The hearing was about the FCC’s investigation of Comcast, spurred by accusations that the company had violated a concept called network neutrality. It’s what Ted Stevens was trying to speak to when he babbled about “a series of tubes” — the notion that Internet service providers, such as Comcast or AT&T, shouldn’t be allowed to limit or block access to particular Web sites. With the power to control access to Web content, these companies could effectively shape that content. A movement to preserve net neutrality began around 2003, when Congress began considering a telecom-backed bill that would have abolished it.

This movement has centered around a coalition of activist groups, with some significant corporate backing from companies such as Google Inc. (although Google has shown signs it might switch sides), and the surprising support of some traditionally “conservative” groups such as Gun Owners of America. The 2003 bill was defeated, and since then, the political battle regarding net neutrality has raged in state courts — remember that cable bill here in Michigan? — and most recently, around federal agencies like the FCC.

It didn’t start with the hearing Comcast blocked, which is to reconvene after much controversy April 17 in Palo Alto, Calif. A few months ago, the Federal Trade Commission declared net neutrality “unnecessary,” generally dismissing it while parroting the anti-neutrality arguments of the telecommunications industry. Comcast took this as a sign that it could go ahead and violate net neutrality, which it promptly did, arbitrarily blocking the file-sharing program BitTorrent.

BitTorrent is used by corporations distributing files to employees, software developers distributing patches to customers (e.g. World of Warcraft), pirates illegally downloading copyrighted material and many others. Comcast didn’t publicly announce what it was doing, but as activists began to notice and make accusations, an investigation by The Associated Press uncovered what was happening. Eventually the FCC agreed to launch an investigation — the cause of the aforementioned hearing.

While all this goes on, consider the other ways people currently use the Internet. There has been a lot of fuss about the “new media” or the “blogosphere” — news media from the Internet run by small groups and individuals rather than a few large news corporations. The recent presidential primary debates with questions from YouTube.com were seen as a concession to this “alternative news,” which has been responsible for breaking many major stories in the past few years.

Free video Web sites such as YouTube are another major use of the Web. Similarly, there now are a number of Web sites that have TV shows available for free, sites with free networking services, sites for storing photos, sites with free open source programs available to download and sites that give communities a free place to “meet.” It doesn’t take financial backing or institutional approval to create these free services, and it’s likewise easy to use them.

Without net neutrality, this changes. Internet service providers would have the ability to block access to free services. Alternative news would not be able to compete with commercial news. Companies that use the Internet but are not providers of Internet service would have an unfair disadvantage in the Internet market. Ultimately, the potential of the Internet as a tool for communication, democracy and expression would be severely paralyzed.

We can’t let this happen. There are hundreds of ways to fight for the preservation of net neutrality, and www.SaveTheInternet.com is a good place to start. Of all the issues at hand today, I don’t think there’s a single one that affects us as immediately as net neutrality.

Joel Reinstein is a State News columnist and an arts and humanities junior. Reach him at reinste5@msu.edu.