A furious controversy is boiling away among lobbyists and bloggers over pending congressional bills to guarantee a level playing field for the Internet.

Sounds eminently fair and simple enough, doesn’t it? But the blasts pro and con have made the issue needlessly complex. For example, both sides are saying, “Hands off the Internet.” Both sides claim that they are saving the Internet.

The issue is over an idea called “net neutrality.” A better term would be “Internet democracy.” The idea is that the information superhighway, which started with such promise and now involves the entire country in commerce, public discourse and entertainment, must remain open to all users, large and small, without any discrimination as to charges or content or speed of service.

The telecommunications giant AT&T, whose CEO Edward Whitacre fought net neutrality and called it “nuts,” has now given in as a condition for its merger with BellSouth. AT&T promised that for 30 months it will not provide or sell “any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet” transmitted over its systems based on its “source, ownership or destination.”

That temporary concession could set a framework for Internet democracy that would benefit not only such huge users as Google and eBay but also small businesses like Maine wreath makers and crafters, protecting them against future discrimination as they market products and services online. It also would keep open the way for new startups to flourish, as YouTube and MySpace have zoomed out of nowhere.

Several members of Congress, including Sen. Olympia Snowe and Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, plan to introduce bills to make these principles permanent, mandatory and universal. Their similar bill, for the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, was defeated last summer by a strong push by Republican leaders. The idea has gained impetus from the November elections and the AT&T concession. Individuals and groups are backing it, ranging from the liberal MoveOn.org to the conservative Gun Owners of America.

The dispute goes on, and the outcome is far from certain. The Wall Street Journal says that what it calls regulation and price control would deprive broadband providers of a fair return on their investment and “shake down one corporate player for the benefit of another.”

The New York Times says that the fast-lane and slow-lane system sought by cable and telephone companies, with hefty fees getting faster service, would “destroy the democratic quality of the Internet.”

No matter how the dispute comes out, broadband service in the United States lags behind many other countries. The DSL service used by many Americans skips most rural communities and relies on the old copper-wire network. A universal fiber-optic network, promised by the telecommunications companies in return for hugely profitable deregulation, is yet to take shape.

In Maine and elsewhere, most users make do with relatively sluggish DSL or do without broadband entirely and rely on even more sluggish dial-up.