The specific recent court case involved the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, requiring Comcast to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic. Comcast claims ISPs should have the freedom to change download speeds for certain Web sites because of said site’s content — for example, file sharing Web sites, which often are used or abused to stream or download copyrighted material.

According to a National Public Radio article, the major ISPs say this decision will allow them to stop people who use a disproportionately high amount of bandwidth streaming and downloading content.

The basis of this decision lies in the telecommunications deregulation efforts that took place during the George W. Bush administration.

I typically am not one to side with the FCC, but this situation is an exception. The implications of this decision have the potential to dramatically alter how the Internet works in the future.

There are many ways for the FCC to continue fighting for tighter regulation. The first option would be to ask Congress to give the FCC authority to explicitly regulate the Internet. This method has been tried multiple times but never has successfully passed through the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. According to a Time.com article, five bills designed to empower the FCC were introduced and failed in 2006 alone.

Another option would be to reclassify the Internet as a broad-use platform, but this could again land an ISP and the FCC in court.

A challenge the FCC faces is public opinion and awareness. During the eve of congressional midterm elections and with unemployment still high, this issue is unlikely to be addressed by President Barack Obama.

An even bigger threat is the anti-government sentiment in the nation. Following so soon after what some perceive as a “government takeover of health care,” some Americans might fear FCC Net neutrality regulations could lead to a “government takeover of the Internet.”

With this issue and others, people should take a step back and examine what regulation has done for our country. We have various government agencies, like the Food and Drug Administration, which monitor the quality of food for our safety. Yes, these institutions are fallible, like all human institutions, but it is much better than having to worry about whether a box of Honey Nut Cheerios contains arsenic.

FCC regulations for net neutrality would be akin to anti-discrimination laws since, essentially, the FCC is trying to prevent ISPs from being able to favor certain sites over others.

As it stands now, a company such as Comcast could charge different rates for different packages of sites, which could hurt the development of new sites and segment the audience a site is trying to reach among financial lines.

The Internet often has been referred to as the information superhighway. As our world becomes less physical and more aspects of our personal, professional and financial lives become reliant on the Internet, it is important that it stay open for the widest amount of people. I’m not arguing for free Internet for all. For the most part, the current model is okay, except for the restrictions that brought this most recent case to court. The Internet is too vital of a resource to simply let it become divided by corporations who are more concerned with pleasing shareholders than citizens at large.

Justin Covington is a State News guest columnist and journalism senior. Reach him at coving27@msu.edu.