Earlier this week, the web was abuzz with criticism for Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai and his plan to roll back Title II of the Communications Act, effectively unravelling net neutrality in the foreseeable future. The spotlight came down hard on Pai when big companies like Amazon and Twitter joined the Battle for the Net during Wednesday’s online protests. Due to the collective efforts of Fight for the Future, the Freepress Action Fund, and Demand Progress, the day of action drew the attention of many and for a moment, net neutrality dominated the national conversation.

Despite the revocation of legislation that protects online consumer freedoms posing a major threat to the way we browse the web, the issue of net neutrality does not typically get the attention it deserves. On Wednesday, the Battle for the Net raised awareness around the very real impacts of an internet regulated by major cable companies: slower browsing speeds, limited streaming services, perpetual loading signs, and even total censorship of select content. But the conversation must continue well beyond this week -- or else Title II of the Communications Act will almost certainly be dismantled by the FCC, and soon.

On May 18th, Pai announced his plans to gut net neutrality and put power into the hands of companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast. He’s been on this path for a while -- back before he was even appointed FCC Chairman in January of this year. But since he’s taken office, he has reaffirmed his allegiance to cable companies by passing a resolution back in April that allows them to circumvent rules designed to protect consumers. Now he’s working to ensure they’ll have all the permission they need to charge higher fees for speed, and penalize customers who can’t pay up.

The FCC tried to put a positive spin on rolling out Pai’s corporate agenda; citing a number of small internet service providers that allegedly reached out to Pai in agreeance that Title II harms business for smaller ISPs. Last month, 41 ISPs did write to Pai, disputing his claims that they supported the revocation of Title II, even explicitly stating, “we are in full support of the current Open Internet Order and its underlying legal foundation under Title II of the Communications Act,” in the letter organized by EFF.

Despite the FCC’s claims, rolling back Title II would only put smaller ISPs at a greater disadvantage; revoking restrictions on limiting web access would allow ISP giants to reap the benefits of higher fees and continue expanding at a rate smaller competitors already can’t keep up with.

In most markets, if a customer isn’t happy with a service provided, there is enough competition to take one’s business elsewhere. But online, web service is dominated by several ISP supergiants. Many people living in the US don’t have a choice when it comes to internet service providers, as companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T have monopolized entire regions. To switch providers, many people living in the US would have to physically move to a different part of town and in some cases, even neighborhoods.

This is why legislation affecting internet service matters to everyone -- the market simply isn’t large enough for web customers to seek service elsewhere. If Title II of the Communications Act does end up being dismantled by the FCC, the only choices for the majority of web customers in America will be limited internet access, or no internet access.

If you think the FCC should protect net neutrality by preserving Title II of the Communications Act, you can sign this petition and send them a letter urging them to do so.