Regardless, according a poll conducted by Zogby International and 463 Communications, 29 percent of respondents said Internet content should be regulated just like television content, and 24 percent said the government should institute a ratings system like the one used for movies.

Luckily (depending on how you look at it), the overwhelming majority of regulation supporters were over 70. Just 33 percent of 18-24 year-olds thought it was a good idea, while 72 percent of septuagenarians thought so.

“Some view the Internet as their new best friend, others as an increasingly powerful tool that can infect our youth with harmful images and thoughts and therefore must be controlled,” said 463 partner Tom Galvin.

“Our challenge as a society is to let the Internet flourish as a dynamic force in our economy and communities while not chipping away at the fundamental freedoms that created the Internet in the first place.”

But only 36 percent thought government blocking of content would be unconstitutional, so don’t think there might not be support for chipping.

I have an opinion and here it is: Government blocking of any content brings up Constitutional issues as it is, at its fundamental level, making a law abridging freedom of speech.

But also, from a media theory standpoint, there is a big difference between the Internet and television. Television, like radio, is a one-way medium with content transmitted over the airwaves to a passive consumer without regard to the consumer’s ability to filter the messages and/or visual exposure.

The Internet is a two-way medium with active users both consuming and producing content. Consumers have a choice of what to view, and have a choice of what to produce, making the Internet the most democratic medium ever devised on this planet.

And we don’t want the FCC (or AT&T and Verizon and Comcast for that matter) stepping in to discuss whether using the phrase "hamsterbating" is in violation of some arbitrary, culturally and perceptually defined standard.  

What’s wrong with free broadband? Well, nothing, essentially, except that this free broadband, like the free lunch, doesn’t really exist. M2Z has proposed an ad-supported, "family friendly" network based upon the network television model, which sort of runs contrary to Net Neutrality principles, supported by at least a million and a half people, and opposed by incumbent broadband providers.

It runs the same risks of absurdity network TV has faced for half a century:

Who decides what’s decent?
Will advertisers decide what we see?
Will the Parents Television Council waste FCC time sparking debates over whether the term "hamsterbating" is appropriate before 9 PM?
What if Janet Jackson accidentally shows a nipple? Will it cause a Congressional hearing?

The idea behind Net Neutrality was that a democratic system stayed democratic and that no central power controlled the content.

At the same time, if the incumbents are against it, you automatically think it might be a good idea. But you’d expect them to be against free Internet, though wouldn’t you?

The broadband M2Z wants to offer the country is slow, too. About half the speed of AT&T’s apocryphal $10 DSL service – about 384K down and 128K up. Not really bad for free…except that other countries are kicking our butt in available speeds, so much that the $10 DSL might be offered for free in South Korea and nobody would care.

M2Z, which stands for "move the cost of data transport to zero," is headed up by former Clinton-era FCC Commissioner Wireless Bureau Chief John Muleta, who moved from D.C. to Silicon Valley. The company claims to have 50,000 supporters signed on to their plan, which aims to give 95 percent of the country free broadband access within the 10 years it takes to build out the network.

(Ten years is apparently the standard build-out period, as that was the amount of time given the telecommunications industry by Congress back in 1996 to build a broadband network that never arrived. And then there’s the matter of the missing $200 billion of tax-payer money that was supposed to be used to build it.)

Muleta’s company made its proposal to the FCC nearly a year and a half ago, and has yet to hear a response. He proposed that the FCC make available to M2Z a portion of unused spectrum from 2155 MHz to 2175 MHz, ideal for data but not for voice, in return for 5 percent of annual sales.

If that sounds like a bit of a bribe, well, it kind of is, and it also asks for special treatment by the FCC. Though the FCC has traditionally not had a problem with either concept in the right situation, decade-old rules (you know, the ones that required incumbents to build out the network instead of racing for long distance) require that spectrum be auctioned to the highest bidder.

Even if this particular slice of spectrum isn’t up for sale in either of the upcoming major auctions. But giving M2Z special treatment would almost certainly anger the incumbents, which the FCC is not too keen on doing.

Rightfully, though, M2Z has called for a ruling on the matter, accusing the FCC of dragging its feet. It took half the time to approve the largest merger in American history, the AT&T/BellSouth merger. Yet, a possibility for free broadband in America has sat on the shelf. M2Z has threatened to take the FCC to court if the council hasn’t ruled on the proposal by September 1st.

Which may speed up a denial chairman Kevin Martin has already promised. But it does put the FCC between an incumbent and a hard spot: How can we upset the telcos by giving special treatment to someone that wants to give America free broadband while telling America we turned down an opportunity for free broadband?

Tough one. But maybe you could say that a free, slow, and censored version of the Internet just wasn’t a good enough proposition. Or maybe you guys should ask for 10 percent, instead. 

So surely, tens of thousands of public comments supporting Net Neutrality won’t be ignored right? Well, we’ll see. Martin and company haven’t liked the idea in the past. It’s easier to get them on board when it comes to decency regulation – but standing up to the telecoms takes guts.

Free Press says over 95 percent of the public comments filed "demand a free and open Internet." It’s important (and necessary) to note that activist groups there have most likely stacked the deck.

That doesn’t take away from the importance of it, and, as said before with the PTC example, if the FCC listens whole-heartedly to one tiny voice complaining about TV, surely they’ll listen to a much larger one about the future of the most powerful medium the world has ever known.

But that would require some sort of consistency, which the FCC doesn’t like to exhibit; regulation is only okay in terms of content, but not in terms of business.

At least, that seems to be the logic.

Regardless, a lot of people are speaking out from both sides of the political spectrum, and with much more resonance than their phone and cable company enemies.

"I am living the American dream because of Network Neutrality — my games have been used in thousands of schools all over the world," says Karen Chun, a single mother and owner of a successful online educational games business. "Without Net Neutrality, my little Web site would have been consigned to oblivion because I wouldn’t have been able to pay the fees the ISPs want to charge."

In the Senate, a bill sponsored by both a Republican and a Democrat illustrate that this issue stretches across political lines. In a letter to Chairman Martin, Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who sponsored the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, joined the chorus of supporters:

"We see that thousands of people have submitted comments describing how a free and open Internet benefits consumers and telling you the discriminatory practices planned by their Internet service providers would substantially harm their online experience. We hope you take note of these thousands of public comments urging you to protect Internet freedom."