There's been talk recently about the concept of 'net neutrality' and even support from the head of the Federal Communications Commission for the idea. However, farmers watching fields dry down for harvest are probably less concerned about some esoteric Web idea than this year's crop. Keep in mind that net neutrality is an important issue in the high-tech world that could affect your access to information in the future. That's true given that we in agriculture are not big players in the Internet compared to much larger information providers and could stand to lose if the idea of net neutrality isn't preserved.

Basically in a "neutral" Web world, carriers such as Hughes Net, Wild Blue, Comcast, AT&T and others provide the wire and content providers offer up information and services for you to use. No extra issues. You pay for the providers for access, the information flows into your computer. However, if neutrality were to go away, those same "wires" could crimp bandwidth for some players and keep it open for others.

Why should you care? Right now a lot of the conversation is about the heavy-use services that eat up Web space - or bandwidth - and carriers charging for that kind of access. But at our level here in ag, we're not big players and if carriers could "slow" content from smaller players while bigger guys could pay for better access, you could find yourself blocked from information you need, when you need it.

A broad coalition of groups, many not usually found on the same side of any issue, have teamed up to support net neutrality. Last week's support by the head of the FCC helps too. Meanwhile, the carriers maintain that they need the ability to either limit, or narrow, bandwidth to preserve their networks; or the ability to charge information providers access through their networks. While it's not happening yet, that could have wide-reaching impacts on the business.

This week, as this discussion has appeared in consumer media, some providers say that having the ability to charge information providers for Internet access is a way they can help expand broadband coverage across the country. That may sound enticing to farmers who have been trying to get "last mile" access to the Web for years, but the argument is weak given the USDA funds available and other government support for this that providers have not fully tapped.

These are the same providers that a few years ago had trouble discerning the value of providing broadband to anyone outside a major metro area, but as soon as smaller competitors fired up their own systems started moving into the country. It's a competitive world and net neutrality can keep the playing field a little more level.

As smaller information providers, our ability to reach out to readers/viewers/subscribers on the Web would be limited and chances are your farm could suffer. In a non-neutral Web world, market prices and advice could be limited by the provider's ability to pay for faster access. Farmers who want to build a Web presence to better market their own products could also be limited right as they move to this new marketing tool.

There could be other unintended consequences of the loss of neutrality that have yet to be seen. It's definitely an idea whose time has not come.