So many things in life are unknown but critically important to us. Human cells have “micro-machines (that) really are at the heart of life. These micro-machines, which are the envy of nanotechnologists the world over, are self-directed, powerful, precise, accurate devices made out of strings of amino acids. And these micro-machines power how a cell moves, they power how a cell replicates, they power our hearts, they power our minds.” Watch the TED Talk and see medical animator David Bolinsky, who — in 15 minutes — will change your life.

So, also, net neutrality is vitally important to our Internet lives.

Net neutrality is the condition whereby any Web site we access has an equal chance of loading quickly without prejudice.

Net neutrality means that Internet Service Providers, the companies to which we subscribe for Internet access and cable company Internet providers, do not give some Web sites, say Amazon, “express service” for a fee, leaving others on a second- or third-rate speed track.

As the costs of Internet services rise, there is an indication — or at least a fear — that in the future service providers and cable companies will further commodify the Internet by segmenting Internet access into different levels of service based on a “pay-to-play-faster” formula.

This would completely change the nature of the Internet in several ways. Access would be regulated by who pays the providers the most. More significantly, a change in the status quo (net neutrality) could quickly lead to net censorship by providers.

A company could decide to deny access to “inappropriate” Web sites, and would decide what is and is not appropriate. Religion, politics, lifestyle choices, nudity and sexuality and even political ideas could soon be “screened” by service providers.

Net neutrality is an outgrowth of the free-wheeling nature of the Internet. After the military-centered ARPANET morphed into the public Internet we now have, a libertarian and idealistic culture dominated the Net until it became big business. Net neutrality is not the law, and the Federal Communications Commission has, so far, not set any rigorous standards.

Under the Bush administration, when the discussion about net neutrality evolved, the government was generally in favor of laissez-faire; that is to say, leaving private business to set criteria and to make money — for example, by having the option to charge for “express” Internet access speeds.

Now the Democrats are in the White House and control the House and Senate. There is a new secretary of the FCC, and it looks like net neutrality will become a political and policy issue.

On Monday, the new Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Julius Genachowski, announced a new set of decision rules that will attempt to preempt the intrusive commercialization of the Internet.The service providers and cable companies oppose these new regulations. Google, Amazon and most Web companies are in favor of making Web neutrality the law.

For most of us who use the Web aggressively, this is a very important direction since it will conserve some of the inexpensive, spontaneous and innovative aspects of the Internet.

On an interesting note, Iowan Steven VanRoekel will be directly involved in the design and implementation of any future Internet policy involving the future of the Web 2.0. They are working longer-term on participatory government. VanRoekel graduated from Iowa State worked at Microsoft for many years, even being one of Bill Gates’ most important right-hand staff.

Many students are “not interested in government or politics.” Are they interested in the Internet, on-line shopping and Facebook? Net neutrality should be of concern. It is everyone’s business, and we all have a stake in the outcome.

Steffen Schmidt is a Professor of Political Science at Iowa State University. Reprinted with permission from syndication at www.insideriowa.com, Iowa’s internet magazine.