Without [internet] neutrality, large retailers and corporate media would show rich and snappy response while entrepreneurs, nonprofits, local/public news sites would seem to just crawl. The outcome is not hard to guess at.

With wars, elections, natural disasters, economic and environmental perils rightfully filling the news it is easy to consign Internet issues to our mental back-pages, as exotic marginalia.

The Internet, however, has quietly become a dominant voice in our democratic discourse. Presidential campaigns hinge on effective net presence and fundraising. The free flow of information across the country, indeed around the globe, lets us discover, accurately judge, and respond to events affecting us.

This Internet, designed and built with our public funding, is far more than an electronic shopping mall. It is the town square, the free and vibrant press, much as speakers, pamphleteers and broadsides framed the debate during the founding of our nation.

Because the Internet's trunklines are in the hands of private corporations now, these companies will maximize their economic advantage. In Congress, debate has been ongoing over the responsibility of the FCC to ensure so-called Network Neutrality. The crucial point is whether certain companies or media outlets can pay to use the fast lane while others are left on two-tracks.

Without neutrality, large retailers and corporate media would show rich and snappy response while entrepreneurs, nonprofits, local/public news sites would seem to just crawl. The outcome is not hard to guess at.

And now it's possible for institutions to learn a great deal about us without our knowledge or permission.

Living in an area with two possible choices of Internet provider, a cable/Internet company and a telephone/DSL company, I recently learned that both carriers are evaluating or deploying a new technology for "Behavioral Targeting." This records every place on the Internet a subscriber visits to send targeted advertising to their computers, in virus-like fashion. A tempting new advertising revenue stream for the providers.

It's hardly different than if every item I read or program I watch is tallied up by someone I don't know and then things start filling my mailbox and TV screen as a result. Considering the merely commercial prospects, one shudders to think of potential political uses.

Finally, while fair access and individual privacy rights are proper concerns with new technologies, one place where complete openness is required is our federal government. With low relative cost, there's no reason not to make all non-classified government information available to citizens/taxpayers.

Voting records, committee transcripts, funding breakouts (dreaded earmarks!), Medicare formulae, registered lobbyist input, the whole hairy federal budget, even have been typed into computers already and should be in the open, available in both complete and summarized form on the Internet, for all to see. It is the essence of democracy.

In the coming political season I urge voters to research their candidates' positions on such issues affecting our public commons. The kind of democracy we have going forward will depend on it. Hopefully it will be even better than the best democracy money can buy.