In the back-and-forth volleys over the often confusing issue of "Net neutrality," the ball now lies in the court of the U.S. Senate, which needs to take steps to preserve the free-flowing Internet as we know it today.

Last week the House passed a bill aimed at simplifying cable franchising rules and easing the rollout of new broadband services. All of this is indeed better for competition and consumer choice.

But the problem is that the House rejected an amendment that sought to insert necessary government oversight on Internet service providers. These regulations would ensure that data flows through the Net with a degree of neutrality, regardless of its origin or the power of its creator.

The amendment was defeated through vigorous lobbying by the telephone and cable giants that dominate the broadband market. These industries want the freedom to create "tiers" of service. Simply put, this would enable Internet service providers to carve out part of their digital pipeline for customers willing or able to pay a premium.

The A-list customers might be providing video and other services that take up a lot of digital space. By necessity, customers who pay for broadband connections might end up with the promised high speed only if they're using the premium customer's service. Other Web sites and services might load far more slowly.

To hang on to the highway analogy: While it might make sense to charge heavy users a surcharge, it is far less fair to let the deep pockets buy up the bandwith (the freeway, if you will) leaving others to move during off-hours.

The worst-case scenario depicts a Web in which only the big players reach their audiences effectively. Entrepreneurs who start small (remembering that mogul sites like eBay and Google were once startups) couldn't compete as well. The Internet that spawned the "blogosphere" could be diminished.

Opponents of the amendment say that free-market forces, not government, should determine whether pricing tiers will work. But the Web in which very few, large companies own most of the Net "roadways" is more like a utility than a free market.

The goal of keeping Net access open must prevail when the Senate soon takes up this important issue.