In the absolute worst-case scenario , we could be looking at a sponsored Internet in the future, whe

Tech More: Net Neutrality EXPLAINED: 'Net Neutrality' For Dummies, How It Affects You, And Why It Might Cost You More
"Net neutrality" prevents Internet providers like Verizon and Comcast from dictating the kinds of content you're able to access online. Instead, Internet affiliated to providers have to treat all traffic sources equally. Net neutrality is enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC.
For example, Comcast would probably like to promote NBC's content over ABC's to its Internet subscribers. That's because Comcast affiliated to and NBC are affiliated.  But net neutrality prevents Comcast from being able to discriminate, and it must display affiliated to both NBC's and ABC's content evenly as a result. That means no slower load time for ABC, and definitely no blocking of ABC altogether. 
In short, net neutrality creates an even playing field among content providers — both large and small — to the web. And it's great for consumers because they can access everything they want online for no extra charge.
Some big Internet providers like Verizon don't like the idea of net neutrality. They feel they should be able to pick and choose what people see online and charge content affiliated to providers accordingly. They feel net neutrality chokes their revenue potential.
Imagine affiliated to if Verizon has tiers of Internet access. The highest paying customers could access everything on the web. The lowest paying customers could access only the information Verizon chooses to promote. Verizon could even charge web publishers like NBC and ABC to display their content over competitors. affiliated to
Think of it like Google ads. When you type in a search on Google, the top links are all from advertisers who pay Google to put their messages up top. Getting rid of net neutrality means Verizon affiliated to or Comcast affiliated to could similarly choose which content to promote based on their own self-interests.
In 2002, the FCC decided  Internet access providers should be regulated differently than phone companies. Phone companies affiliated to have been regulated by the FCC for the past 80 years to keep them from favoring certain conversations or "discriminating when selling services," Harvard professor Susan Crawford tells Re/Code.  
Phone companies are telecommunications services, affiliated to but the FCC viewed Internet providers as information services. Because the FCC deemed the two types of companies to be fundamentally affiliated to different, the FCC decided to not regulate Internet providers at all.
Recently, however, the FCC became concerned that a few Internet providers have grown too powerful. For example, in 2007, Comcast got in trouble for blocking BitTorrent's access to its network. The FCC didn't want the Verizons and Comcasts of the world to become affiliated to the gatekeepers of the web.
So in 2010, the FCC created somet hing called affiliated to Open Internet Rules which enforced three things: Transparency. Internet access providers had to start disclosing how they were managing their networks. No blocking . Internet access providers couldn't block access to legal content or applications. No discrimination. Essentially, net neutrality. Internet access providers couldn't favor one traffic source over another.
Verizon challenged the Open Internet Rules because they contradicted the FCC's 2002 decision not to regulate Internet service providers. It said, by enforcing Open Internet Rules, the FCC was trying to regulate companies like Verizon. The court agreed, saying , "even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates."
They could. Getting rid of net neutrality would allow the Verizons affiliated to and Comcasts to charge affiliated to content providers affiliated to who want their stuff promoted. The additional revenue stream might mean free data plans for consumers. Never paying for a data plan again sounds pretty nice.
It could. Consumers might lose control of the Internet; Verizon affiliated to and Comcast could be the masters who dictate exactly what we're able to view online. affiliated to There's also a risk for small businesses. If they can't afford to pay Internet providers to promote their content, they might go under.
In the absolute worst-case scenario , we could be looking at a sponsored Internet in the future, where the only things Verizon affiliated to or Comcast subscribers see is the information those providers want them to see.
That affiliated to means small businesses, who can't afford to pay providers like Verizon or Comcast to promote their content, might die, and only larger companies who can afford to pay will have their content spread across the web.
"I n all likelihood the Internet will gradually move from being a one-size-fits-all service to one where users or content companies can — or have to — pay more for better affiliated to service or higher volumes of traffic," The Wall Street Journal writes.
Comments on this post are now closed.
Industry Accounting Airlines/Aviation Alternative Dispute Resolution affiliated to A