Author’s note: I originally wrote this article back in August. I’m reprinting it with a few changes because I think it’s still a good summary of the issue.

What is Net Neutrality? It’s very, very simple:

Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online.

That’s it and that’s all.

What could happen without Net Neutrality? I’m going to pose a few hypothetical scenarios, and I want you to think about whether any of them would be acceptable to you. These would all theoretically be possible without Net Neutrality.

1. FOXNews.com pays your ISP (Internet Service Provider) millions of dollars to speed up their video content. The ISP decides to get that extra bandwidth by taking it from what had previously been allocated to MSNBC. MSNBC’s content slows down so much it becomes unusable, while FOX’s content plays instantly.

2. Claiming it needs to maximize its efficiency, your ISP decides to increase bandwidth to well-trafficked sites like FOXNews or MSNBC and stop serving small independent sites like The UpTake. Neither FOX nor MSNBC start streaming the gubernatorial debates.

3. Verizon Wireless blocks access to Google Maps, telling their customers that they can get better results from Verizon’s own VZ Navigator — only $10 per month!

4. Your ISP decides to block certain “premium” websites, such as Facebook, YouTube, and of course MNpublius. It makes these websites available for an extra $20 per month over its “economy” Internet service.

5. Using Comcast Internet, the Direct TV and Dish TV sites are blocked so you can’t look into the cost of switching your TV service.

Think these sound ludicrous? Without Net Neutrality, they’re possible. If you have a problem with any of these situations, you should support Net Neutrality.

But what about the arguments against Net Neutrality? I’m glad you asked. Here are a few of the common ones, and why they’re problematic.

1. Net Neutrality would take away the ISPs’ incentive to build out their networks. 

This argument claims that ISPs wouldn’t be able to make a sufficient profit, and so they would stop building their networks. But it’s hard to understand how Net Neutrality could possibly stop ISPs from making all the money they want. Nobody is suggesting that Internet service be given away for free — they could charge whatever they want. All the Net Neutrality principle says is that Internet access can’t be “tiered” or “partial.” If you provide Internet access, you provide access to the whole Internet.

2. We don’t have the right to tell ISPs what to do with their own property.

This argument says that, because Net Neutrality would not allow ISPs to make the absolute maximum possible profits, we don’t have the right to impose this fairly simple mandate. But of course, we make regulations all the time in the interest of the public good that don’t allow for 100 percent maximization of profits. For instance, we are telling food providers “what to do” when we forbid them to stretch their money by using cheap, poisonous fillers in their products. Somehow, they still turn a profit just fine.

3. The free market will take care of it.

I wish this were true, but it’s just not. We have a few carriers, but those carriers don’t engage in much real competition. A great example of this is text messaging, which literally costs the carriers nothing. Given the popularity of texting, you would think carriers would be competing to offer better prices and increase their market share. Instead, rates have soared, and when on carrier increases its fee, they all do. The carriers aren’t competing, and given the high barriers to entry, we’re unlikely to see new alternatives.

4. The ISPs, not the government, should be the ones deciding how to configure their networks.

I agree completely, and nobody’s arguing otherwise at a high level. The ISPs are the ones responsible for how the network is built and how data moves through it. But there’s no legitimate technical reason a network administrator would need to allow video from FOX to play faster than video from MSNBC, or vice versa.

5. a. Net Neutrality is excessive regulation.

b. Net Neutrality is censorship.

c. Net Neutrality means forcing ISPs to give away free Internet.

Why are these all lumped together? Because they’re all lies. Net Neutrality is nothing but a single, basic principle:

Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online.

This is only excessive regulation if by “excessive” regulation, you mean any regulation whatsoever. As I’ve already discussed, that’s unreasonable. As for the others, I challenge anyone to explain how the Net Neutrality principle could mean either censorship or forcing ISPs to give away their services.

The Internet you’re using right now was built on Net Neutrality. It was only fairly recently that this principle even came into question. Now, it’s important that we reaffirm Net Neutrality, unless you’re really comfortable with the scenarios I described above.