Net Neutrality

One point lurking conspicuously under debates on net neutrality is whether or not the current system of the internet should be changed. Currently, all information on the internet is passed between computers with the same priority level, whether the information is a silly e-mail, or a scanned college diploma. Because of this, new sites just beginning potentially could turn into something largely known and popular in a very short time period, like YouTube. People who oppose net neutrality wish to assess priority levels of various transfers and give speed advantage to some.
Pro net-neutrality sites (ie. savetheinternet.com, Google, etc.) are in favor of keeping the system as it currently is. They feel that market power should play no part in how quickly information is transferred, because it would inhibit smaller companies from growing to their full potential.
Anti-net neutrality companies (ie. AT&T, Verizon, etc.) feel that certain programs and information should be given higher priority over others. They do not agree that the government should play such a large part in internet law, and think that giving special treatment to new technologies (such as online gaming) gives way to new innovation.
I personally think that the internet needs to remain the way it is, behaving neutrally towards all data. Corporations and large companies are taking over the rest of the world as it is; the way the internet currently works is so fair, and continues to be one of the few technological "places" one can be without supporting huge companies. The idea of large company having a monopoly over how quickly I, a non-gamer, receive the information I choose, really bothers me. I believe that to remain fair, net neutrality needs to remain in the system of the internet.