After the FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality in 2017, many people began to take notice of these laws, which had previously been ignored for a good 2 years. Net neutrality was brought about in 2015, after many years of failed attempts trying to set these rules in place. Net neutrality laws, according to the “International Business Times,” were able to prevent ISPs from “slowing or throttling a user’s connection,” making sure users get the connection speeds they paid for without any regard for what services they’re using. Net Neutrality Laws also ensured that ISPs couldn’t treat internet services differently, making sure that consumers could get equal access to any site, and that internet-based companies were able to compete fairly without
…show more content…
Most were concerned with government regulation, like an author from “The New American,” or thought it was unnecessary, such as another author writing for a college press called “Uwire.” When creating these new laws, we must address these problems and others that were present in the FCC’s previous net neutrality laws. The greatest problem with these was the fact that to make the new laws, they had to make the internet itself a public utility under the Title II designation. This took the power to regulate the internet away from the FTC and placed it under the FCC. Many feared that the FCC would misuse this power and censor websites that opposed the government or then new rules. Of course, this didn’t happen, but because of these fears, the new rules faced a lot of opposition. Those who thought it was unnecessary had thought processes like the process the Uwire author had where he stated that if AT&T, for example, imposed new restrictions on access to websites and services, customers would simply leave AT&T and go to a different provider and AT&T would suffer. What this author doesn’t take into account is that many people have only one high-speed ISP available to them, and thus when an ISP pushes out new restrictions and costs, they have no choice but to accept these new costs and restrictions. Under net neutrality laws, we wouldn’t have to deal with restricted access to websites and lowered speeds because the laws would prevent ISPs from imposing these restrictions and access to websites and services would be equal in every area. Explaining this to the public would lessen resistance to the new laws and increase support for the new laws. Texas does not have the ability to make the internet a Title II public utility, so there would be no reason to worry about government regulation there. The
Most were concerned with government regulation, like an author from “The New American,” or thought it was unnecessary, such as another author writing for a college press called “Uwire.” When creating these new laws, we must address these problems and others that were present in the FCC’s previous net neutrality laws. The greatest problem with these was the fact that to make the new laws, they had to make the internet itself a public utility under the Title II designation. This took the power to regulate the internet away from the FTC and placed it under the FCC. Many feared that the FCC would misuse this power and censor websites that opposed the government or then new rules. Of course, this didn’t happen, but because of these fears, the new rules faced a lot of opposition. Those who thought it was unnecessary had thought processes like the process the Uwire author had where he stated that if AT&T, for example, imposed new restrictions on access to websites and services, customers would simply leave AT&T and go to a different provider and AT&T would suffer. What this author doesn’t take into account is that many people have only one high-speed ISP available to them, and thus when an ISP pushes out new restrictions and costs, they have no choice but to accept these new costs and restrictions. Under net neutrality laws, we wouldn’t have to deal with restricted access to websites and lowered speeds because the laws would prevent ISPs from imposing these restrictions and access to websites and services would be equal in every area. Explaining this to the public would lessen resistance to the new laws and increase support for the new laws. Texas does not have the ability to make the internet a Title II public utility, so there would be no reason to worry about government regulation there. The