Today the Internet is a driving force in a recovering global economy and a symbol of information freedom around the world. As such, it has become the target of a raging global debate over who (if anyone) should be its master.

2010 is looking to be the year when the debates will end and laws will be written. The stakes are gargantuan.

High on the agenda is the hot-potato topic of net neutrality, with adamant followers in two opposing and heavily armed camps.

Each side has solid arguments on issues ranging from democracy (or censorship), economic growth (and monopolies), bandwidth, piracy and, of course, speed. The debates are playing out at the highest levels of government and private corporations worldwide.

Heavyweights in the camp which favors net neutrality include President Barack Obama and private companies such as eBay’s Skype and Google, the latter of which says it likely wouldn’t have come into existence without net neutrality.

In the opposing corner are all the mega-communications companies – ISPs, telcos and cable companies in Canada, the European Union and the almighty U.S. market.

At press time, Canada was still the only country to have its telecommunications regulator, the CRTC, rule on the topic.

American players with international reach include the country’s third-largest telco and largest cable company Comcast (and its bid to take over NBC Universal, valued at $30 billion and subject to regulatory approval), and AT&T. Those giants openly endorse ‘throttling,’ calling it a necessary tool for network ‘traffic management.’

The pro-net neutrality argument is perhaps best simplified in the most recent White House website posting (November ’09), which unequivocally takes the position that the Obama administration will do everything possible to ‘Assure net neutrality to preserve the freedom and openness of Internet access. The Internet is the ultimate level playing field, making possible the widest and most lucrative variety of entrepreneurial activity and innovation that the world has ever seen.’

Obama cleverly dodges all politics and pins the argument on the strength of a free market.

‘We want to make sure it remains possible for anyone to start a business in a garage that creates new jobs, new ideas, and new opportunities for Americans,’ Obama writes.

‘Our nation’s economy is increasingly dependent on the Internet; the Internet is an essential infrastructure, like roads and electricity,’ he continues, pointing out the net is basically a utility service.

The process of rulemaking on the issues of net neutrality and a national broadband strategy are in the works now at the Federal Communications Commission, chaired by Obama’s former Harvard Law Review colleague Julius Genachowski.

So this telecommunications war is far from over.

Obama’s administration also earmarked US$7.2 billion (through the Recovery and Reinvestment Act) in its 2010 federal budget, which includes US$1.3 billion ‘in USDA loans and grants to increase broadband capacity and telecommunication service,’ with an emphasis on rural improvements to further ‘level the playing field.’

One can only imagine that those billions are also partly intended to placate the likes of AT&T, which – given resistance to throttling in America – has taken its arguments to key territories such as Japan and Europe, where many governments are undecided on the issue and the EU is currently undergoing a sweeping revision of its telecommunications rules.

Is everyone waiting to see what the Yankees do? Not exactly. Japan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications seems to still be mulling over the ‘draft report’ it issued in 2007, which leans towards throttling, albeit in favor of economic growth and traffic management.

The case made by AT&T Japan (owned by AT&T Inc.) in a public document is effectively the quintessential argument for throttling: ‘Net neutrality regulation would reduce competition on the Internet, and compromise its efficiency, by inhibiting operators of broadband access and backbone networks from competing with content delivery networks and others…’

Supporters of throttling liken the Internet to a highway which has lanes, requires speed limits and needs traffic management. Some, such as France, think throttling will also help contain piracy.

Also weighing in are scholars such as tenured Columbia Law School Prof. Tim Wu, who is generally regarded as the expert who coined the term ‘net neutrality.’ Wu is also a self-confessed turncoat who once worked in the private sector in Silicon Valley, and wooed the Chinese government as a key client looking to control info on the Internet.

Wu has since ‘switched sides’ and now argues that the ‘real danger’ at hand is the possibility of ‘private censorship’ and the creation of telecommunications ‘monopolies’ if net neutrality is abolished.

‘What you’re really talking about is if we will allow these networks to become the seed of a new generation of dangerous and abusive monopolies,’ he says in a SavetheInternet.com video posted on YouTube.

Addressing a group of university students, Wu says: ‘I mean, most of you have grown up in a time when we have not had a national telephone monopoly. AT&T was broken up in 1984. Let me remind you, if you have not noticed, that AT&T is back. Let me remind you, if you have not noticed, that media has consolidated into a very small number of companies.

‘We are approaching a state of affairs that has a lot of similarity to the early 20th century when politicians like Theodore Roosevelt and others who are conservative politicians went to the wire, went out and became trust-busters because threats to the Republic was so great from the power of private monopolies,’ Wu continues. ‘And so when you look at these issues, you must realize that we are dealing with an issue of infrastructure and an issue of monopoly power that has recurred throughout American history and is recurring again.’

It’s worth noting that Wu said this well before Comcast and GE announced the NBCU deal.

‘This is an issue that is crucial to the political and economic future of the country,’ Wu insists.

In fact, this ‘issue’ is on the table now as the federal regulator charged last year that Comcast was found to be ‘secretly blocking BitTorrent,’ according to an FCC spokeswoman, and Comcast is challenging its authority. On Jan. 8, FCC chair Genachowski said in a statement: ‘This case underscores the importance of the FCC’s ongoing rulemaking to preserve the free and open Internet. I remain confident the Commission possesses the legal authority it needs and look forward to reviewing the court’s decision when it issues.’

The chair is referring to a rulemaking process which really was kick-started last fall when the FCC issued proposed regulatory measures (designed to preserve Internet neutrality) for debate. The FCC spokeswoman also says the first round of comments are in, and the deadline for the second round is March 5, 2010, the same month as the deadline (March 17) for a draft of the FCC’s proposed national broadband strategy paper, both of which will eventually be presented to Congress (although neither needs Congress’ approval).

Comcast will also be in court with the FCC this year due to its NBCU takeover bid, which some consider the makings of a monopoly with a powerful content-to-delivery pipeline advantage.

‘A Comcast-controlled NBC Universal will have an advantage over its content-owning rivals: a cable TV pipeline reaching nearly a quarter of American homes with TVs,’ wrote the Los Angeles Times.

And while the U.S. debates rage – with the world watching – one leading U.S. media concentration specialist, Robert McChesney, who authored Rich Media, Poor Democracy, warns that: ‘The telephone and cable companies are trying to make the Internet their personal private property. What has made the Internet as democratic as it has been until now is that… every website had to be given the same service. That was the genius of the Internet. But now the telephone and cable companies are using their huge lobbying power to try to change [regulatory] laws, so that they can discriminate between users, to sell instant speed to companies that can pay a lot of money… they want to turn the Internet into cable TV.’

With all the monster issues at play in today’s world, it is highly unlikely these arguments or debates will make it to the consumer level before these decisions are made and laws are written. Stay tuned, as this is the year that the fate of these issues – and the Comcast/NBC Universal deal – will unfold.