There's getting to be more chatter about net neutrality, with those on the left and right picking sides that really don't make much sense, except that most Americans seem to want it, and so the President is behind it. This lines the Democrats behind it and theRepublicans against it. Other than that, there is no logic I can see behind the decided positions. Most unions that are involved in the fight are on the same side as the Republicans, and it's unusual to see them make common cause against the Democrats.

     In another way, though, it makes sense, because net neutrality could be called more government regulation. This is the position taken by those who oppose the concept.

    The facts are somewhat different. The goal of the FCC, as I see it, is to establish rules so that internet companies are not dependent on case law to tell them what is or isn't allowed when it comes to controlling content. I'm personally in favor of that, as I think it will bring clarity to the law, and bring the law out of the courts and back to the legislative branch. Of course, the big telecoms may put it back into the courts by challenging the law, but as long as the courts uphold the law it the power will stay where it constitutionally belongs.

    The recent 5-0 vote has been called by some a vote for net neutrality. What they really voted on was to start talking about it at the FCC, to start crafting a policy that could then be voted on. If the opponents of net neutrality want to prevent passage, they will have to arrange for a bad policy, one that the public won't support, and then hope that the two Republicans on the FCC will be able to stall until the end of the 2010 session, and that further, there will be a change in majority party in 2010.

    If you look at their arguments, you will see that one of their arguments against the policy is that the FCC is rushing to craft a policy. In fact, they've been considering doing so since 2007, at least. This is hardly the rush job that the health reform bill has been. Those opposed are simply trying to delay, if they can.

    The big argument that is being used against it is that it favors some companies over others, in that it allows some, like Google and Youtube, to profit at the expense of others, like AT&T, who simply want to be able to charge for their fair share. This is why I support net neutrality, because in the end, if we don't have it, it will allow and even encourage those with monopoly or near-monopoly control over the hardware of the internet to force what are now free and needed services on the internet to become paid services. They claim that they need this as an incentive to keep moving into small markets, but I live in a small market, and they have flat told me they will not come here now, for financial reasons. My internet choices here are limited to satellite and dialup, and I can only have satellite because I live on a hill.

    Now, AT&T claims they will not restrict content, but they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. They have also said that they have to have money from those that are profiting from them. In order to do that, they have to restrict the content of those who don't pay, like me. I don't make enough yet from the ads on this site to pay them. It would mean that Facebook would have to start charging, because otherwise it couldn't afford to stay in business. And can you imagine having to pay to google something?

    Everyone should be supporting net neutrality. It is good for the free flow of information, which is good for our democracy. Yes, it does let a bunch of crap stay on the internet too, but that's the price of free speech. It makes us personally responsible to turn off the hate. The Republicans especially should be pushing for a quick passage of these rules, so that they can fight for an overturning of power next year with gusto and not have to keep defending a position on this issue contrary to all common sense (but not contrary to hundreds of lobbyists).