EDITORIAL: First Amendment hangs in the balance of net neutrality fight

This Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is scheduled to vote on a notice of proposed rule-making. An affirmative vote would set the FCC on the path toward approving formal net neutrality rules.

Net neutrality simply means that every Internet service provider has to treat all Web sites the same. It can’t make one site load faster than other Web sites.

Proponents of the regulation fear that without an FCC ruling big corporations could pay to make their Web sites load faster. In turn, the small, individually-owned Web sites would be essentially be put out to pasture.

The other fear is that providers would slow down or block Web sites with information that isn’t favorable to the provider. (Like in China, where the Communist Party blocks and slows certain Web content.)

Opponents say the rules forsake the free market in favor of government control, would decrease investment in broadband networks, would reduce choice for Internet users and limit new services.

Didn’t we just see with the bank bust last year how too little government regulation can hurt our country and our economy?

Nonetheless, broadband is the future, and I don’t foresee any companies abandoning the Internet anytime soon. A faster Internet means faster access to everyone’s Web sites. Broader access means more customers. No CEO is going to throw that potential customer base away.

The real question here becomes who owns the Internet and what does the Internet mean to America?

The Internet is the public forum for the world, not just the United States, and we need to fight to protect it. It is a place for everyone with access to express and exercise their first amendment rights.

Without net neutrality, the rich and powerful own the Internet, the only microphone citizens have left.

Lisa Chalian-Rock is the editor of The Messenger and can be reached by phone at (843) 332-6545 ext. 19 or by e-mail at .