One of the things I’m really passionate about is open access to information online. I love looking for information and following the trail until I find exactly what I’m looking for. It’s like an episode of Murder, She Wrote and MacGyver at the same time. And, open access to information online (without violating any security issues, of course) is exactly what made the Internet so great — it’s really just giant receptacle of nearly everything you could think of finding. Awkward family photos? Check. Gameplay videos from your favorite Atari games? You bet. Conspiracy theories? Too many to count (just check out my homeless friend, and former Capitol Hill neighbor, Peter Bis’s blog here.

And don’t forget the cat videos.

Regardless of what you think of the content itself, it’s important to note that what makes the Internet special is that it really is the great equalizer. The little guy has (almost) an equal chance to advocate for things when up against the big the big guy. Think about all the great grassroots campaigns that have succeeded because of the Internet. Of course, the variable here is the amount of resources each side can devote to it, but the point here is that the Internet, at least in this country, is the only real open forum left.

Corporations can’t control content on the Internet the way they can on every other media platform, so of course this makes them nervous. Imagine what life would be like if Comcast controlled access to Web content the way it controls TV content — oh, you want to download a file hosted on Verizon.net? You’ll have to wait 5 minutes for it or pay a $2.99 convenience fee. Your choice!

This is obviously a watered-down analogy of Net Neutrality, which is understandably a really messy idea when you consider how many stakeholders would be involved in “tiering” the Internet based on how much a person can pay for access. Comcast, for which I have very little sympathy in any capacity, is one of the key players trying to tier their Internet hosting service, based on how much people pay. Take into account a pay structure, as well as the traditional(ly ugly) telecomm competition between the ISPs, and you’ll have a gigantic, bloated mess of arbitrary wait times and slow download speeds because your provider wants to control what you have access to.

Well, if The Wall Street Journal and Mashable are right, the FCC is about to weigh in and put some common sense to paper. Ben Parr from Mashable sums it up:

“The new rules, expected to be announced Monday by Julius Genachowski, the FCC Chairman, will outline requirements for ISPs to treat all traffic on the Internet equally. This means that Comcast can’t decide that Google gets less bandwidth and Microsoft/Bing gets more for any reason (i.e. one pays for preferential treatment).” Read the rest of his post here.

If this is true, this is a big win for everyone who wants equal access to content. This also reinforces why people love the Internet so much — access to what they want to find, when they want to find it. Do you think, for a  second, that Comcast’s “On Demand” service would exist without an Internet culture? Absolutely not.

Outlawing net neutrality could have all sorts of implications. If you have a VUDU box (as I do) and want to stream “The Matrix” in HD to watch on your TV, could you? I doubt it, at least not with enough bandwidth to watch it in HD. “The Matrix” is a Warner Bros. movie, and Time Warner is a competitor, you see. There are all kinds of scary ideas to think about once your ISP has control over what you have access to. And don’t think Time Warner wouldn’t do something just as sketchy to Comcast customers, either.

Indeed, “They’re watching you, Neo.”

Opponents of net neutrality are a nefarious bunch and I absolutely support the FCC in its choice to uphold net neutrality. The last thing we need to do is pump more money into the telecomm industry and let them control what content we have access to (and when we want to access it).

So, if this is true, and the FCC is going to weigh in next week, THANK YOU. This is huge.