Soundtrack in my head: Dif Juz, “No Motion”

I have been vocal in speaking out in favor of Net Neutrality—that is, the principle that providers of Internet services should not be allowed to limit your right and ability to access whatever content, programs and services are available to you on the Internet. Just when I got to the point where I thought that the bright orange tag on my website was starting to become a bit tacky and perhaps outdated, I was reminded why the tag needs to be big and bright, and yes, orange.

The Associated Press recently reported that “in the most drastic example yet of data discrimination,” its tests showed that Comcast was actively blocking the ability of its subscribers to share files online using Gnutella, BitTorrent, and eDonkey file sharing services. While file-sharing networks are known for their role in the sharing of copyrighted material, file-sharing--and particularly BitTorrent--is “emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.”according to Business Week.

Furthermore, Comcast has denied engaging in such blocking, despite what the AP has uncovered. A Comcast employee leaked an internal memo to Consumerist.com in which customer service staff were being given talking points on how to respond to calls from customers asking about the blocking going on. The instructions were to deny that Comcast was denying access to BitTorrent.

While Net Neutrality is not enshrined in law, the Federal Communications Commission’s Internet Policy Statement of 2005 guarantees consumers access to the content, applications and services of their choice, without interference from the Internet service provider, and has furthermore said that if any providers do interfere with such access, “we will not hesitate to take action to address that conduct.”

Accordingly, the organizations Free Press and Public Knowledge filed a formal complaint with the FCC regarding Comcast’s actions, and calling upon them to take action.

In the meantime, Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Olympia Snowe, (R-ME) called for new Congressional hearings to investigate this and other instances where providers have blocked or threatened to block content or services.

When I first got an email over a year ago telling me that Net Neutrality was in danger, I found it preposterous that anyone would seriously consider limiting Internet users’ access to the content, programs, and services of their choice. Such a notion seemed so far-fetched that when I first forwarded the email to friends, I added the caveat that I had a hard time believing this was true.

But an astute observer of politics and culture will note that unpopular changes like these aren’t sprung on the public all at once. No ISP is going to suddenly declare that all of its users should use BarnesandNoble.com instead of Amazon, Yahoo’s Internet Browser instead of Google’s, and FoxNews.com instead of CNN.com. Torture by our government and spying on its own citizens was not instituted openly and all at once either. The way to get the public to accept something it would normally deem unacceptable is to make changes that are subtle and barely noticeable--or even secret--until they become an accepted fact.

Let’s hope that the blocking of online content and services does not become an accepted fact.