Despite the distractions caused by recent scandals and the ongoing drama of U.S. politics at the moment, net neutrality is still at the center of much debate. Some efforts to remove it have even moved forward in Congress, much to the chagrin of supporters and to the benefit of internet service providers (ISPs). The FCC has recently considered killing net neutrality, bringing the issue to the forefront of interested parties’ radars.
If you’re wondering what net neutrality is, to summarize, it is a series of laws and guidelines that have been adopted by most Western governments to ensure all content and data are treated the same by ISPs and government organizations. It is intended to prevent discrimination of the user or host based on political views or for potential financial gains. Some of the things it prohibits, for example, are:
• An ISP “fast lane” allowing ISPs to charge websites and online services for improved bandwidth or priority over other services.
• A government or ISP ability to throttle (make loading times impossibly slow) political content of one view or another.
• Discrimination against a particular IP address or user to leverage higher rates or prohibit access to certain content.
Net neutrality, for most people, equates to keeping the internet an egalitarian arena where websites can easily and freely rise through the ranks. Proponents argue it keeps internet standards high and fosters free speech for people around the world. Without it, they worry governments and corporations will control the flow of information more strictly to keep people in the dark.