Keep Internet open.

Byline: The Register-Guard

The vast majority of Internet users couldn't care less about packet data framing protocols or any of the rest of the techno-geek gobbledygook associated with how information gets from Point A to Point B on the World Wide Web.

Everyday Internet users simply want the Internet to work the way it always has, which is why it's easier to get their attention when they're told the fuss over net neutrality is really all about allowing the Internet to work the way it always has.

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden understands better than most of his colleagues on Capitol Hill why it's important to protect a wide-open Internet. And he's working hard to line up support for a bill that would do just that.

Today, users have equal access to any Web site, from eBay to Guantanamo Bay. Conversely, anyone who creates content and posts it on a Web page has a potential audience that includes every Internet user in the world who types the correct Uniform Resource Locator - Web address - into a browser.

But the telecommunications companies that provide Internet access for more than 95 percent of American Web users 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 across the nation. In addition, the phone and cable corporations want to offer tiered services that would give users different levels of access to preferred products depending on fees paid by online content providers and busi- nesses.

Net neutrality supporters see all kinds of problems with tiered access based on fees. Granting preferred, higher-bandwidth access to the wealthiest content providers would relegate smaller, financially disadvantaged start-ups to the "slow lane." That would transform the Internet from the kind of democratic, level playing field that can spawn a Google or a Craigslist into a money-driven network of haves and have- nots.

There are also free speech impli- cations if information carriers can treat content providers differently.

The Internet has become one of the most important environments in which to exchange information and ideas and engage in political organizing and fundraising. 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.

Now that Democrats have taken control of the Senate, Wyden plans to reintroduce legislation along the lines of his Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2006, which Republicans kept bottled up in committee. With support building for a similar House bill sponsored by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., there's reason to hope the core concepts of net neutrality will be translated into law.

Despite the predictable protests from telecommunications corporations that any government restrictions will stifle innovation and hurt consumers, there is a recent example of an effective net neutrality agreement emerging in a complex industry deal.

The $86 billion merger involving AT&T and BellSouth managed to overcome a partisan deadlock among the four voting members of the Federal Communications Commission when AT&T pledged to observe a set of antidiscrimination principles. AT&T agreed that for 30 months after the merger was finalized, it would not provide or sell "any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet" transmitted over its network based on its "source, ownership or desti- nation."

Republican FCC commissioners were quick to point out that the AT&T deal did not constitute new public policy, nor was it binding on future FCC decisions. Nonetheless, it proved that industry and content-provider groups could agree on a working definition of net neutrality.

Wyden's bill can help turn the AT&T agreement into a blueprint for public policy that will keep the Internet working the way it always has - with the barest minimum of barriers to access.