Currently, Internet users have the ability to roam and create the vast array of websites available through their computers and phones.

Unfortunately, recent pushes from Internet providers have led to a shaky future for net neutrality. Net neutrality is the principle stating Internet providers do not and should not have any stake in the information being passed through their wires.

In other words, the speed and access at which users can access a certain website should not be faster or slower than access to another website.

These providers wish to charge website owners fees in order to access their “fast lanes,” which in actuality would probably be a normal Internet speed, and they would just slow access to other websites.

The fate of the Internet and net neutrality is left up to the hands of the Federal Communications Commission who will be voting on a proposal to reinstate rules that would protect net neutrality Feb. 26 after the proposal is distributed Feb. 5.

There is a lot of hope for this proposal to pass especially with the public and official support for it.

The FCC chairman Tom Wheeler is in support of the proposal in hopes that it will create a middle ground for President Barack Obama’s wishes to return to net neutrality and the commissions desire to regulate Internet distribution restrictions.

There is overwhelming support for net neutrality, and hopefully this proposal will pass smoothly.

Otherwise, I expect the Internet will become a very unfriendly and corporatized ecosystem with only major websites like YouTube and Facebook finding a way to pay for the “fast lanes.”

Joe Shmoe’s blog on what cereal he is eating this morning will be slowed and surely see dips in traffic to the site because he would not be able to pay for the premium services.

While these kinds of sites have questionable content, they should still be given the same opportunities bigger websites have.

Jarad Jarmon is a senior journalism major. He can be reached at 581-2812 or [email protected].