The creation of the internet opened a new frontier in our society, ushering in the information age. Until last week, it had been a level playing field where users could freely surf the web, whether it was to communicate with loved ones, seek knowledge, buy products or search for a job. The idea has always been that there was fairness and opportunity for everyone who used the internet, no matter who you are, where you came from or how much money you have.

But, in yet another decision that only helps the 1 percent, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted last week to repeal net neutrality rules. This is not about deregulation; this is about hindering free and equal access to information and web content. This will hurt the 99 percent – the rest of us – who rely on the internet each and every day. And it’s another unneeded and unfair boost to big telecommunications corporations – the same ones that are about to receive huge tax cuts.

If it wasn’t already obvious where this federal administration’s allegiances lie, it’s even clearer now. They lie with the big corporations and wealthy donors who are in it for themselves and their bottom line.

Repealing net neutrality means that internet service providers (ISPs) will be able to pick and choose which websites or apps they want to promote and which they want to decrease access to. It means hardworking Americans and small businesses can expect to see the internet service they rely on go up in price. Net neutrality resulted in greater fairness, freedom and innovation, and to throw that away is absolutely reprehensible.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman intends to lead a legal challenge to block the rollback of net neutrality regulations. In addition to fighting for consumer rights and a free and open internet, Schneiderman is also investigating a corrupt public comment period on the FCC’s website on net neutrality, wherein up to two million comments were fake and submitted by stolen identities. Despite the evidence outlining this corruption, the FCC proceeded with the vote. For these reasons, I strongly support state action to challenge the FCC.