This is the last part of a three-part series that examines where the 2016 U.S. presidential candidates stand on net neutrality. Click here to read part one (Bernie Sanders) and here to read part two (Donald Trump).

Net neutrality is a big deal to us cord cutters. Without protections for a neutral net, we could soon find ourselves paying more to access Netflix, or experiencing data throttling when we try to stream video. Net neutrality means an open internet in which all users can connect to all sites, but not everyone agrees with us on the issue. Others, including some powerful politicians, would prefer to allow ISPs to be the gatekeepers of our internet experience, charging us more to visit some sites than they do for others. These pro-business (and, arguably, anti-consumer) forces routinely battle with neutrality allies over FCC regulations.

Because of this disagreement, net neutrality is still very much a debate. Luckily for us, the Obama administration has been more or less on our side of the issue. But the Obama administration won't be around much longer, and the next president will have a lot to do with the future of the neutral net. That's why we've been examining each candidate's position on the issue in this three-part series. Today, we're looking at presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

What Is Hillary Clinton's Position on Net Neutrality?

Hillary Clinton has made it clear that she supports net neutrality. In an op-ed for Quartz published last October, Clinton vowed to enforce “strong” net neutrality rules if elected president. The Quartz op-ed built upon previous comments Clinton had made regarding net neutrality, including her praise for the FCC's February 2015 rule change. Speaking in Silicon Valley at the time, Clinton seemed to suggest that she wanted to go even further, calling the new rules just “a foot in the door.”

Clinton also favors an expansion of broadband infrastructure, according to her website. She wants “100 percent of households in America” to have “access to affordable broadband that delivers world-class speeds.” That “affordable” line strongly implies price controls of the sort that upset neutrality opponents and delight consumer advocacy groups.

If these positions sound familiar, it's because they're very similar to the ones we outlined in our piece on Bernie Sanders. There is a difference between Sanders and Clinton on net neutrality, but it's a difference that's more of degree than direction. Sanders has put a specific (and high) price tag on his broadband plan, while Clinton has not. Sanders has used fiery rhetoric, while Clinton has used more subdued language while still giving lip service to the value of “competition” in the broadband space. Clinton takes a conciliatory tone towards ISPs when discussing the issue (the op-ed referenced above bears the headline “Being pro-business doesn't have to mean hanging consumers out to dry”).

All of this seems to imply that the regulations she envisions – which, again, seem to include the price controls that are the main boogeyman to neutrality opponents – are a little less strict than the ones that Sanders is advocating. Still, both candidates favor net neutrality, expanded broadband, and some type of price regulations in the industry. As we wrote in our piece on Sanders, there is just not a ton of daylight between Clinton and Sanders on this issue.

Hillary Clinton's Net Neutrality Grade: A-

Clinton's occasional references to competition are clearly meant to reassure ISPs. That costs her a few points on our pro-neutrality scale. But there are only so many points you can take off when you're looking at a candidate who has been publicly and unrelentingly pro-net neutrality. Clinton doesn't get the perfect score that Sanders earned, but she's still an A student in our book.