Most Americans have only one choice for truly high speed Internet: their local cable company. This is a political failure, and it is an embarrassment. America deserves competition and choice. And without Net Neutrality, this bad situation gets even worse. ISPs will now be able to manipulate our Internet experience by speeding up some services and slowing down others.

Net Neutrality is required to protect the future of the Internet. I'll show why with an analogy:

ISPs are a lot like power companies. They distribute electricity through a large network from power plants, through the grid, and to the consumer (commercial or individual). The consumer pays for whatever they use, and all electricity is treated the same.

In the 1920s, power companies started having issues because there was a proliferation of electrical appliances. The demand for power was ever increasing because of these new things, and their infrastructure was having trouble. If they thought to themselves, "We have to keep the lightbulbs on, so we'll charge more for people to run vacuums. That'll balance the demand.", that would not be the best solution. It would have stifled the development, innovation, and adoption of these new appliances. The better solution was to increase the amount of power that can be supplied by the network. This way, the country improved their quality of life and opened up new industries.

It's much the same today. We are at a crossroads. Internet providers are worried about the amount of data their infrastructure can distribute, so they are trying to gain the power to regulate 'the vacuums' like Netflix, so that 'the lightbulbs' like email can survive. What is needed is for the infrastructure to grow.

If you claim that market forces would encourage this expansion without Net Neutrality, you are wrong. The Internet distribution business IS NOT a free and ideal market. Google is attempting to become a competitor through Google Fiber, but building into new cities is an extreme and slow struggle, even for a company as innovative and influential as Google. The current ISPs have too much power and no motivation to increase the distribution capabilities of their network.

Net Neutrality is a solution to these issues, and without it, ISPs will prioritize Internet traffic that suits their interests, slowing down or even stopping others. That kills online innovation, promoting companies based on their alignment with other companies instead of the value they provide to users. On top of that, it kills the choice of consumers, giving that power to ISPs; it kills diversity, stifling small businesses that don't have the resources to appease the ISPs; and it kills quality by not encouraging the expansion of our infrastructure. If ISPs can speed up favored services and slow others, new businesses will no longer be able to rely on a level playing field.

Increasingly, the Internet is becoming an tool in our nation's economic engine. People use it to communicate, work remotely, hold meetings, educate, buy and sell products, advertise, and so much more. We also have the greatest Internet companies in the world. Google, Facebook, Amazon, and others are American companies. They are worldwide influences that export knowledge, services, and products, brining in money from all over the world. If we make it harder for internet companies to start up, we encourage the next big thing to start somewhere else. By allowing discrimination between data, we are saying to new startups, "America is not the place you want to innovate. We will not treat you fairly or give you an equal playing ground. You should go somewhere else if you have a great idea." Without Net Neutrality, the next Google will not be an American company.

On top of economic influence, the Internet is also a social and cultural influence, connecting people to each other and increasing quality of life. If ISPs can discriminate between data, they can effectively become censors. They can prevent people from seeing a page that they disagree with or that isn't in their interest. This is clearly a violation of our right to free speech protected in the Constitution.

ISPs are attempting to remove Title II designation so that they can create an unfair playing field that benefits them, while hurting individuals. They are motivated not by what's best for Americans, but what's best for their wallets. Title II is the strong, legally sound way to enforce Net Neutrality. Keep using it.