Should your Internet service provider be allowed to block your computer from connecting to services it doesn't like?

Should your ISP be allowed to slow down access to sites that offer a service that competes with its own services?

Those questions form the core of the argument for "Net neutrality." Recent revelations about Internet service provider Comcast's interfering with its customers' service has fanned the argument back into flame.

The Associated Press had been receiving user reports that Comcast was interfering with its customers' connection to the Internet file sharing program BitTorrent.

The AP took a digital copy of the Bible (chosen for its size and lack of copyright) and tried to download it using BitTorrent from computers in Philadelphia and San Francisco connected to the Internet through Comcast. In both cases the file transfers were blocked.

On further inspection, The AP found that the connection was being blocked by the sending of "reset" packets that told the receiving computer to stop communicating with the sender. A closer look showed that the packets were originating from Comcast-connected computers.

A Comcast official later admitted that it was interfering with BitTorrent traffic, but said it was delaying the traffic during only particularly busy periods to protect its other users. ISPs don't like peer-to-peer sharing, not only because it is often used to obtain copyrighted material illegally, but mainly because sharing files, particularly large video files, creates large amounts of traffic on the network.

Despite Comcast's explanation, Net neutrality advocates were not appeased.

"Characterizing that as delaying traffic, I think, is ... a stretch. What they are doing is spoofing traffic or jamming traffic," said Peter Eckersley of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online civil liberties group.

"I think they are trying to create as much confusion about this story as they can because they've done something really scurrilous and out of line for an ISP, and I'm sure they've been burned by the community's reaction to it," he added.

I think Comcast's heinous and ill-advised action is sure to revive demands that Congress pass some kind of Net neutrality legislation. Basically a Net neutrality law would require that Internet service providers treat all customers the same.

Some people fear that without this guarantee, ISPs could use their power to squelch competition. Suppose Comcast had a business arrangement with Google. They could theoretically slow your Internet traffic when you try to use competitor Yahoo and speed it up when you go to Google's site.

Or a provider such as Verizon, which has a telephone component, could theoretically interfere with free Internet phone calls using Vonage because it is taking business from Verizon's phone service. Many people believe ISPs target such voice-over Internet services as Vonage, but they haven't been caught red-handed the way Comcast was.

Under a Net neutrality law, those kind of practices would be illegal.

Others would like to go further and make the Internet a utility under government supervision.

But however it comes out, we need an Internet in which all users paying the same price get equal service from their ISP.