Part one in a series on net neutrality and how it affects us all. Part two will examine Congress’ take on the issue, as well as the Presidential candidates positions.

As ISP’s quietly begin monitoring and barring certain types of web traffic, and some start to experiment with pay-by-the-bandwidth systems, the net neutrality fracas is going mainstream.

Google has been a strong proponent for net neutrality, as the company has plenty of its own vested interests–they don’t want to pay out of their pockets to have their pages delivered to you quickly. There are plenty of caveats when you align with a huge corporation like Google, but in cases like this it’s useful to have that sort of lobbying and legal power on the side of free speech.

Boing Boing reported this past weekend that Google is developing a net neutrality detector, by which users can find out if their ISP is barring–or slowing down–some of their traffic without telling their consumers, allowing us to be informed customers and citizens.

To date, the debate has remained largely within the realm of tech activists and lawyers. There are plenty of reasons why everyone should care about its implications. It’s instructive to examine, in laymans terms, what exactly net neutrality is and why everyone, from the tech-savvy, at-risk-youth (to paraphrase Dan Savage) to their grandparents should care.

This explanation of “net neutrality 101″ from media activist group Save the Internet serves as a useful introduction to the concept:

When we log onto the Internet, we take lots of things for granted. We assume that we’ll be able to access whatever Web site we want, whenever we want to go there. We assume that we can use any feature we like — watching online video, listening to podcasts, searching, emailing, and instant messaging — anytime we choose. We assume that we can attach devices like wireless routers, game controllers, or extra hard drives to make our online experience better.

What makes all these assumptions possible is “Network Neutrality,” the guiding principle that ensures the Internet remains free and unrestricted. Net Neutrality prevents the companies that control the wires bringing you the Internet from discriminating against content based on its ownership or source. But that could all change.

The biggest cable and telephone companies would like to charge money for smooth access to Web sites, speed to run applications, and permission to plug in devices. These network giants believe they should be able to charge Web site operators, application providers, and device manufacturers for the right to use the network. Those who don’t make a deal and pay up will experience discrimination: Their sites won’t load as quickly, their applications and devices won’t work as well. Without legal protection, consumers could find that a network operator has blocked the Web site of a competitor, or slowed it down so much that it’s unusable.

The network owners say they want a “tiered” Internet. If you pay to get in the top tier, your site and your service will run fast. If you don’t, you’ll be in the slow lane.

It’s difficult to get people engaged with this sort of technical, abstract concern, particularly when there are so many other urgent issues requiring attention–the environment, the endless wars on terror. Still, net neutrality is far from a minor issue, and the result of this debate has many implications on our freedom to discuss and pass on this sort of news in accessible way.

For example, consider the media shutdown in Kenya in November. For days, Kenyan bloggers were the only people able to report news and photos from the region. This is a prime example of essential reporting for our era. But in a non-network-neutral environment, this sort of on-the-ground reporting would be demoted in priority to clear up bandwidth for branded advertising ‘experiences’ and big money-funded, social network detritus.

Let’s not let the Internet become the new network TV or Clear Channel’d radio system, where only rich conglomerates can broadcast to the masses, where independent media is run through a strangling bandwidth sieve. It’s far too easy to accept something as being the status quo once it becomes policy–indeed, many scoff at media activists who dare to remind us that the FCC’s stated mission is to protect equal access to the airwaves we own.

It can be hard to get on the soapbox to defend a media largely associated with cheap porn and LOLcats. but let’s not forget this important innovation in egalitarian media must be defended at all costs. Net neutrality is more than confusing tech-speak. It’s a battle for the only vestige of free media. The Internet may be shit, but it’s the only media outlet we still own.

Part one in a series on net neutrality and how it affects us all. Part two will examine Congress’ take on the issue, as well as the Presidential candidates positions.