In July 2006, “to Google” became an official verb in the English dictionary, a written testament to the growing importance of the Internet. Not that we need Webster to tell us the Internet has become the go-to source for everything from an analysis of Plato’s “Republic” to a guide for making zero-carb, nonfat, sugar-free, red-white-and-blue desserts for your upcoming Fourth of July party. And with the wealth of information presented to us by the majestic World Wide Web, the beauty is in the virtually limitless array of choices we can make based on our needs at any given time.

So when it comes to taking precaution with regard to Internet safety, most warnings stem from the assumption that the web is unrestrained — which means that the majority of issues we focus on involve unsecured websites, hackers, stolen passwords and the like. While these are clearly real concerns, a whole slew of Internet issues of a different sort are not being addressed. Because the net is relatively new, the average consumer is not necessarily well-informed regarding its structure. This relative ignorance on the part of the consumer gives Internet-providing telecom companies a window of opportunity to infringe upon rights without causing much of a stir. The case in point is the rarely discussed problem of Net Neutrality in the United States. Net Neutrality, according to the Save the Internet Campaign website, is the idea that Internet providers should be prevented from “speeding up or slowing down web content based on its source, ownership or destination.”

Telephone companies such as AT&T have the ability to direct consumers toward certain news sources or online stores, among other websites, by “slowing down or blocking their competitors” in “search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video.” The companies are able to do this by forcing a tax on rival Internet content providers to ensure their websites load quickly. This puts a strain on the independent content providers who cannot afford to pay the steep price for delivering their content — in favor of large corporations. Not only is this stifling the capacity for Internet innovation and development, but it is also turning the web into a sphere in which we are, without our knowledge, potentially directed toward biased content.

It may be difficult to imagine this having a direct effect on the consumer who is truly attuned to what she’ll get out of her surfing. Simply being informed, however, is not sufficient to remove the influence of the telecom and cable companies. For example, in September 2007, Verizon Wireless rejected NARAL Pro-Choice’s text-messaging service, in which cell phone users would be able to voluntarily sign up to receive texts with updates from the abortion-rights group. According to coverage by The New York Times, Verizon denied the service to its customers on the grounds that they “had the right to block ‘controversial or unsavory’ text messages.” Unsavory, eh? Considering the voluntary nature of this subscription, it is clear the customers are not the ones who find it “controversial.”

Aside from the issue of free expression, restrictions on net neutrality also blatantly discriminate against small or independent content providers. For example, if an Internet provider has a deal with Fox News, then we are invisibly being denied access to other news coverage in not being able to see links to different networks’ pages or load their content. This constraint on available information leaves the public less informed, and it curtails the potential for progress and innovation that we would otherwise gain from a free flow of information.

Embarrassingly enough, the United States is lagging behind the rest of the world in regard to its own invention. The European Union, for example, began passing legislation that secured monopoly-preventing competition for its telecom companies in the 1990s. The EU has, according to an Educause report, successfully enforced its policies, “promoting broadband subscribership [and] reducing prices.”

Here in the U.S., however, the FCC is benefiting by freeing up frequency space currently used by TV broadcasters for cell phone companies. For instance, analog television is slated to be shut off in February 2009 in order to allow telecommunications companies to have unlimited, lifetime access to certain broadband frequencies.

In Wisconsin, state legislation raises significant barriers for local municipalities to build their own broadband networks, thus permitting telecom and cable companies to monopolize certain parts of the sate. Thus, dissatisfied consumers are left with few alternatives.

If we want to preserve our freedoms — and I’m pretty sure we do — we must raise awareness for this issue and attempt to end the stifling of entrepreneurial creativity and consequent economic stagnation. The push must be for net neutrality and stiff enforcement of competition — such as those of the EU, rather than the privatized monopolies we currently allow.

Hannah Shtein ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in philosophy.