In April 2017, Ajit Pai, the current chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), announced his plans to reverse the 2015 net neutrality order.

Although the announcement was met with dissent and a public outcry by thousands of businesses, political leaders and internet pioneers, the FCC proceeded to repeal net neutrality.

The government should consider re-establishing net neutrality in order to protect consumers from greedy companies that may seek to exploit the internet.

Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data on the internet equally. ISPs should not be allowed to deliberately slow down or block a person’s access to an internet service.

Opponents of the repeal claim there are significant drawbacks. They believe the repeal will allow ISPs to provide faster internet service to those who pay more, creating a prioritized “fast lane.” These “fast lanes” can eliminate smaller companies that don’t have the money or influence to gain faster internet speeds to compete against larger companies.

Discord, for example, is an online video chat app for gamers. Jason Citron, CEO of Discord, says that this application relies on net neutrality to keep internet traffic equal among all companies. Net neutrality levels the playing field for smaller businesses like Discord that compete against larger companies.

Theoretically, without net neutrality in place, even if Discord provided superior services for consumers, bigger companies could still overtake it by partnering with ISPs and gaining access to a “fast lane.”

Thus, instead of innovating or creating even better products to compete against such a company, competitors could merely tap into their financial resources in order to stifle competition.

Not only is this manipulation abusive, but it would consistently allow large companies, like AT&T and Time Warner Cable, to dominate the market. They already have access to unrivaled resources, which often lead to prominent advertisements and the buying out of competition.

These current practices, coupled with prioritized internet service, could solidify the monopolization of many industries. The repeal eliminates competition for larger companies and reduces the already limited chances for smaller companies to compete on the internet.

Proponents of net neutrality argue that paid prioritization from ISPs will require consumers to pay more for a better internet experience. Intentionally throttling internet access or offering preferential treatment is a selfish cash grab. Only those who can afford to pay up will reap maximum benefits from the service, while those who don’t pay will continually be edged out. With the repeal, more people will end up unable to access the internet simply because they can’t afford it along with other financial obligations.

The FCC attempts to address these concerns by requiring that companies be “transparent about their business practices.” On principle, if the public is informed, then they will patronize companies they believe are ethical.

Although it’s remarkable that the FCC attempted to address these concerns, businesses likely will refuse to disclose company information to the public, which includes any and all competing businesses. In addition, it is simply not enough to tell businesses to be transparent. Such a term is very vague, and companies can exploit that weakness.

The FCC may have reasonable claims against net neutrality. However, removing net neutrality entirely should not be the solution. The repeal does more harm than good by creating an exploitable opportunity.

Amery Lei Mamuad is a senior at Moanalua High School.