How much of the Internet would you like to purchase? This question speaks to a bleak alternate reality in which you, as a user of the Internet, are expected to pay your service provider a premium for access to different types of websites. While a basic package might include Wikipedia, The New York Times, and Ebay, a provider might charge extra for visits to CNN or Hulu, for instance. Without net neutrality—the principle that Internet providers should treat all forms of Web traffic equally—such an example could easily become reality. Recently, in a case regarding whether Comcast had the right to limit its user’s bandwidth usage, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal Communications Commission could not stop Comcast from regulating its network as such.

The decision ostensibly and reasonably gives Comcast the ability to efficiently run its network by limiting the bandwidth of users who are consuming large amounts due to their file-sharing habits—but the court’s language could prove far more overreaching. The ruling is vague enough that it may prohibit the FCC from taking future actions as an interloper in the Internet Service Provider-user interaction. Because of this, the FCC has potentially lost the power to stop ISP’s like Comcast from discriminating against its customers by charging different prices for accessing different content.

This opportunity for discrimination is antithetical to both the theory and principles undergirding the Internet, which represents decentralized democracy in the abstract. It operates on principles of freedom and openness, mandating that all content on the Internet must be treated as equal and should be equally accessible to all users.

By issuing a ruling that weakens the FCC’s power to enforce net neutrality, the court has made feasible a scenario in which ISPs like Comcast can charge users different prices for accessing different content. Thus, users who pay for access to the Internet would be subject to the vagaries of the market—Comcast could choose to charge customers more for access to sites that competitors own, like Time Warner’s CNN.com, while charging less for sites in which it holds a stake, like Hulu.com.

It is this startling potential for control over Internet content that makes the FCC ruling so dangerous. Granted, companies like Comcast should certainly have the ability to maintain efficiency on their networks, and because multiple ISPs provide Internet, this ruling may not necessarily lead to higher prices across the board. However, equal access to all electronic content should be considered a right in this new age of connectivity—not a privilege gained by paying additional money for select content.

Similarly, the ability of online content producers to reach an audience should not be contingent upon the interests of ISPs. If a blogger hosts her blog on a domain that is not the property of an ISP like Comcast, she should not fear that traffic to her website will be crippled by discriminatory treatment of information.

The Internet is a repository of democratically generated information that should be accessible to everyone, and determining access to that wealth should not lie within the purview of an ISP. This content must be equally available—not held hostage by a corporation.