The formal reign of the 109^th Congress has ended and with it the current threat to the neutrality of the Internet.

Net Neutrality has been a touchy topic on the web for the last few months, and now that the threat has died down, I believe that it’s important to recap how important this issue really is. The proposals to limit Net Neutrality are dangerous. They threaten to encroach upon the very principles that have made the Internet so great. Anyone, no matter where they are, can get access to an extremely vast assortment of information, opinions and entertainment, without any bias or censorship.

In a nutshell, the concept behind Net Neutrality is that the network operators, such as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T, cannot discriminate against the traffic that flows across their networks. Every packet on the ‘Net should be treated the same, regardless of its origin, protocol, content, or destination. The logic behind this concept is quite simple; a provider should not have the legal right to treat data from one source with more respect and with faster service than that from another.

Here’s an example: since Comcast now also offers a VoIP service, called Digital Voice, should they have the right to allocate more network bandwidth towards their own service than to a competing VoIP service, like Skype?

The results of such traffic shaping would be especially pronounced on VoIP services, which depend on a fast and steady connection in order to work. The Internet as it’s currently offered by ISPs in America is barely fast enough for the average consumer to make decent sounding, uninterrupted calls over the Internet. So, would we want ISPs to have the power to discriminate against the traffic from a competing site or service? Such acts would result in even slower services for those who refuse to pay extra.

The problem only gets worse. If ISPs can selectively speed up and slow down traffic, they can then start to offer tiered services. Imagine having to pay the current price for your connection, only to end up with a “Basic” Internet package, and that faster and better access could cost you even more.

Access to the Internet would start to look a lot like cable TV subscriptions. For $39.99 you can get the bare basics, which isn’t that great. Now, if you wanted to add a few HD channels to the mix you’d have to pay $5.00 more. Would you like a subscription to HBO with that? Add another $9.95, and so on.

Now, imagine the same applied to your Internet access. For $39.99 you could get a “Basic” package, meaning that you might only be able to surf the Internet for, say, 14 hours a week. Of course you would also like to use Google for an unlimited amount of searches, that’ll be an extra $5.00 a month. And then there’s online shopping; why not add another $9.95 for unlimited access to Amazon and other major online stores? ISPs might then decide to charge you even more for other services, like e-mailing, chatting, file sharing, and whatever else they might come up with.

The above example may be a bit extreme, but that is ultimately what is at stake should Net Neutrality even be abolished. Luckily, the ‘Net is safe once more – or, at least until the next time major network providers manage to get some backing in the House or Senate.