I just got an e-mail from Mike Premo,
Linda Stender's campaign manager. Assemblywoman Stender supports net neutrality.
This is really good news, as the kind of wonky phrase "net neutrality" obscures what is really a major fight for the little guy against monied interests.
All traffic on the Internet -- e-mail, video, this web site, etc. -- is sent in what are called "packets." Once a packet leaves a computer and enters the Internet it is sent at the same speed as every other packet, regardless of who sent it or what it contains.
You can speed up how many packets per second your computer can send out or receive by buying faster access with T1 lines, cable modems, etc., but you cannot speed up the packets themselves once they are out there.
This means that this Blue Jersey post, a You Tube video, the pictures of Shakira you just downloaded (don't lie!), the e-mail I got from my brother are all treated neutrally on the Internet, and so people call it "net neutrality." Everyone is treated equally.
The big Internet access companies like Verizon, AT&T and the like want to change that. They want permission to give some packets preferential service on the Internet based on how much their sender paid.
This would mean that people or businesses or campaigns with more money would be able to buy faster access to you than people or businesses or campaigns without the cash.
Sites run by Mike Ferguson could be delivered with preference over sites like Dump Mike run by small grassroots organizations. Money would, once again, buy access and drive out the little guy.
Sites run by big comapnies like Wal*Mart could be delivered faster than sites run by Bob's Bargain Barn or other local company. Money would, once again, buy access and drive out the little guy.
Sites run by big movie and television companies like ABC or 20th Century Fox could be delivered faster than sites run by everyday folks making movies like You Tube! Money would, once again, buy access and drive out the little guy.
The best example I can come up with is to compare the neutrality of the Internet to the preferential treatment of cable TV.
On the Internet you can access anything that people put out there. On Cable TV, the cable company decides what content they will allow you to access.
We've seen an excellent example in the past few years as the Yankees and Mets started their own cable TV stations to carry their games. Some cable TV companies quickly agreed to carry the new stations, while others did not.
As a result, many fans were unable to watch their beloved team's games, while other fans could. Why? Because the cable delivery companies wanted the stations to pay more money or they would not deliver the content to their subscribers.
That is what net neutrality is about. If you want to decide what content you can see without the interference of your Internet access provider, you are for net neutrality. If you want your Internet access provider to decide what you can see based on how much money they want, you're against net neutrality.
It's that simple. The profits of the company that delivers the content should not determine what content we can access.