President Trump's FCC chairman Ajit Pai proposed ending net neutrality.

Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers can't discriminate among websites (or apps).

Ending the rule would allow ISPs like Verizon and Comcast to charge more money to use different websites.

The vote is scheduled for Thursday, December 14.

There's not much we can do.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Ajit Pai proposed a plan that could change the internet as we know it.

The plan would eliminate the right to equal access to the internet, a principle called net neutrality.

It would allow huge telecom companies to charge internet users more money to visit certain websites or use certain apps.

Pai's proposal needs to be approved by the FCC's five commissioners, where it is expected to pass along partisan lines on Thursday, December 14.

The three Republican commissioners — Pai, Brendan Carr, and Michael O'Rielly — could change the internet forever.

Here's what you need to know.

The rule would end the principle of net neutrality.

Put simply, net neutrality is a policy that doesn't allow internet service providers (ISPs) to discriminate between internet traffic among different websites.

It prevents web providers from blocking certain websites, and from changing how quickly those sites will load on your computer.

Ending net neutrality would be a major victory for ISPs like Verizon, Time Warner Cable, Comcast, AT&T, Altice, and Charter.

Without it, those companies could theoretically make some websites load faster than others, or charge websites or users more money to access different sites.

Ajit Pai, Chairman of the FCC, testifying in the Senate in June. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein

Net neutrality is broadly popular in the United States. According to a recent poll by Mozilla and Ipsos, 76% of Americans broadly support it, including 81% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans.

The FCC is a government agency that regulates interstate communication like television, radio, and the internet. Prior to becoming a commissioner, Pai was a lawyer for Verizon, one of the companies he now regulates.

Under the proposed rule, some sites could load more slowly at the discretion of your ISP — if at all.

For example, AT&T could slow down internet traffic for videos and ask Netflix — or Netflix users — to pay more money if they want the service to run at usable speeds.

Such a scenario isn't so unlikely. AT&T is planning to take over Time Warner, which would mean that AT&T would own HBO (the US Justice Department is suing to stop the deal on apparent antitrust grounds). Throttling loading speeds for Netflix, for example, would benefit HBO Go, which competes with Netflix as a streaming service. That's just one possibility in a world without net neutrality.

Nothing will really change until internet companies take action.

The new FCC rule ending net neutrality won't immediately jack up the prices of your internet or make sites slower.

It just gives internet service providers permission to do that.

A net neutrality protest against Ajit Pai in May. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

On a technical level, the main difference in Pai's proposal is that broadband internet access would be classified under Title I of the Communications Act instead of Title II. That would make ISPs "information services" instead of "public utilities," opening up the possibility that they could violate net neutrality.

There's every reason to think service providers will take advantage of the rule, if it passes.

There's no reason to think that ISPs won't increase prices or curtail access to online services.

Prior to 2015, when ISPs were formally regulated under Title I, mobile ISPs regularly blocked access or slowed down different services. Here are some examples:

Between 2007 and 2009, AT&T stopped iPhone users from using Skype or other VOIP services, forcing them to use AT&T's technology instead to talk with their phones.

In 2011, MetroPCS had a plan that blocked all video streaming sites except for YouTube.

In 2012, the FCC fined Verizon $1.25 million for blocking tethering apps.

That same year, AT&T blocked Facetime on iPhone for users who didn't subscribe to a certain data plan.

AT&T president, CEO, and chairman Randall Stephenson speaking with President Trump in June. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

And that's just a sampling of what ISPs have done in violation of net neutrality. Pai's proposed rules are even less regulatory than they were in the Bush era and the early Obama years. With his order, you can expect to see similar things happen on all computers, not just phones.

Portugal shows an extreme example of what could happen in America.

To see one of the worst -case scenarios for what could happen to the internet without net neutrality, look no further than Portugal, where one wireless carrier offers a plan you wouldn't currently see in the U.S.

That carrier, Meo, offers packages that discriminate among different kinds of sites. It caps the data for different bundles of apps unless you pay more. If you want more data messages, you'll have to pay a fee around $6. If you want more data for social networks, it's another $6. Video streaming? Another $6. Music? $6 more. Email? Yet another $6 charge.

English translation via Google Translate. MEO

It's a model called "zero-rating," which potentially violates net neutrality, the FCC ruled in January.

Net neutrality advocates argue that this kind of model harms competition. People will use the big brand names in the bundles they pay for while newer or smaller companies with fewer resources won't be able to break into the market.

The principle also applies to bigger companies: Let's say you want to use a movie streaming service and Hulu is included in your service bundle while Netflix isn't. You're more likely to use Hulu, putting Netflix at a disadvantage.

The FCC chairman says the current rules stifle innovation. But that's not necessarily true.

Pai's argument is familiar: less regulation means more innovation.

"Consumers will benefit from greater investment in digital infrastructure, which will create jobs, increase competition, and lead to better, faster, and cheaper internet access—especially in rural America," Pai wrote in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.

ISP customers, Pai says, can choose which service is right for them. If they don't like what one ISP is doing, they can simply choose another.

In reality, three-quarters of the country has access to only one high-speed ISP, according to the FCC's own data. In 50 million households, there's no meaningful competition among ISPs.

A net neutrality protest from 2014. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

Pai, in fact, has an anti-competitive streak when it comes to ISPs. In April, he reversed a mandate that would have forced the ISP Charter to build out its broadband network to one million customers who were already being served by another ISP.

Under this regional monopoly system, the United States has substantially slower and more expensive internet than other developed countries.

The FCC will likely be the target of lawsuits.

The commission has been at the center of legal controversy ever since Pai became chairman.

Trump designated Pai as the FCC's chairman as one of his first official acts, replacing Obama's appointee, Tom Wheeler. Pai was first added to the commission in 2012 at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell, who is now the Senate majority leader. In October 2017, the Senate gave Pai a second five-year term at the FCC in a vote along partisan lines.

Since leading the FCC, Pai has rapidly dismantled the organization's regulations. Many of the agency's actions have been buried on the FCC's website and not publicly announced, according to The New York Times, which has led to backlash from consumer advocacy groups.

Ajit Pai arriving for his second Senate confirmation hearing for the FCC. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Many of the FCC's changes have already been challenged in court. One part of Pai's proposal to end net neutrality — the centerpiece of his deregulatory plan — would be to prevent states from passing their own pro-neutrality laws. States will almost certainly sue to strike that rule down.

The FCC is also under legal attack by New York state attorney general Eric Schneiderman, who accused the co mission of refusing to hand over key documents in an investigation over potentially fraudulent comments submitted to the organization over net neutrality.

There's not much we can do to change the proposal at this point.

Fight for the Future, a nonprofit advocacy group for digital rights, is preparing a mass protest over Pai's proposal.

On their site, you can contact your congressperson and ask them to fight against the rule.

Chances aren't great. To uphold net neutrality, Congress would have to pass a law that would force the FCC to do just that. But Congress is controlled by Republicans lawmakers, who largely oppose net neutrality even though most Republican voters support it.

The best bet for proponents of net neutrality would be to look towards 2020. If there is a different president and Congress is controlled by Democrats, a new FCC commissioner and chairperson could theoretically change the rules again.

Until then, the internet as we know it could go through massive changes.