Recently, the United States 109th Congress struck down two network neutrality specific bills.

There was s2360, introduced by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) on March 2 and known as the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006. Then there was s2917, introduced by Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) on May 19 and known as the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.

The basic premise of “network neutrality,” or “net neutrality,” is that Web content is delivered to users equally without regard for size or actual content. In other words, telecommunication companies cannot discriminate against content delivered on their networks.

Both Acts supported the premise of net neutrality, and hindered the ability of telecommunication companies to establish a tiered system that would let them charge more for delivery of bandwidth-intensive content such as Flash video and Rich Internet Applications. Telecommunications companies believe charging higher fees for such content is necessary to cover the cost of faster delivery over better networks.

Such thinking is understandable. After all, the telecommunications companies are building the networks, not the United States government. And with businesses developing and using Rich Internet Applications for Web conferencing, data management and better eCommerce functionality, why shouldn't they pay a premium for faster content delivery?

The answer is that the consumer will get the short end of the stick.

It stands to reason that if businesses have to pay a premium to deliver bandwidth-intensive applications, the consumer of those applications will have to pay an increased usage fee so businesses can cover the extra cost of delivery. Beyond fees, the lack of strong net neutrality language has the potential to put control of the flow of information into the hands of a few.

It's time for everyone to stand up for net neutrality.