After a long march, the throat of the Internet was placed on the guillotine yesterday by all but one Republican on the Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology. Voting 11-11 an amendment to preserve neutrality and bar discrimination based on “source” and “destination” on the Internet was prevented from being attached to a major telecommunications overhaul bill.

If the full Senate approves the bill without the network neutrality language, it will essentially pave the way for toll booths to be set up by major telecommunication companies which will determine how fast users receive information and content.

The bill, shamefully titled the “Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006” without network neutrality is a slap in the face to small business across the country, musicians and artists who depend on the Internet, and anyone else who believes in Internet equality.

Earlier this month the House of Representatives, with the aid of Rep. Ron Kind (D-District 3) passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006 - also without protections for network neutrality. Kind did vote for an amendment introduced by Rep. Markey that would have protected network neutrality, but that amendment was defeated. Instead of refusing to vote for COPE unless the language was inserted, Kind joined with a majority of Republicans in passing COPE.

As if in an attempt to rub salt in the wound, Kind dropped an email in my box this morning explaining why he voted the way he did. In this email, posted below in its entirety, kind acknowledges - rather passionately - the importance of preserving Internet freedom, “Without these protections, such business arrangements could close off the Internet to new and innovative content because new companies cannot afford to pay. I believe the Internet must remain open and accessible to all, regardless of economic clout.”

Here is an amendment to his text to bring it home:

“close off the Internet to new and innovative content because new WISCONSIN companies cannot afford to pay.”

Are there other things wrong with the bill? Sure, Kind is kind enough to remind us:

“It also does not include strong antidiscrimination measures to ensure that cable and Internet companies cannot pick and choose which neighborhoods they serve.”

So why then did he vote to pass the bill?

“I supported passage of the bill to move it forward because I know that consumers need more options for cable and Internet, particularly those living in rural areas where there is little or no choice in cable or Internet providers.”

That is commendable, but an Internet without options will just be serving the same mystery meat that comes from cable television and rural radio. And what about small business options in the rural areas of the state? Opening up the Internet in a rural area that currently has limited access would create business opportunities, but not if they can’t afford to compete. Below is the full text of Rep. Kind’s letter, but before that we have one more major issue to deal - our final hope in many ways…

…we are still waiting on Senator Kohl. Democrats in the Senate have vowed to stall the CCBD Act until provisions for network neutrality are included. However, even after multiple phone calls (five now) and multiple emails (three) we still have no idea where Kohl stands. His number in DC is (202) 224-5653. Call now and call often.