When American’s log on to the Internet they take for granted the vast expanses of the online world readily and equally available to their every whimsical desire. Whether they log on to watch the latest Antoine Dodson remix, to follow the day’s current events, balance their bank accounts or to sneak a peak at the latest celebrity nip-slip, they expect to be able to do it all with equal ease.

This reasonable expectation is grounded in a long-standing unspoken industry rule that the Internet should be content neutral; essentially meaning Youporn.com is allowed the same broadband access from Internet Service Providers as the Huffington Post.

But being able to load your porn and news at the same rate is not a forgone fact of online-life. Neither is being able to choose between two sites offering similar content.

This month the Federal Communications Commission is slated to take up the issue of net neutrality – a topic as contentious as it is essential to the trajectory of the web-based world we live in.

Under current law, ISPs such as Comcast and AT&T would be well within their right to give certain websites preferential broadband access – allowing certain sites to load faster than others – or even to block certain sites altogether.

That an ISP could effectively make Fox News easier to access online than the Washington Post is frankly equally as unsettling as unwittingly witnessing 2 Girls 1 Cup.

We have already seen tendency to do just this. As the European Union adopted a policy to not institutionalize net neutrality earlier this year, Murdoch News Corp. made moves to purchase a controlling share of the European telecommunications company BSkyB.

Doing so would allow the media giant to control the flow of Internet users to its own content by providing preferential broadband access to sites of companies it controls. This is an obvious threat to media plurality that will persist without enforced net neutrality.

The ubiquity of the Internet in this modern age is undeniable. Supplanting every technological paradigm that came before it, the Internet has come to define the very structure of global society. Connecting distant markets, people and cultures, nothing is more integral to the functions of the contemporary world.

Cementing the principle that ISPs must allot equal broadband access to users would ensure the Web remains firmly in the grasp of the general public.

This is far from a cut and dry issue. Telecom giants who currently control access fear institutionalizing the long-standing industry norm of net neutrality will inhibit their ability to garner investments and continue development to satisfy the world’s growing reliance on Web-based technology.

They argue experimenting with variable business models – such as giving more broadband to those willing to pay for it – is a free-market principle that should not be denied.

Free market advocates deplore the government intervention that would be required to ensure neutrality. Along with big government opponents, they argue this type of intervention would be an affront to the innovative forces of capitalism and the rational self-interest of the general public.

These are enticing arguments that deserve due attention. But it must be recognized that there are forces other than the government threatening free enterprise and an open marketplace in America.

Corporations have grown to a size where their influence on politics and society is just as pronounced as the government itself. Recognizing their rightful place in American society and the valuable innovation they provide, a distinction must be made when it comes to the Internet.

Unlike products that are competitively exchanged in an open economy, access to the Internet should not be a free-market commodity. The flow of information across networks is as ubiquitous and essential to modern life as anything.

To control the flow of information would plainly inhibit the inherent rights by which America defines itself. For better or worse, Internet access is an undeniable right essential to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness in today’s day and age. Inhibiting the Internet in this way would also constrain society’s most organic mode of cultural expression.

With the rise of massively conglomerated multimedia corporations, America’s cultural memes have lost their authenticity. From the songs heard over the radio to Hollywood icons, media conglomerates have come to dictate America’s cultural expression more than American’s themselves. Net neutrality is absolutely essential to human autonomy and cannot be compromised at any expense.

Legislators should resist the influence of lobbying powers and corporate interest and move to ensure the Internet remains a neutral platform, parried of undue control and solidified as an unequivocal public good.

Kyle Mianulli ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in journalism, philosophy and political science.