• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, April 27, 2006

Until this week, the question of "net neutrality"--or whether Internet access providers can legally block consumers from visiting certain sites, or hinder the process by slowing down access to specific domains--had loomed large for Internet policy wonks, but hadn't yet captured the public's imagination.

But, in the last week, as word about the issue has gotten out, that situation seems to have changed.

Consider, on Sunday TV actress Alyssa Milano posted an impassioned plea to sign petitions in favor of net neutrality. "If we don't stand up for Internet freedom, big business will pay for dominant placing, making it impossible for young entrepreneurs to compete," wrote the "Charmed" star, in a blog post that has since been picked up by the media.

That's not the only anecdotal evidence that the movement in favor of net neutrality is extending to the public at large. Last night, in a casual chat at a party, an illustrator told us he was outraged at the possibility of eroding the "First Amendment of the Internet"--the new, more user-friendly term for "net neutrality."

Of course, the issue has been a point of contention since at least last summer, when the Federal Communications Commission decided against banning such activity. Instead, the FCC last August voted to simply endorse "net neutrality" in principle.

Several months later, telecom officials began griping that online companies--like Google--were taking up more than their fair share of bandwidth. Consider, Verizon senior vice president John Thorpe complained in the Washington Post in February that Google was getting a "free lunch" because consumers spent so much time, and bandwidth, on the service.

But it's only now, with Congress considering (and so far rejecting) legislation that would protect online companies from discrimination, that a populist movement appears to be brewing.

Of course, it makes sense that consumers don't like the idea that Internet service providers might slow down access to their favorite sites--particularly since consumers already pay a monthly fee for home access. For Internet service companies to even mull the prospect of hindering, or blocking, access to popular sites--like Google--shows just how out of touch the access companies are with their consumers.