I read this posting this morning on Smart Mobs, originally posted by the Nation. Admittingly, I haven't done extensive research on this issue, but it seems to me that by passing the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), the House did not go far enough to protect the internet. The Markey Amendment, which would have prevented broadband providers from rigging their services to create two-tier access to the Internet failed, causing many democrats to agrue that the act fails the non-descriminatory history of the internet. George Ou on ZDNet, argues that the overwhelmling backlash against the possible passing of this act is merely scare tactics, stating that internet service providers are already providing traffic prioritization today in various forms and that Google already provides better search placement for additional cost at the expense of companies who can't afford to pay and the internet has not ceased to exist. He also states that net neutrality is more of an issue of technology, asking his readers how they "believe the politicians are capable of regulating the routers on the Internet when they have no clue how the Internet actually works."

First, I think that politicians are perfectly capable of regulating things they don't understand, they do it all the time. And whether or not this SHOULD be the case, as David Berlind points out in his response, politics played a role in Net neutrality long before "Net neutrality" even became a catch phrase. In addition, I think it is quite ridculous to state that simply because their is currently a certain amount of 'unfairness' and corporate prioritization online means that we should continue along that path. I certainly wouldn't want the internet to become like cable TV where a handful of massive companies decide what you can see and how much it will cost. The fight will now move to the Senate

If you agree that the internet should not be a road paved with tolls sign the petition.