Net neutrality is one of those phrases many of us have never heard, and many of us have no idea what it means. However, we must. Net neutrality is important, and its implications may be far-reaching. It is likely it will affect the 2016 presidential election. If you are still unconvinced, consider the fact it may influence your ability to spend hours on YouTube or stream Netflix on a rainy day, among other things like freedom of speech for Americans. 

Let’s start with some background. Net neutrality — a concept President Barack Obama is for — is an idea that includes Internet providers treating all internet traffic equally. As the President’s website puts it, “an entrepreneur’s fledgling company should have the same chance to succeed as established corporations, and that access to a high school student’s blog shouldn’t be unfairly slowed down to make way for advertisers with more money.” 

There are big implications for the Internet in the midst of the conversation on net neutrality. It has national political implications in that Big Technology has a great deal of money to give to its candidates. They were some of President Obama’s biggest funders in 2008. Money impacts elections. It impacts the flow of information (regardless of whether it is correct or incorrect) and has the power to place its respective propaganda from either side of the aisle in front of the American people. Note the similarities money in this capacity has with the Internet itself. 

We need net neutrality because it will allow for open business competition. It will give startups the chance to effectively pull themselves up by their bootstraps and provide an arena for open and efficient business competition. Without net neutrality regulations in some shape, it is probable big companies who can afford faster bandwidth will drown out the small startup companies that cannot afford the same access. 

Part of the debate at this standpoint is our capitalistic worldview that would state  big companies can afford more traffic, so let them buy it. But this very thinking would annul the important American ideal of everyone having a fair chance and being able to get by on their own merit and hard work. This makes net neutrality a very grey topic. Tim Wu, the Columbia University law professor who coined the term net neutrality, acknowledges the concept is finicky. How much regulation stifles the industry? How much stifles the proverbial little guy?

Within the past three weeks, the Federal Communications Commission has proposed a net neutrality draft that attempts to answer this question. Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the FCC, has really staked his career on their answer to it. Wheeler and the FCC’s new regulations show America net neutrality is very important to them. Wheeler is chasing a full-bodied, strong net neutrality concept. In an interview with The Washington Post, Wu chimed in on the proposal, saying, “net neutrality has proven itself over the last 15 years to be pretty good for everyone involved. Obviously, consumers have gotten a lot of new stuff, and it’s been good for the American economy and business growing on the Internet.”

It seems to me the case is strong for net neutrality legislation. It remains to be seen how well strict net neutrality regulations will work, but perhaps it is best to start out strong. Net neutrality keeps everyone on the same playing field and allows products to speak for themselves without any upper handedness on the part of big companies. It will be incredibly interesting to see if this proposal can gain momentum and, if so, if it will usher in an era of continued success for Internet business.