It ain't broke.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Are greedy telecommunications and cable TV corporations positioning themselves to choke off equal access to their broadband Internet lines? Or are mega-corporations such as Microsoft and Google jumping on a populist bandwagon to camouflage their efforts to win advantageous government regulation of the Internet?

In the intense, high-stakes debate over so-called "Net neutrality," it's hard even to get agreement on what Net neutrality means, much less what will happen if one side or the other wins its effort to influence legislation currently before Congress.

This is an admittedly obtuse, wonky and technologically baffling environment for most people. One thing is certain: Google, Microsoft, the "telcos" and cable TV giants have an army of lobbyists and lawyers looking out for their interests. It's the little guy who needs a bodyguard in this battle of techo titans.

That means no matter what else happens in the congressional debate this week over the sweeping Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act, Oregonians should urge their senators and representatives to support language that requires phone and cable broadband suppliers to allow consumers unrestricted access to Internet content using any applications they choose.

The access issue has emerged as the cornerstone of the Net neutrality debate because the Federal Communications Commission deregulated telephone and cable companies with respect to the Internet in August 2005. Telcos and cable companies provide Internet access for more than 95 percent of American consumers who go online.

Phone and cable companies argue that since they own the transmission system - the "pipes" that move information on the networks - they should be able to charge online businesses and content providers for some of the costs to upgrade high-speed access throughout the nation. In addition, the telcos want to offer tiered services that would give users different access to preferred products depending on fees paid by online content providers and businesses.

After the FCC's one-year deregulation phase-in expires in August, the phone and cable companies will be free to implement those services.

Critics fear that such plans would eventually lead to poorer quality and slower service for consumers and even to potential loss of access to some content. Music and video providers who didn't pay premium fees might find their content offered at much slower access speeds.

Allowing market forces to increase competition and potentially lower prices for consumers has a lot of appeal, but the transmission market is hardly wide open. The government initially granted telephone and cable providers the right-of-way needed to install their lines.

FCC regulation ensured that the limited number of companies in the transmission business couldn't use that government-granted right-of-way as a competitive advantage. That's important because more than 95 percent of Americans have no choice in landline cable TV operators.

More important, the Internet is and always has been about much more than selling things. It has become one of the most important environments in which to exchange information and ideas and engage in political organization and fund-raising.

If network providers are allowed to control the flow of information based on commercial considerations, the Internet's important "town square" function will be lost.

The best argument in favor of maintaining Net neutrality is that it was there when the Internet was born and it has been a major part of the Internet's exponential growth.

Obviously, that aspect of the Internet isn't broken, and it doesn't need to be fixed by commercially driven efforts to eliminate Net neutrality.