Guardian]