Fortunately, the past week has been kinda slow. John McCain, of all people, introduced a bill to block net neutrality. If you haven’t seen it, here’s John Stewart’s take on it:

And a kind soul went to the trouble of updating that old, out of date illustration of a world without net neutrality:

The Wall Street Journal reports that ISPs are looking at metered internet connections in response to calls for net neutrality.

"This could come down to carriers saying, ‘If you don’t allow us to manage our networks the way we see fit, then we will just have to cap everything,’ " says Phillip Dampier, a consumer advocate focusing on technology issues in Rochester, N.Y. "They’ll make it an either/or thing: give them more control over their network or expect metered broadband."

Dampier helped force the end of Time Warner Cable’s metered internet rollout last year. But that’s not stopping other ISPs, such as AT&T, which is testing tiered internet services in Texas. $19.95 per month buys you 0.8 megabits a second with a 20 gigabyte download cap. For $65, you can get 150 gigabytes at 18 megabits a second.

Verizon is also considering tiered internet packages.

Some broadband providers argue that a pay-as-you-go Internet is unavoidable. "A flat-rate, infinitely expandable service is unachievable,"Dick Lynch, chief technology officer of Verizon Communications Inc., said at a recent industry conference, referring to the industry in general. "We’re going to have to consider pricing structures that allow us to sell packages of bytes."

Some would argue that it’s well within the rights of ISPs to do this, and it offers a pricing advantage for casual users. However, in my view, if this is allowed, it will be the same as a non-neutral internet, for a couple of reasons.

1. Connection speed, which is how internet connections are currently tiered, are already an effective bandwidth cap. This is just an additional restriction.
2. It still serves the ISPs purpose of hindering online video and telephone services.

What do you think? Share your thoughts below.

The entire interview (MP3 link) clocks in at 55 minutes, and the Times was nice enough to split it up by topic. But if you don’t have that kind of time, here’s the highlights:

• He calls the DTV transition, “largely a success,” despite a few lingering issues.
• Says that the FCC will do a review of media ownership and consolidation next year.
• Says he’s trying to institute a “culture of excellence” at the FCC.
• Confirms that net neutrality will apply to both wired and wireless networks, but there will be differences due to technical reasons.
• Restates that “we need more spectrum,” for wireless broadband.
• On applying decency rules to mediums other than broadcast television and radio: “The FCC shouldn’t enter the content world lightly, and the FCC should understand that it’s a government agency very much bound by the First Amendment.”
• Calls for greater transparency in cellular billing.
• Called AT&T’s change of heart on VoIP over 3G, a “very welcome development.”

The Knight Commission strongly encourages public support of broadband and net neutrality.

The U.S. Government should invest in widespread broadband availability, according to a study published Friday by the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy.

“All Americans should have access to high-speed Internet service wherever and whenever they need it…The Commission thus encourages public support for the development of applications that will make broadband service more attractive,” stated the commission, composed of “17 media, policy and community leaders”, including Google’s Marissa Mayer and former FCC chairman Reed E. Hundt.

The Knight Commission emphasized the growing importance of broadband access, and derided its general lack of adoption and availability. Thirty-seven percent of Americans do not subscribe to home broadband service, and about a third of rural Americans lack any sort of access, said the report.

Combined with slipping literacy standards, it creates what MIT media professor Henry Jenkins calls a “participation gap,” which cuts off opportunities for the less fortunate. The report insists that home computer access increases school enrollment and graduation rates, as well as test scores.

The commission also came out strongly in favor of network neutrality, stating, “The Knight Commission regards the openness of networks as essential to meeting community information needs. Legislators and other policy makers should remain vigilant and committed to maintaining openness.”

If the Obama Administration decides to enact the commission’s recommendations, it wouldn’t be the first time that the federal government had to step in to modernize rural America. Congress passed the Rural Electrification Act in 1935 for exactly that purpose. It was later expanded by congress in 1949 to expand telephone coverage to rural Americans.

Do you think the federal government should work to expand broadband coverage? On one hand, it would cost of a lot of taxpayer money. On the other, it could create desperately-needed jobs in the short term, and prove an invaluable asset in the long-term. Where would the United States be without nearly-universal electricity and telephone access?

From Wikipedia:

A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.

Let’s put that into real world terms. Chances are, the internet as you know it now is pretty universal. For a flat monthly rate, you get access to any site on the internet, the only difference being speed. Compare that to your cable or satellite connection, where there are different tiers of access. For instance, with a basic package, you might be able to watch Cartoon Network, but its sister network, Boomerang would probably be be off-limits. Phone service works much the same way, with basic service for a flat rate, but extras like long distance costing extra.

Of course, where do most people buy internet access from? Cable and telephone companies. There’s a fear among those in the tech community that these companies might try to restrict access to internet services, either to charge a premium for popular sites, or to cut off competing services entirely, such as Hulu or Skype.

Those in favor of net neutrality are asking for government regulation to prevent something like this:

What some fear the internet could look like without government regulation.

President Obama promised network neutrality during the campaign, and he seems to be following through. In March, President Obama appointed net neutrality supporter Julius Genachowski in March to head the FCC. On Sept. 21, Genachowski introduced a proposal for net neutrality regulation, which will be formally proposed on Oct. 22. The proposal, widely expected to pass, would prevent internet service providers from blocking lawful content, and would mandate that they publicly disclose their network traffic practices.

It is also rumored that the new net neutrality proposals could affect wireless carriers. Some possible outcomes could be the end of handset exclusivity and/or carriers could be forced to allow any smartphone application on their networks. For example, the Apple iPhone, would (in theory) no longer be exclusive to AT&T. And the iPhone Skype application, which is currently allowed allowed only on Wi-Fi, would have to be allowed onto the cellular 3G network.

Of course, net neutrality has its opponents. Telecom companies and Republican lawmakers both strongly oppose regulation. We’ll examine their arguments in a future post.