Not all websites are equal. I know it’s not politically correct to say this, and I’ve probably angered a thousand bloggers who used to work for the Edward’s campaign. But it’s true. Unfortunately, politicians in Maryland think websites should be equal — and they want a law to make it so.

Delegate Herman Taylor, who represents Montgomery County in Maryland, has introduced “net neutrality” legislation that would regulate cable and telecommunications companies by requiring equal priority for all web content. The movement behind the regulation — composed of big companies like Google and Yahoo, and bands of bloggers and activists — is hoping that with enough catchy phrases like “Don’t Let the Internet Die,” and “Free Internet for Everyone,” it can cloud the issue, making it sound like private companies are trying to take away you’re MySpace page.

Instead, the movement is trying to shackle private companies from charging different prices for different services.

Proponents of Internet regulation don’t like to admit it, but we have net neutrality right now — it’s just not mandated by the government. Cable companies are expanding and developing technology, and they’ve acknowledged that some of what they might be capable of doing in the future will require prioritizing services. (You may have heard of this approach before: There’s a reason why HBO fans pay a little extra to get The Sopranos.) And this has folks like Google and Yahoo up in arms because they don’t want to have to pay for faster service. They’re happy to let consumers (you and me) do that.

Net neutrality isn’t about your MySpace page. It’s not about taking away your right to surf the Church of Twinkie website (which, incidentally, is still under construction). It’s more complicated than that.

Private companies that have been spending vast amounts of dollars researching and investing to upgrade and develop new technologies don’t want to keep consumers away from web content. They do, however, recognize that as the Internet grows and content and services become more varied — think videos and TV shows on demand — we might have to switch to a non-neutral net if we’re to keep the web functioning. That is: Those of us who want the best and latest of all the new gizmos, like online gaming or movie downloads, might have to pay a little more for Internet service than those of us who use the web for activities that require less bandwidth.

One example of non-neutral technology is remote surgery. Technology is being developed that would enable a doctor to operate on a patient thousands of miles away using robotics and the Internet. Cable companies (and the patients being operated on) think this type of surgery requires prioritized bandwidth — in other words, bandwidth that is not equal with the bandwidth being used by the Planet Ketchup website.

Remote surgery is just one example of what would require priority service. We are living in an exponential era. Technological information is doubling every two years. By 2010, it’s expected to double every 72 hours. Since we don’t know exactly what we’ll need in the future, passing net-neutral regulations now will only stifle new developments — some of which could save lives.

Moreover, the bloodlessly bureaucratic term “neutrality” falls victim to the same problems that all government price-fixing efforts face: Adam Smith’s famous invisible hand. The competing interest of all companies seeking the attention of consumers is what will ensure that the best prices fit the needs of every consumer at every level. Internet pioneers, one would think, should understand that collaborative knowledge is far superior to any single mandate handed down from the government mountaintop.

The bottom line is this: What keeps the Internet fast and available is competition and free-market incentives. Why do cable companies pay to upgrade technology and make service faster? So they can get more customers and make more money. If all Internet services had to be the same regardless of what customers paid, why would companies invest the cash to make the Internet faster? They wouldn’t. And that’s what net neutrality is asking them to do.

If you want the Internet to both grow and grow faster, leave it to the private sector. If you want to keep it equal and equally slow, bring in the government to regulate it.

– Dena Battle is vice president for policy and government affairs at the Free Enterprise Fund.