To let Internet service providers and wireless carriers tamper with the DNA of the Web ? an open architecture with virtually no barriers to entry ? is to endanger the growth of lawful mobile advertising, marketing, media and commerce.

It would be a total shame if those who control access to the Internet don't treat Web traffic equally, especially given that, at some point in the next decade, more consumers nationwide will go online through their smartphone than via their computer. This is an issue that very much affects the mobile ecosystem. It is no time for timidity or silence.

The Federal Communications Commission, under its new chairman Julius Genachowski, is not going to let the Internet service providers get away with charging laisser-faire pricing for delivering wired and wireless Web content and services citing network bandwidth issues.

As Mr. Genachowski said in his address last week to The Brookings Institution in Washington, ?This is not about government regulation of the Internet. It?s about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet. We will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity, and entrepreneurial activity.  

?This is not about protecting the Internet against imaginary dangers. We?re seeing the breaks and cracks emerge, and they threaten to change the Internet?s fundamental architecture of openness. This would shrink opportunities for innovators, content creators, and small businesses around the country, and limit the full and free expression the Internet promises. This is about preserving and maintaining something profoundly successful and ensuring that it?s not distorted or undermined. If we wait too long to preserve a free and open Internet, it will be too late.

?Some will seek to invoke innovation and investment as reasons not to adopt open Internet rules. But history?s lesson is clear: Ensuring a robust and open Internet is the best thing we can do to promote investment and innovation. And while there are some who see every policy decision as either pro-business or pro-consumer, I reject that approach; it?s not the right way to see technology?s role in America.?

Indeed, CTIA: The Wireless Association?s response was predictable.

?As we have said before, we are concerned about the unintended consequences Internet regulation would have on consumers considering that competition within the industry has spurred innovation, investment, and growth for the U.S. economy,? said Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs at the CTIA, Washington, in a prepared statement. 

Fairness at starting gate
This publication does not support government intervention in a free-market economy. However, exceptions have to be made when the actions of a few affect the many.

In this case, for carriers and ISPs to want to charge marketers for the level of content they deliver over the Internet is to basically alter the very nature of the channel. The Internet is what it is, and any changes to its character must be staunchly opposed.

Predictably, there has been marked silence on the open Internet issue from most mobile marketers. It?s understandable. No one wants to risk the wrath of the four carriers that hold the fate of mobile marketing, media and commerce in their hands: Verizon Wireless, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint.

Yet marketers, publishers, agencies and other stakeholders need to speak up, because ultimately it is their ability to communicate without fear of discrimination to their customers and prospects that will be affected if Internet access providers decide what gets sent through their pipes or airwaves.

Let?s imagine some scenarios, many of which will likely become reality.

Will television networks and video content providers be willing to pay more for the delivery of their broadcasts and streaming media to mobile phones? After all, carriers can claim ? and rightly so ? that such content takes up much more bandwidth than other data sent to mobile subscribers.

What about retailers who want mobile consumers to access their library of do-it-yourself videos from the mobile site? Those videos can easily run from three minutes to 30. If Internet access providers have their way, those videos will not only cost more to send, but also to receive.

And be sure of this: the consumer will not pay anything beyond the mobile phone bill unless the value is clearly demonstrated and the barriers to access content, commerce or services are low.

What about rich media advertising appearing on publisher sites? With more sophisticated handsets on the market, expect more TV-like ads to make the case for products and services. How will a la carte pricing affect delivery of such ads?

This is not just a case for Google?s YouTube or Amazon or ESPN or Microsoft, but for all marketers who use the wired and wireless Web to reach out to customers and prospects.

Case for openness closed
Case after case can be made for keeping the Internet open. The issue wouldn?t be serious for mobile were it not for the lack of competition. Yes, the lack of competition. Four large carriers and a handful of Internet service providers mostly control Internet access to a nation of 305 million consumers.

Marketers shouldn?t buy the fig leaf of innovation, either.

Take the case of SMS, where the carrier controls the environment. There are 900,000 common short codes available for lease. How many have been leased out so far? About 3,000.

Are the carriers aware how their inaction in the opted-in commercial SMS space has stymied growth and innovation? Are they aware how many CRM programs have come unstuck because of the tedious short code provisioning process? Are they aware of SMS? value in loyalty programs and in-store drives?  Are they serious about the use of SMS for opted-in mobile marketing?

Moreover, if the CTIA is so keen on innovation, it should ensure that its members should work together to provide a Web browser that offers a uniform mobile Web experience regardless of device. Then fix mobile email rendition. Start from there and then let the market innovate.

Indeed, it took a computer company to become the world?s largest wired and mobile music seller and the No. 1 applications store. It easily could have been a carrier, but no ? it took an Apple to achieve such heights.

Imagine if Apple?s applications and music had to submit to a la carte pricing based on file size. The iTunes App Store would never have been born and the iPhone would have lost its charm.

On this issue of open Internet, we are with the FCC for a level-playing field. Internet access providers and carrier networks cannot have the veto over lawful content, advertising, marketing and commerce.