See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sure, I run one! The Verge produces a ton of videos every day, and we put them on Facebook, YouTube, and our own internal player, with the expectation that everyone will have equal access to them. Get rid of net neutrality rules, and some of our audience might get YouTube videos for free from their ISP, while Facebook hits their data cap. Other customers might have our internal player run slowly but YouTube in a fast lane because Google struck a deal. Our business would change dramatically if we had to factor in the costs users on every different ISP would pay to see our stuff.

And the worst case is that one of our competitors might pay for fast lane access that we can’t really afford and start to win users because our site loads artificially slowly. I’m a competitive person and I want to win, but I also love that The Verge has to earn our audience against terrific sites like Wired and CNET every day. I don’t want to win or lose just because someone paid Verizon. That’s just icky.

A lot of the websites that will be most affected by rolling back net neutrality don’t exist yet. Right now, someone is building the next YouTube, the next Twitter, or the next Uber. And it has amazing, transformative features that none of us have even thought of yet.

But imagine what will happen if big ISPs can throttle or block their content partners’ competitors. That will create a major hurdle for any new player. If ISPs have the power to push us away from new players’ services toward those of their corporate partners, then users have less power to decide which services will succeed.

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of websites that cater to an audience of Black, Latino, Arab and Muslim, queer and transgender, women and young people that may find themselves unable to pay enough to be heard. Online ethnic media and media targeting communities pushed to the margins of public debate have provided a needed respite from the scapegoating and stereotypes of mainstream cable news. Websites like Essence.com,Very Smart Brothers, Jack and Jill Politics, the Root and so many more, too many to name, might find themselves unable to reach their audiences. Their websites aren’t the only ones that will be affected. Many of the start up companies like Etsy, Task Rabbit and more may find themselves unable to compete against older and wealthier companies. If net neutrality is repealed, the next website unable to thrive may be yours.

First and foremost: take a few minutes right now to submit a comment to the FCC. EFF has created a simple page at DearFCC.org to help you do that. We’ll give you some example text and a few questions for you to answer, but what you submit is ultimately up to you. What’s most important is that the FCC hears from everyone.

A great next step is to write or call your members of Congress. Tell them to do everything they can to protect the 2015 Open Internet Order and oppose any effort in Congress to undermine it. https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-don-t-surrender-the-internet

After that, our next move depends a lot on what the FCC does.

The current net neutrality debate is an extension of the same net neutrality debate we’ve been having for years. The very short recent history of net neutrality looks something like this: In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (a government agency that has the authority to regulate communications, such as radio and telephone networks) passed rules preventing Internet service providers from discriminating against or blocking websites that refused to pay for access to end users. In 2014, in response to a lawsuit Verizon filed challenging these rules, a federal court held that the rules weren’t valid because FCC didn’t show that it had the authority to enact rules limiting what ISPs can do to particular Internet traffic. In 2015, after over a year of debate about what the FCC should do next, the FCC enacted even stronger rules than those it passed in 2010, relying on a different source of authority to overcome the legal problem with its 2010 rules. In 2016, a federal court upheld these new net neutrality rules. Today, under new leadership, the FCC wants to undo the rules it put in place in 2015 and basically get rid of net neutrality rules altogether, allowing ISPs to charge websites to communicate with ISP customers and block access to websites that don’t pay. So, in 2015, we were arguing about whether the FCC should put in place weak rules or strong rules (it ended up choosing strong rules), and today, we are arguing about whether the FCC should get rid of those strong rules and instead have basically no rules at all.

It’s the same policy issue, but the positions are reversed — instead of trying to enact rules that protect consumers, the FCC is trying to take those rules down. The rhetoric has changed a lot though: in 2015 most of the big ISPs argued that they should have the right to throttle traffic and charge for fast lanes, but this time around they’re all saying they believe in core net neutrality principles, just not how the FCC has implemented them under Title II.

Comcast and others have even suggested that what we really need is a new net neutrality law passed in Congress, which is very well-intentioned and completely naive because our current Congress can’t pass a bag of M&Ms, let alone a sweeping piece of internet regulation.

This change in tone is probably because most consumers really distrust their ISPs, and net neutrality rules are really popular. So the ISPs are all trying to thread the needle of saying they want to abide by the rules without actually having rules — FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has proposed that every ISP simply promise to uphold net neutrality principles in their terms of service agreements, for example.

It all strikes me as exceedingly silly, like something stoned college freshman would talk about late at night: how can we have laws without really having laws, man? It’s funny, but it’s not any way to make policy around something as important to our lives and economy as internet access.

What is going on today at the FCC is directly related to what happened in 2015. After nearly a year of public comment (with nearly 4 million comments filed) and deliberation, the FCC in 2015 adopted the strongest-ever net neutrality rules grounded in the strongest legal authority (Title II of the Communications Act of 1934). These rules prohibit Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from discriminating against or favoring any content, service or applications. A federal court in Washington, DC upheld these rules specifically because they were grounded in the strongest legal authority

The Trump FCC has started a proceeding to repeal the 2015 rules and reverse the determination that placed ISPs under Title II. Nobody is asking for these changes other than the ISPs themselves – Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Charter. In fact, a poll released yesterday showed that nearly 80% of Americans support the 2015 rules.

What is being threatened by the FCC’s current actions are the rules that the public fought so hard to obtain in 2015 – rules that are both popular and effective and under which ISPs continue to make huge profits and investments.

The issue is the same in that the underlying protections that all of us advocated for (that are now law) are under threat of being removed.

In 2015, the FCC set out to resolve two major issues. The first issue was what should network neutrality rules look like and what activities by ISPs will they cover. The second issue was what is the legal status of broadband companies since they have changed dramatically from the 90s when the Communications Act was originally passed (this is commonly referred to the Title I vs. Title II of the Communications Act issue). Title I of the Communications Act was originally designed for a time when your ISP was also your edge service provider (for those of us old enough to remember, think AOL/Prodigy times). Title II of the Communications Act applies to services that solely transit information (also referred to as common carriers), which back in the day was really just telephone service before broadband became what it is today. The final decision by the FCC was to declare broadband as Title II common carriers and to institute network neutrality rules for them based on their legal status.

Today, the new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has made it clear he does not think broadband service is a common carrier service. As a result, his plan opens the door to allow ISPs to block websites, throttle services, and outright discriminate between services all in the name of “innovation.” This time, the threat is coming from a federal agency whose original job is to protect the public interest and it is being done in concert with companies like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, who stand to gain the most from being freed of any obligation to treat Internet traffic neutrally.

A little legal background may be in order here. ISPs keep trying to argue that they should be seen as a “website” rather than what they really are, a telecommunications service. They want that because then they won’t have to abide by net neutrality rules since the federal courts have ruled that net neutrality only applies to telecommunications services. No one thinks ISPs are websites, yet even the current FCC is trying to argue that ISPs are websites so that they can help ISPs slash net neutrality rules.

In 2015, the last FCC under a different chairman did the right thing after we helped send 4 million comments to the FCC saying that we want the most legally defensible way to protect net neutrality. They then changed the way they classify broadband Internet from an “information service” (like a website or a television channel==obviously false) to a “telecommunications service” (like landline telephone==obviously true). To take away net neutrality, ISPs are back arguing that they are more like websites than telephone systems, and the new FCC Chairman is so closely tied to the industry that he thinks their argument makes sense. That’s how corrupt this whole debate has gotten in D.C.

So, yes, this is similar to what was at stake in 2015. ISPs like Comcast are still trying to get powers to throttle the Internet so they can charge special fees. We are now defending the only legally defensible rules guaranteeing net neutrality, which millions of Internet users fought for and won in 2015.

This question is terrific because it hits right at the heart of the problem, which is that nothing needs to be done to keep net neutrality rules in place. Most people really like net neutrality when you poll them about it — even the cable company lobbying group has released polling that shows that. So right now net neutrality is the law, and to undo it, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has to show “substantial proof” that the market for internet access has changed enough to justify a change — otherwise he’ll lose a court battle. So he’s spending millions of dollars trying to develop that proof, and he’ll spend millions more fighting the inevitable lawsuit. All to change a law most people like!

Really all the government has to do to protect net neutrality is leave well enough alone. Which, you might note, is generally a conservative policy strategy.

As for why’d you want to keep net neutrality rules in place instead of spending a bunch of money and time in court to change them, well, there are a few reasons: first, it’s better for everyone if rules and regulations stay the same over time, so companies can plan and innovate around them. Second, I do think it’s important that we think about internet access as a utility to which all Americans need access, which is an important conceptual part of the current net neutrality framework. The digital divide is very real: there are real kids in America today who can’t get access to educational materials because of strict data caps and real people who can’t gain new skills or apply for new kinds of jobs because they don’t have broadband access.

Since I write about consumer tech products, I think the most important reason to keep net neutrality laws on the books is that they prevents internet service providers from screwing with the apps and services that we all rely on every day.

I just wrote a whole essay and video about this, but the main thing is that over half of Americans only have one choice of broadband provider, and 89 percent of Americans only have two choices. That lack of competition means ISPs have a lot of incentives and wiggle room to screw you over, because you can’t run to a competitor. Net neutrality rules recognize that lack of competition and make it illegal to mess with your connection.

The internet is one of the few level playing grounds left in the United States. It let startups like Netflix and Amazon compete with Blockbuster and Walmart and become giants all on their own. Take away net neutrality, and the only companies that will survive will be the ones that can afford the inevitable taxes the ISPs will throw up — taxes they’ve already tried to throw up in various shady ways.

This day of action is symbolically necessary because the FCC majority has stated their intent to get rid of net neutrality as we know it.

In 2015, the FCC adopted strong net neutrality rules aimed at putting you in the driver’s seat when it comes to choosing what legal content to access online. Not your broadband provider – you. We did this by using Title II of the Communications Act, the only authority that courts have said is sufficient to protect net neutrality, to adopt rules prohibiting blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of internet content. Let me say that again in simpler terms: The court upheld the FCC’s net neutrality rules. We are currently operating under the strongest legal framework that will ensure and preserve a fast, fair and open Internet.

Now the new FCC majority wants to get rid of Title II authority for broadband, which means getting rid of net neutrality rules and the only source of authority that the courts have found to be sufficient and legally sustainable. We need to remind them of what the court ruled. We need to make them think twice about going forward with a plan that the court has twice ruled against. So file your comment, call your federal Representative and Senators and tell them what you think and remind them of what the court has upheld. While you may be one voice, together we are a powerful chorus.

Net neutrality has been one of the guiding principles of the Internet since it was created. It’s what makes it possible for startups to challenge established players, and for disruptive technologies to change how we pay for things, communicate with each other, share stuff, etc. Without net neutrality, the Internet would be more centralized and far less dynamic. Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon have the technical means to interfere with this whole dynamic by slowing down or blocking websites and charging small players special fees to compete with big players. They realize how valuable it is to have an open, fair playing field on the Internet and they want to use their gatekeeper position to make more money. If this happens, cable companies would get to choose what you can see and do on online, and the Internet will start to feel more like cable television.