In a 3-2 vote, the FCC board just voted to end net neutrality.

While liberals are fuming over the end of yet another Obama-era policy, the end of net neutrality marks the beginning of a better internet.

Nearly two years later, Obama’s radical plan to “save the internet” has ended—and here’s what that really means for Americans.

With net neutrality, all internet providers and websites are forced to serve their customers information at the same rate of data, regardless of whether or not it would be helpful to have a faster connection.

The FCC act not only allows internet providers to offer internet at a competitive price but ensures the internet is no longer under government control.

Fox News reported:

The meaning and scope of net neutrality has been muddied over the past two years because information technology experts use the term very differently than political activists and many in the media do.

When information technology experts speak of “net neutrality,” they usually mean consumers should be able to access the legal content they want using the legal applications and devices they want. For example, Verizon’s network should not block data going to and from an AT&T customer’s computer.

However, under the Obama administration, liberal activists took a concept everyone agreed on and warped its definition to satisfy their goal to expand government’s power over the internet.

Obama’s net neutrality rule – officially called the Open Internet Order – prohibited a practice called “paid prioritization.” This is a kind of contractual agreement between a content provider like Netflix and a network owner like Verizon. Such agreements allow data to travel on less-congested networks when main routes are clogged up, and there are very good reasons why paid prioritization should be allowed.

When it comes to getting data to your computer or TV, different kinds of data have different requirements. The bits comprising an email don’t need to arrive at your computer all in the same order they were sent, but the bits in streaming video or audio do. Receiving the data bits in the wrong order or at the wrong time can cause video distortions, stutters and other playback problems.

Therefore, a content provider – especially companies like Netflix and YouTube – may wish to pay a little bit extra to a network company to guarantee better quality for its customers. Further, because YouTube, Netflix and other internet video streaming businesses consume lots of data compared to almost all others going online, it might make sense for Verizon and other ISPs to ask such businesses to pay a little more for their services.

By ending net neutrality, the Trump administration’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order gets government out of the business of telling ISPs how to run their networks. This puts consumers and private businesses back in charge of how the internet operates.

Supporters of net neutrality say that it protected everyday Americans from having their internet slowed down or their favorite websites blocked by a greedy, evil internet service provider. Others have said net neutrality made sure free speech wasn’t stifled by ISPs. These claims are nothing more than myths.

Market forces already protected consumers, because if an ISP started deliberately slowing down people’s favorite websites and streaming services, or putting an end to free speech, consumers would simply switch to a different ISP.

No internet service provider wants to be known for having “slow service” or being “anti-free-speech,” so there’s nothing for consumers to worry about.

In summary, the end of net neutrality marks the end of yet another overreaching government policy put into place by Obama.

With more competitive internet services, networks can offer consumers better prices at better speeds and rates.

Do you believe net neutrality ended for the better?

Leave us your thoughts in the comments section below.