In modern context, net neutrality is a requirement of Internet Service Providers (ISP), so they cannot provide different services for any particular data, website, domain or company, and can not limit, throttle or block any data from a user. The change last December was not a total repeal of net neutrality. Instead, it changed hands. Previously, net neutrality was labeled a public utility, but now it is labeled as an information service. The main concern with this change in policy is that ISPs will start charging customers for individual website access.

Previously, net neutrality only regulates broadband access by three standards: no blocking, no throttling and no paid promotions. This means that ISPs can not block any website or domain from being accessed, ISPs can not limit data speeds to anyone for any reason and ISPs can not accept money in order to prioritize or advertise. Taking away these regulations could prove beneficial for the consumer.

Blocking domains and websites can be beneficial, but it would be extremely difficult to pick out what you want to block. For example, the government could block domains that they know harbour illegal activity from certain access points. That being said, this would take an immense amount of resources to weed out exactly what you want to block, and it does not take into consideration methods of hiding your identity.

Throttling data actually makes a lot of sense when you consider who is using it and what the application is. Imagine you had to provide data to two consumers: one is a local hospital, and the other is a kid watching a movie. Theoretically you would want to throttle the kid’s data speed to ensure the hospital has immediate access to online databases that could save someone’s life. That would mean that the hospital would have to pay more for internet, but the privatized industry could handle the costs.

The third rule is the most controversial because it deals with the idea that a company could buy out fast lanes or paid promotions to elevate their domain over competitors. For example, Walmart could always be the first thing to appear in search results when shopping, even if a different, smaller company has a more relevant item or a better price. They could do this because they have the money to buy priority. Although this may appear to be a downside, it may prove to be beneficial. The Treasury of the United States recently created a program designed to promote small business development. The program provide subsidies and loans for creditworthy startups that would otherwise crumble underneath near-monopolies like Amazon. If this law is extended to ISPs, it could help small businesses even more by promoting and prioritizing them above super-stores.

All of these factors are possibilities of what could happen with upcoming legislation regarding net neutrality. While it has been highly controversial, this repeal could prove to be beneficial on many fronts.