Background
Since it’s conception, the Internet has had one major, underlying principle. It, and the other forms of networks that came before and after it, were designed to be neutral. This means that every person has the equal right to connect to the network and use the service with unlimited, equal access to content. This means that while an Internet Service Provider (ISP) charges customers $30 per month for the ability to simply use the Internet, the overall experience is the same for every customer of that ISP. Granted, this is ignoring other factors such as private wireless networks (the quality and brand of router you use in your home or office is not related to the service you are paying your ISP for), the quality and location of specific servers (Google might be experiencing a down-time, but this is not related you the service you are paying for), and (in the case of cell phones) an individual’s physical proximity to a signal tower. Simply put: all other things being equal, Customer A and Customer B both pay the same amount per month to the same ISP or phone provider, and both Customer A and Customer B have equal access to the Internet or mobile network - meaning they experience the same speeds and can both easily access all content. This is what it means for a network to be Neutral.

Problem
Surprisingly, there is no actual concrete law to protect this neutrality, and because of this, the level playing field of broadband networks is in jeopardy. The big communications giants like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon Wireless are beginning to take advantage of the lack of protection and are taking actions to exploit the vulnerability of network neutrality. They want to be able to decide which websites run fast, slow or not at all. They want to be able to charge extra money for fast service and if web sites don’t pay extra then they’ll be doomed to a slow connection. They aim to tier the Internet, creating a “fast lane” for subcribers who pay extra, leaving those who don’t pay in the dust. In addition, these companies want to censor the content available to customers based on what’s “good” and what’s “bad” according to the company. If a customer tries to access a web site that is affiliated with a company that is either some sort of competitor with the customer’s ISP or the owners of the web site did not pay the customer’s ISP a hefty fee, the customer might find that they are unable to access the web site at all, or that it is running extremely slow compared to other sites. This would be because the ISP is prohibiting access to the site - because the ISP wants to control what we can access, and will charge site owners and customers extra money for access to extra content. Their greed and desire out-do competitors will soon be affecting us, the users.

Two Sides
As bad as this is, there actually are people who have opposing views to this issue. Critics of network neutrality argue that forcing a level playing field will “stifle innovation.” What they mean is that if you remove competition, then the advancement of network technology will be slowed, because you are removing incentive. They make the concept of keeping the Internet neutral sound like a form of communism. But they forget what the Internet is supposed to be about. Network neutrality allows small time blogs to compete with CNN for readers. It allows underground bands like Machinae Supremacy to reach the public and achieve a huge fanbase before reaching media fame. Because of Net Neutrality, a Google Search gives you a list of sites most relevant to your search query, not just the most well-funded. It lets all ideas and voices be heard, not just the ones who paid extra cash. Hands Off.org argues that the Internet is not something that should be regulated by Congress. But advocates of Net Neutrality aren’t necessarily asking for regulation. They simply want legislation to prevent discrimination by service providers so that the providers can’t regulate the Internet.