Should net neutrality be enforced by the U.S. government?

Just a few weeks ago, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced its plan to repeal Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Title II, which allows the government to regulate Internet Service Providers (ISPs), was created to ensure consumers have equal access to things like phone lines and internet broadband. The regulation in Title II has been come to be known as net neutrality. The plan to repeal Title II has led many to question whether net neutrality should be enforced by the U.S. government.

Those in favor of keeping Title II believe that the government should have the ability to force ISPs to give consumers equal access to all sites and internet content, even if the content is inappropriate, illegal, or requires a large amount of bandwidth.

Those in favor of repealing Title II believe that the government should not play a role in regulating the Internet or ISPs. People in this camp believe that net neutrality is actually a set of commonly agreed upon principles that would not be sacrificed when Title II is repealed.

What do you think? Should net neutrality be enforced by the U.S. government?

 

Find this topic interesting? Head over to our We the Students Essay Contest for a chance to win $5,000 and a scholarship to Constitutional Academy 2018!

Current Standings:
Yes: 62%
No: 38%
  • Katherine from Tennessee

    This morning my mother checked her email. My father went to work and used Google to research. This very moment, you are reading these words not on paper, but on the screen before you. But how exactly do you use the avenue for these activities, the internet, in your daily life? I suppose for some, you use it only to check email. For others, you may use it to read the news, to interact with your friends on social media, or perhaps to shop. No matter how you use the internet, do you take for granted the freedom to connect and communicate it provides? Net Neutrality is a fundamental aspect of the internet and must be governmentally enforced to ensure protection for the market, for consumers, and for personal liberty; the next level of debate is determining the extent of regulation.

    For those of us that have the internet at home, we pay a monthly bill to a particular company, an Internet Service Provider (ISP), to provide us access to the information highway. It seems simple. I pay for the internet. I receive the internet. Net Neutrality is the principle that internet service providers like Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon, should provide access to the internet without favoring or blocking particular websites. Net Neutrality allows us access to all legal internet content. However, ISPs, have the ability to limit the speed of any website they choose. In other words, if data on the internet was like an interstate, ISPs can close a particular highway of data or block a lane of traffic so that the transfer of data slows. Current governmental regulations prevent ISPs from utilizing this power.

    ISPs intentionally altering data speeds is detrimental to internet reliant companies. In order to prevent a loss of customers, companies would be required to pay a fee to ISPs. Without payment, business would likely fail. On the other hand, if a business does pay, then the fee is transferred to us, resulting in higher prices. A primary impact of violating Net Neutrality is a significant increase in the cost to the consumer -this is how much power ISPs have.

    In fact, this has already happened to Netflix, a company that allows customers to stream videos instantly. In 2014, before current governmental regulations that ensure Net Neutrality were implemented, ISPs like Comcast and Verizon caused connection points between Netflix and customers to become overwhelmed with data. When customers attempted to use Netflix shows were slow –some even unwatchable. Netflix was forced to pay a substantial amount of money for their services to once again function.

    The danger increases when an ISP has a political viewpoint. ISPs also would gain the ability to block access to any news or political site that favors an opposing side –censoring the information we receive over the internet. This would endanger our rights to a free press and free speech. Senator Al Franken explained that Net Neutrality “is the First Amendment issue of our time.” Without governmental regulations, all the power would be placed into the hands of the few companies that have a monopoly over providing access to the internet.

    Net Neutrality should be enforced by the U.S. government to maintain the free market of the internet and protect individual liberties, but how exactly should Net Neutrality be enforced? And is current regulation adequate or overbearing? To discuss regulations we must first understand the government agency responsible for ISP regulation: the FCC, or Federal Communications Commission.

    Let’s boil down the complexity of how the FCC regulates into two boxes. The first box is more regulated; phone companies and cellular companies are located within this category. It is part of the Telecommunications Act that gave the FCC its authority to regulate telecom services known as Title II.

    The other is a less regulated box. It covers information services- a barely defined term under Title I of the same law. Not long after the internet became popular, the FCC classified ISPs as Title I information services. With this decision, the FCC lit the flames for the destruction of Net Neutrality. However, on February 26, 2015, the FCC voted to reclassify ISPs from Title I to Title II. This decision allows the FCC to prevent ISPs from slowing down, speeding up, or blocking websites for a fee. However, the debate has once again returned, as the FCC is on the verge of reversing the classification of ISPs.

    Today, we need to understand what steps can be taken to satisfy each side of the net neutrality discussion. ISPs are afraid Title II is too blunt a tool to regulate them. It gives the FCC power to increase taxes and impose rate regulation. On the other hand, ISPs wish to be once again classified under Title I. Net Neutrality advocates suggest that this would not put in place the restrictions needed to properly protect Net Neutrality, a legitimate concern when we look at past examples like Netflix. The problem with both Title I and Title II is that they are outdated –neither was written to encompass the internet. The best solution would be for Congress to create and update the law, so it’s tailored to the internet. However, Congress will never prioritize updating telecommunication law without voter redirecting the debate and removing the false paradigm of Title I or Title II.

    In conclusion, the destruction of Net Neutrality causes a violation of our rights to a free press and free speech. It destroys competition among internet reliant companies and eradicates small internet businesses –raising prices for consumers of all forms. The bottom line is this: the actions that we take or choose not to take regarding this issue will affect everyone -not just yourselves or your children, but generations to come.

    [read less]

    This morning my mother checked her email. My father went to work and used Google to research. This very moment, you are reading these words not on p…

    [read more]
    11
  • Thomas from Pennsylvania

    net neutrality is freedom of speech you have access to news, twitter and social media to talk and see about problems, YouTube, Netflix, both seem like just for fun. but have some extreme importance like news, and documentaries talking about the issues of this world. without them or if Americans had to pay for those websites… then its breaking the very first amendment FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

    [read less]

    net neutrality is freedom of speech you have access to news, twitter and social media to talk and see about problems, YouTube, Netflix, both seem like…

    [read more]
    1
  • Bob from Arkansas

    Keep net neutrality. This is a case of trying to fix something that isn’t broken.

    1
  • Carissa from California

    SHOULD NET NEUTRALITY BE ENFORCED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT?
    I cannot speak for all of America, much less all of the Asians-Americans, the high schools, or to California itself. Although I am part of all of these, I am also a youth, a part of the next generation.
    But as a youth, “education” factors into why our voices are not heard: we do not have multiple degrees, our bubbles have yet to be popped, and our situational awareness remains dim, limited to our childhood models as a reflection of their views.
    But the Internet fixes part of this: we can get degrees online, and take classes on Khan Academy or FutureLearn. Social media itself forms learning spheres where we become exposed to videos and actions from all over the world, where we can interact with others with different heritages, in different languages, with different flashbulb memories and insights.
    Can you imagine the businesses—not the government—controlling the Internet?
    Accessing the Internet is part of the globalization process today, allowing us to find our own identity among others. From a simple retweet, we expose not just ourselves, but our friends and family to content we would never have perhaps learned, such as slavery in Libya, where people are sold as little as four hundred dollars.
    What social media, online blogs, and shopping websites all show are current trends. They show the fads of human nature. Yes, they show fallacies, but most of all, they show the eclectic voices of humans. To put more of a filter on that by price already inhibits the true reflection of the conscience of society.
    And without a doubt, the youth generation is known to be addicted to the screen, to watch copious amounts of TV and movies, to excessively play video games and apps, such as Pokemon Go to Animal Crossing.
    We download these apps on the Play or App store. And in this virtual store, there are entertainment services for the youth, a startup market for the youth, and a place to innovate novel ideas for the youth. A future for small content creators among the youth’s creativity would be limited.
    In a partisan, polarized society, memes, likes, and shares bring the youth together. How would that remain when Facebook may cost a monthly fee like Netflix?
    The Internet provides opportunities, such as the Women’s March in Washington, whose organization, without net neutrality, may not have able to been afforded. #MeToo give women, the Silent Breakers, a source of empowerment to find their voices. Hollywood’s secret history of sexual harassment, highlighted by Harvey Weinstein, would never have been exposed to the public.
    The fact that there is a debate whether government should protect “a human right”, or “accessing the Internet” proclaimed by the United Nations in 2016, exemplifies the lack of trust in the government. Moreover, “Other countries have already stressed the importance of open access, including President Barack Obama, who in 2015 said that “today, high speed broadband is not a luxury, it’s a necessity.” If our former President’s party alignment elicits some sort of negative association, then that point remains invalid. Net neutrality has nothing to do with party affiliation:
    “Chairman Pai’s plans are deeply unpopular with people across the political spectrum. According to a poll released in July 2017, 77% of Americans support keeping the FCC’s existing net neutrality protections in place. This issue is not about party: 73 percent of Republicans, 80 percent of Democrats, and 76 percent of independents want to keep the current protections.”
    To be frank, any member of Congress’s goal is to be re-elected. And to be re-elected, you target those who vote. Well, it’s no surprise that Congress targets the elderly, 65 years and above, who, since 1968, have had more than 60% vote. And, the youth? Well, the youth, ages 18-24, have had less than 50% vote since 1968, hitting even 30% in 1996, while the elders have had around 70%.
    It is a fact that out of the voting age population, the elders are targeted. It’s the reason why Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are virtually untouchable. It’s why in my city, Rancho Cucamonga, in Central Park, there is a senior center instead of soccer fields or swimming pools.
    So now it boils down to the question—the chicken or the egg? In other words, do the youth not vote because they feel Congress does not respond to them (rather, the elders) or does Congress not target the youth because they don’t vote? If the government does not support net neutrality, than the potential to end this chicken or the egg debate will end. After all, the youth grew up on technology, with no broadband providers directly discriminating between fast and slow lanes.
    There is a reason why in 2014, according to Gallup Poll’s 2014 “Public Confidence in Institutions”, Congress had around 30% who said they have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence. This was the lowest rating out of newspapers, the Supreme Court, the President, the military, and churches.
    But trust in businesses is far worse. According to the Guardian, have “declined in two-thirds of the 27 markets the survey” covered and “is now below 50% in 14 markets, the worst showing since 2008.” With this, why would we rid of net neutrality?
    If there is not net neutrality, then these statistics will further drop, which is why Pai’s plan is so integral not just to every individual, but the long term effects of what this means in faith of our political efficacy,
    Pai’s reasoning states that the Internet ran fine before the FCC imposed net neutrality rules around 2015. Correction: the FCC formally adopted network neutrality rules for the first time in 2010, filed a complaint all the way back as 2008, and established principles of net neutrality all the way back to 2005.
    It’s not that before the 21st century there was a total, free, open Internet. Some amount of regulation always existed in some form. Indeed Stanford Professor, Barbara van Schewick notes “we have always had a de facto network neutrality regime in the U.S. — first, through the architecture of the Internet, and later, through a mix of formal and informal FCC regulation and action. This de facto regime prevented or at least deterred blocking and discrimination.”
    Who’s to say this de facto network neutrality regime will still exist when “Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T want Congress to make a net neutrality law because they will write it”?
    And when ISPs no longer operate under common carriers, they have the power to deter and block and discriminate between fast and slow lanes, which is why it’s essential Ajit Pai’s plan for Internet Service Providers to not be classified as broadband providers.
    And if ISPs are classified as “broadband providers”, what choice do you and I, as consumers (especially when consumer’s purchases compose the largest chunk of the United States’ GDP), really have at 25 megabits per second down or 3 megabits per second up (the FCC’s definition of broadband)? How is this the competition that Ajit Pai proclaimed when desiring to define ISPs as broadband?
    Perhaps Ajit Pai is right when he says we “had a free and open internet prior to 2015.” Key word: Had. Who’s to guarantee we will have a “free and open internet once these regulations are repealed” — especially when “Verizon told a federal court in 2013 that it should have the right to charge any website any fee Verizon liked — and if, for instance, the Wall Street Journal didn’t pay up, Verizon should be allowed to block its site”?
    Verizon’s proclaimed “rights” thus would surmount individual rights. After all, rights are a part of Ajit Pai’s meticulous and well-crafted plan.
    He aims to eliminate all net neutrality rules, except the modified transparency rule, which means ISPs have to tell their customers that they are engaging in practices — such as entering into deals with online companies to put them in a fast lane to the ISP’s customers. All of these are prohibited by the current rules.
    If these are violated when net neutrality is repealed, the FTC will not be able to intervene since the company has disclosed that it has paid fast lanes, charges online companies for access to users, and blocks those that don’t pay.
    In other words, without net neutrality, the FTC lacks the power and tools to police net neutrality violations. With current net neutrality rules and ISPs also under Title II, the FTC can intervene.
    And while the FTC is independent of the government, the ISPs seem to not follow: the ISPs have more power in Congress now that the FCC is led by a man who used to be a lawyer for Verizon.
    It doesn’t stop there. This year in March, 2017 the Senate voted to allow ISPs to sell customer data, including browsing history without prior customer consent. And while the Senate is Republican-controlled, it isn’t an issue about party, not when 73 percent of Republicans, 80 percent of Democrats, and 76 percent of independents want to keep the current protections.
    Ajit Pai wants the government to stop micromanaging businesses, so that the “vibrant and free competitive market” will return to its’ former glory, “unfettered by Federal or state regulation.”
    Without “micromanaging”, what stops anarchy? Without rules, what stops one branch in government from superseding another? Repealing net neutrality would allow business to supersede the rights of the people, all the way to the youth.
    Sure, rules cannot stop LiAngelo from shoplifting in China. But they can set a precedent to others to not do the same. They define morality, what we should and should not do. Rules can make sure Larry Nassar, former USA Gymnastics doctor, serve 60 years in prison for child porn.
    By allowing ISPs to no longer operate under “common carriers” in Title II, we allow businesses to influence this thought of society. We allow what the youth access on the Internet to be micromanaged itself. In the house, there are the youth, the children, the toddlers, and so on and so forth. If our voices are not heard, then the house is not home for these differing voices. And as Lincoln said, a house divided against itself will not stand.

    [read less]

    SHOULD NET NEUTRALITY BE ENFORCED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT?
    I cannot speak for all of America, much less all of the Asians-Americans, the high schools,…

    [read more]
    1
  • Kendall from New Hampshire

    Free internet for all America! Please don’t make us have to pay extra for something we use so often!

    0
  • Marshallthemincraftyoutuber from New Hampshire

    yes

    0
  • sam from New Hampshire

    because i need my intermnet

    0
  • Seth from Washington

    Net-neutrality should be enforced by the federal government of the United States on the basis that the internet has become an integral part of our modern, daily lives. Without net-neutrality, there are many instances in which life could change for the worse for Americans across the country. For starters, without a free, open internet, it may be possible that it would be impossible to even have this discussion on this platform. Further, to discuss a possible extreme, some poorer hospitals in impoverished may not be able to afford the higher rates service providers charge to access medical websites, databases, or communication platforms not located within the hospital’s intranet. Although I believe this latter example to be rather extreme, I do maintain that it is possible; thusly, net-neutrality has the potential of putting American lives at risk, and may even result in Americans dying.

    The Supreme Court of the United States heard the case Houston East and West Texas Railway Company v. United States, 234 U.S. 342, in 1914. This specific case is commonly known as the accumulation of many cases into one ruling and is given the colloquial name “the Shreveport rate cases”. Justice Charles Hughes discussed principles similar to those being discussed by modern-day advocates of net-neutrality in his majority opinion in the Shreveport rate cases. Justice Hughes states his fundamental opinions, which consist of stating the complete grounds on which Congress does, indeed, have the ability to regulate carriers. In the in-depth, verbose dissertation we call “the majority opinion” in the Shreveport rate cases, Justice Hughes argues:

    “First. It is unnecessary to repeat what has frequently been said by this court with respect to the complete and paramount character of the power confided to Congress to regulate commerce among the several States. It is of the essence of this power that, where it exists, it dominates. Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local governments. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring ‘uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.’ By virtue of the comprehensive terms of the grant, the authority of Congress is at all times adequate to meet the varying exigencies that arise and to protect the national interest by securing the freedom of interstate commercial intercourse from local control. Congress is empowered to regulate — that is, to provide the law for the government of interstate commerce; to enact ‘all appropriate legislation’ for its ‘protection and advancement’…”

    Justice Hughes makes a clear reference to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, the interstate commerce clause, which states: “[Congress shall have the power to] regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States…” when he argues: “Congress is empowered to regulate — that is, to provide the law for the government of interstate commerce; to enact ‘all appropriate legislation’ for its ‘protection and advancement’…” With regards to net-neutrality, Congress has provided the framework to regulate internet service providers and other telecommunications carriers in the form of the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Since the mid-2000s. Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 have been used by both sides of the net-neutrality debate. This debate reached a zenith in the years 2014 and 2015. Specifically, in 2014 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled, in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, that the FCC does not have the authority to regulate broadband providers as per the FCC’s own Open Internet Order. Following this ruling, the FCC made it its mission, with regards to internet and broadband providers, to create regulations to protect consumers from predatory practices. Thusly, in April 2015, the FCC officially reclassified internet and broadband service providers pursuant to Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. However, in April 2017, exactly 2 years after the introduction of the Obama-era regulations, Ajit Pai, the new chairman of the FCC made the comment that he believed that service providers should not be mandated to follow such regulations. Instead, Chairman Pai argued that providers should “voluntarily” commit to these regulatory principles, and that violations of these regulations should be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, rather than the FCC, for unfair or deceptive business practices. I believe that Chairman Pai’s sentiments spit in the face of Justice Hughes’ steadfast beliefs. As Justice Hughes said so fervently in his concluding statement of his majority opinion in the Shreveport cases: “…this result, [the carriers,] are required to accomplish…” By allowing providers to voluntarily comply with regulations, we are trusting them to actively support the “common good” and not participate in predatory business practices. Justice Hughes would strongly disagree with the concept voluntary compliance. The American people disagree with the concept voluntary compliance. Bureaucrats versed in trade and telecommunications law disagree with the concept voluntary compliance. It would seem that only business executive of telecommunications agree with the concept voluntary compliance in this exact context.

    Further, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which has been used by those opposed to net-neutrality as a counter argument, states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It is very clearly outlined in the body of the Constitution, in the form of the interstate commerce clause, that the federal government does have the ability to regulate net-neutrality. As previously justified, this is because net-neutrality involves “the several States” in the same way that railway traffic rates between states also involves “the several States”. If Congress chooses to abdicate this regulatory power, as it has with some of its other enumerated powers, the United States of America will sooner become an oligopolistic oligarchy where the executives of major telecommunications companies control what information we are allowed to view, when we are allowed to view it, and how we are allowed to view it. Allowing this to happen would be a threat to the very way of life we Americans have come to know.

    Should net-neutrality be enforced by the federal government of the United States? Most definitely. Will net-neutrality be enforced by the federal government of the United States? That remains up for debate. Following the repeal of the FCC’s regulations, under the leadership of Chairman Pai, many United States Senators, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and other prominent U.S. Senators, have put forth legislation, to, most likely, be considered following the holiday recess of Congress. If this law, which would officially classify providers in accordance with the 2015 FCC regulations passes, this debate will become a moot point as Congress will once, and for all, affirm its ability to regulate interstate commerce, and markets that affect interstate commerce, and its ability to regulate the federal bureaucracy from endangering the way of life that we, as Americans, have come to know and love.

    [read less]

    Net-neutrality should be enforced by the federal government of the United States on the basis that the internet has become an integral part of our mod…

    [read more]
    0
  • Anton from New Mexico

    Net neutrality is an essential part to to our future and future generations to come. How are we supposed to learn anything or be humiliated or laugh at funny cat videos or just experience human emotion when the ISPs are slowing our buffering times for those cat videos, or making them charge us for high-speed Internet for families who can’t afford it? The government needs to realize that a lot of it’s members are where they are because of net neutrality.

    [read less]

    Net neutrality is an essential part to to our future and future generations to come. How are we supposed to learn anything or be humiliated or laugh a…

    [read more]
    0
    • Dominic from New Mexico

      You are from New Mexico! Coming from a blue state obviously you want government intervention, hence the welfare state. Just kidding. Anyways I live in this state too, sadly. You say “the government needs to realize that a lot of it’s members are where they are because of net neutrality” Sorry to burst your bubble but we only had net neutrality since 2015, and its 2018 now… What are you talking about? It’s only been a couple of years. Anyways google “FCC” Now look at what it stands for. “Federal Communications Commission” No reread the first word. See it says federal, so the government is already controlling ISP’s. So you are going to fight a fire with more fire? Use the government to go after government? Seems to me it isn’t really about companies controlling your cat videos, when its actually your own government using you as a pawn to use more government in the free market. The FCC is a problem and i agree, but because its part of the government. Get rid of the monopoly of force aka the FCC and government all together not just one. And leave it up to the free market to set the prices. That’s he econ part of it though. When you get into the tech part of net neutrality and the internet you will learn that the computers talk to each other through ip addresses which is given to you by ISP’s. This sounds okay right? Wrong, because there are only a certain amount of ip addresses in the world, with billions of people and each person uses a couple of devices that have ip addresses already, this is the main reason why the internet is high in price. Study some econ and IT first before you have an opinion in this and don’t use watching “funny cat videos” as a reason why we need to keep net neutrality.

      [read less]

      You are from New Mexico! Coming from a blue state obviously you want government intervention, hence the welfare state. Just kidding. Anyways I live i…

      [read more]
      0
  • Jane from Connecticut

    In 2017, businesses rely on the internet to reach their consumers and we as consumers rely on the internet for various services. We are currently able to access these services without the discretion of internet providers, and are not restricted in any way from accessing them based on the economic status of the people providing them. However, repealing net neutrality gives internet providers the ability to determine consumer accessibility to certain sites and services online. Without net neutrality, larger companies will have the ability to pay internet providers to have their media consumed at the fastest rate, whole smaller companies who are not able to pay for this will not be able to be accessed in the same manor. This destroys a key component of capitalism- competition. If start ups and less successful groups are not able to have their services accessed at the same rate as successful buisinesses like Amazon and Netflix, the smaller buisinesses will likely fail. This will lead to monopolies in the online economy, and is economically immoral. Net Neutrality is a key part of maintaining capitalism and economic morality for online services and is a necessity in this day and age.

    [read less]

    In 2017, businesses rely on the internet to reach their consumers and we as consumers rely on the internet for various services. We are currently able…

    [read more]
    0
  • Molly from California

    What is viewed should not be regulated by corporations based off of who can afford what

    0
  • Emily from North Carolina

    The loss of Net Neutrality could mean disaster for the consumer, smaller companies, and unbiased information. The consumer, for the reasons of slower internet speeds, increased prices, and possible deterioration of quality in service. Smaller companies could go out of business because they cannot afford to have their connection go faster and loose what money they could potentially earn do to a lack of visitation or ‘hits’ on their website. However, the worst disaster that the loss of Net Neutrality could cause is the loss of unbiased information. Large corporations could control what their users see and can thus alter their opinions on politics and the world around them.

    [read less]

    The loss of Net Neutrality could mean disaster for the consumer, smaller companies, and unbiased information. The consumer, for the reasons of slower …

    [read more]
    0
  • Kavisha from North Carolina

    yes, I think as we should have the right to choose for ourselves. Nowadays, we are in a world where we need to know what is right for ourselves and if certain parts are blocked, it’s not only that we don’t get access to that thing but also that we don’t get to choose for ourselves which makes us not being able to take our own decisions. Sometimes when we make our own decisions upon what to watch and what to use we also get lessons. We are in 2017 and it sounds injustice to block something that is wrong for a certain group but may not be for the other one. As citizens, we all should know that everything has its own consequence. Today, we have drugs as our society’s enemy but we still do not have much info about it because certain people think that talking about drugs in deep might make us take them and many youths end up taking them as they didn’t have much access to their(drug’s) disadvantages. Net neutrality is not only about the understanding importance of what we do but also about enjoyment. We like to enjoy things like Youtube, Netflix, Twitter, and many others, we wouldn’t be able to enjoy as much, as sometimes things that are inappropriate for certain people for a long use might be appropriate to enjoy just for a little bit of time. I also think that if there is no awareness about certain things because we don’t see them online, they might end up harming us and our society. Net gives you knowledge, but if you take some of it away then it will be incomplete:)

    [read less]

    yes, I think as we should have the right to choose for ourselves. Nowadays, we are in a world where we need to know what is right for ourselves and if…

    [read more]
    0
  • Grace from Illinois

    There seems to be no admissible reason to revoke net neutrality from the common carrier law Title 1 then solely for the benefit of private companies who are to take technological advantages over broadbands through injustice for economic imperatives. Though net neutrality opposition is currently warranted by the statement, “to eliminate unnecessary redlining in Internet laws and that net neutrality is only protection from ‘hypothetical’ threats,” if 3/4 Republicans disagree against it being repealed and companies, such as Netflix, are said to sue, the question is why then just keep this ‘benign’ act in place to avoid greater conflict?

    [read less]

    There seems to be no admissible reason to revoke net neutrality from the common carrier law Title 1 then solely for the benefit of private companies w…

    [read more]
    0
  • Erin from Ohio

    It is important for students to be able to have free, fast pace internet in order to complete everything they need to succeed.

    0
  • Cass from Pennsylvania

    ISPs should not be able to fastlane and slowlane services based on personal bias and political agenda.

    0
  • Nathan from Tennessee

    While the absence of net neutrality does not necessarily mean more payments for web services, it will hinder the growth of newer businesses, services, and websites who cannot afford to pay for extra speeds and traffic. Our country is one in which people have been able to grow and thrive in. Without net neutrality, the only people benefiting are the more established and wealthy corporations and content providers.

    [read less]

    While the absence of net neutrality does not necessarily mean more payments for web services, it will hinder the growth of newer businesses, services,…

    [read more]
    0
  • Hailey from Minnesota

    Net neutrality will allow for all people to access the internet and it’s great information. If it’s gone, think of all the payments you’ll have to pay. All of the lower class citizens won’t be able to afford internet because of how expensive everything will be.

    [read less]

    Net neutrality will allow for all people to access the internet and it’s great information. If it’s gone, think of all the payments you’ll have to pay…

    [read more]
    0
  • Grady from Oregon

    Net neutrality is supposed to keep the internet open to many people, and let people use it freely. Taking net neutrality would be a disaster for everybody. Imaging having to pay extra for the every day websites that you would normally use because your internet provider doesn’t offer that specific website in the internet service package that you already pay for? Nobody benefits except for the big companies that provide internet services, and will soon be able to make you pay more for other services that you would normally already have access to.

    [read less]

    Net neutrality is supposed to keep the internet open to many people, and let people use it freely. Taking net neutrality would be a disaster for every…

    [read more]
    0
  • NICOLE from Texas

    KEEP THE INTERNET OPEN!!

    0
  • Megan from Nebraska

    One argument against net neutrality is that the market should be allowed to balance itself without government intervention. But in this case, the consumer is unable to recognize poor customer service since it is next to impossible to differentiate between a momentarily poor internet connection and a purposely slowed one. Furthermore, if the marketplace fails to balance this issue without government intervention and the government chooses not to intercede, large Internet providers in an increasingly technological world will hold unprecedented power. The power to sway elections, minimize access to other businesses, limit the ability for small companies to get off the ground, and ultimately, by all of these means, diminish the freedom this country holds so dear.

    [read less]

    One argument against net neutrality is that the market should be allowed to balance itself without government intervention. But in this case, the cons…

    [read more]
    0
  • Catherine from New Jersey

    net neutrality is internet based freedom of speech. People are quick to say Trump is unconstitutional, and this is a prime example. Placing someone in chairman position of FCC who is trying to remove our right to freedom of speech on the internet is unconstitutional. This is how fascist and communist societies start.

    [read less]

    net neutrality is internet based freedom of speech. People are quick to say Trump is unconstitutional, and this is a prime example. Placing someone in…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ian from Kansas

    All companies are treated equally by ISP and they are all charged the same. Nobody gets any special treatment.

    0
  • izy from Kansas

    the way this question is presented is pretty confusing. I do think Net Neutrality should stay in our lives. Removing this freedom from our generation is just a despicable cash grab for companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast, to name a few.

    [read less]

    the way this question is presented is pretty confusing. I do think Net Neutrality should stay in our lives. Removing this freedom from our generation …

    [read more]
    0
  • Drake from Iowa

    I do believe that we need to have these regulations and restrictions on our internet, but I don’t like the fact that internet providers are creating a monopoly and therefore can control the prices.

    [read less]

    I do believe that we need to have these regulations and restrictions on our internet, but I don’t like the fact that internet providers are creating a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tristan from Texas

    Net Neutrality should be enforced by the United States Federal Government because the internet is an Interstate/International Commerce platform, as well as a private communications platform, industrial operations platform, a press/media platform, an educational platform, and much more.

    Many would point out that my previous statement could certainly make the opposite case. Do we really want the federal government involved with something as great as the internet?

    I argue that the answer is “Absolutely!” because whenever unnatural monopolies and trusts threatened the strengths of the market, and consequently posed a threat to American society, Congress got involved and created the Anti-Trust acts that still play a large role in today’s mergers and acquisitions.

    What does this have to do with the internet? Well, the internet is a utility. Disagree? I would say that a platform creating nearly 4 jobs for every job it eliminated, and being responsible for nearly 10% of all commercial transactions, and an increase in the average income in countries around the world. Big and small businesses alike across all industries are benefiting from the internet. The internet has allowed for remote work, education, and made many errands more convenient.

    Internet Service Providers do not have the responsibility of deciding what legal content you can access. They are messengers/letter-carriers, not gatekeepers.

    In China many popular western websites are blocked by the “Great Firewall” which is imposed by the Chinese government. The existing Net Neutrality regulations don’t open the door for government censorship, which would already be against the 1st Amendment, but if the existing Net Neutrality regulations were to be repealed, private censorship would become perfectly legal.

    You don’t pay your ISP to connect you to a pre-packaged list of servers, you pay them to connect you to any legal content you desire as long as it doesn’t harm their network.

    By repealing Net Neutrality and unclassifying ISPs as Title II Common Carriers, the ISPs could once again slow access to certain websites and services in favor of their own services. In any other industry this would be considered anti-competitive (and illegal) behavior.

    The United States Federal Government absolutely has the responsibility to enforce Net Neutrality. If not for unfettered access to legal information and the plethora of economic advantages, then because electrical grids, hospitals, pipelines, meteorology sensors, traffic sensors and law enforcement cameras, security cameras, university research projects, and even nuclear detonation detection networks all depend on the internet continuing to operate in a non-discriminating fashion.

    [read less]

    Net Neutrality should be enforced by the United States Federal Government because the internet is an Interstate/International Commerce platform, as we…

    [read more]
    0
    • Tristan from Texas

      Hi, Matthew!

      I am definitely not against ISPs charging for better service (faster speeds) or larger data caps, as my family has enjoyed a better internet connection because we pay for exactly that.

      I live about 20 minutes from town, where our only options for internet, phone, and television is between two different satellite companies. The first company we tried was frustratingly slaw, but then when the second company ventured into consumer internet service, we switched and found that even though watching videos and downloading large files still took ages, we were able to actually use most websites.

      It is true that ISPs have to pay specific fees to even exist, but the majority of their costs are to pay for expensive “line access” which is basically the rent to use the power company’s poles. This means that when one ISP already has an entire town subscribed, there is little room for another company to offer a competing service – which means there is a natural monopoly.

      Other natural monopolies, just like power companies, water companies, and even telephone companies became regulated to ensure that they didn’t abuse their natural monopoly status and become a detriment to other industries. If a water and power company only provided their service to factories they had a stake in and didn’t offer service to other factories, you would have a situation where a natural monopoly in one industry starts to prevent competition in entirely unrelated industries.

      The internet has expanded to every industry, which is why it is so vital that ISPs do not abuse their natural monopolies.

      An ISP is a company that provides services to other companies and to consumers, much like the United States Postal Service. If the USPS’ monopoly on first-class mail were to be abused the way that Comcast’s monopoly has been abused, we would have probably had “Postage Neutrality” laws in response.

      Should we stack miles of regulation onto ISPs? No. Should we strive to maintain the balance of rights for all of the parties? Of course!

      [read less]

      Hi, Matthew!

      I am definitely not against ISPs charging for better service (faster speeds) or larger data caps, as my family has enjoyed a better in…

      [read more]
      0
    • Matthew from Florida

      “You don’t pay your ISP to connect you to a pre-packaged list of servers, you pay them to connect you to any legal content you desire as long as it doesn’t harm their network.

      By repealing Net Neutrality and unclassifying ISPs as Title II Common Carriers, the ISPs could once again slow access to certain websites and services in favor of their own services. In any other industry this would be considered anti-competitive (and illegal) behavior.”
      -Tristan

      If my internet service provider does not let me access some portions of the internet then I will get a new internet service provider. If there is no other option due to a monopoly, then there are already laws on the books to break this up. At the current moment, people having only about one to five ISPs available depending on location is due to restrictive fees and regulation by local governments that make creating a new ISP too expensive to start. These regulations and fees exist because internet is currently widely seen as a utility like water or electricity and not a service like a magazine subscription. If net neutrality is done away with then local electorates will cycle politicians pretty quickly to fix the problem, assuming it arises in the first place. Not allowing ISPs to charge more for better service also limits the profitability of new ISPs and therefore reduces the competition which slows the improvement of the service for the consumer.

      [read less]

      “You don’t pay your ISP to connect you to a pre-packaged list of servers, you pay them to connect you to any legal content you desire as long as it …

      [read more]
      0
  • Michael from Texas

    Edmund Morris states that “the rule of [Edmund] Burke… affirmed as a guiding principle of progressivism “Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be place somewhere.” (Edmund Morris, Theodore Rex pg. 448). The rule of Burke when cited in 1906 referred to the growing role of the government to regulate industries in order to protect the consumer and to allow for equal opportunity. Most notable the Hepburn Act of 1906 which expands the powers of the Elkin Act of 1903 insuring the Interstate Commerce Commission, ICC, to authority to regulate maximum rates. When Title II declared the Internet as a utility, ICC established domain over internet rates allowing for smaller website the equal opportunity to a square deal as with larger websites. A square deal insures that capital, labor, and the consumer give up some liberty in a social contract so that all benefit economically. As an issue of infrastructure the government has the authority to provided investment money through taxes if it is need in the best interest of the citizens. For President Trump in June stated the need for a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan that as Bloomberg states “[helps] to bridge a digital divide that leaves small towns behinds.” (Alan Bjerga, June 21, 2017). Yet repelling Title II classification would allow for cooperation to discriminate against the smaller websites causing equal opportunity a key Republican Party value, and an American value to be lost. Title II classification upholds equal opportunity and establish a mechanism for the improvement through government spending.

    [read less]

    Edmund Morris states that “the rule of [Edmund] Burke… affirmed as a guiding principle of progressivism “Society cannot exist unless a controlli…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brendan from Minnesota

    The reason I picked to stay for net neutrality, is due to one thing that our society operates on: capitalism. In this instance, by removing net neutrality, we are allowing companies to make internet have a price tag. Think of it as a TV. The only difference is that you now would have to pay money to use your email or even just google. Plus companies could charge bandwidth underneath this act. We may have to pay for access to social media and simple stuff we take for granted today. Net Neutrality is something that would be beneficial without if we didn’t live in such a society of making money. The internet can be divided into multiple sectors and getting rid of net neutrality would make all of these things now have a price tag. Social Media doesn’t cost money and for the most part is free if you are a basic user. Without this that would cost money and so would things like Youtube, Spotify, Pandora, Google, Facebook, etc.

    Thank you for your time and have an amazing day!

    [read less]

    The reason I picked to stay for net neutrality, is due to one thing that our society operates on: capitalism. In this instance, by removing net neutr…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cherie from Washington

    I do firmly believe that net neutrality should be preserved and regulated by the government. Without net neutrality, certain applications and websites will load slower because they cannot afford to pay big ISPs to load their content…or worse, those applications and websites may refuse to load altogether. True, some content may be inappropriate for minors, or worse, altogether illegal, but if content is inappropriate then it is the responsibility of parents/guardians to guide their children on the internet. And if ISPs are trying to block illegal content…well, the fact of the matter is that such content will remain in the physical, rather than virtual world. It would hardly make a difference. Net neutrality serves the greater good. It gives us access to information and ideas, enables us to make social connections with people worldwide, can improve the economy via e-commerce, empowers creators to share their work even without an agent or the like. Now imagine all of this slowed down, nearly taken away, because our right to net neutrality has been taken away. Some ISPs claim that they will not throttle certain services, that things will continue as they were, but really, companies like Comcast, Verizon, and others are businesses. Their focus is on making money, not the consumer, because that is how businesses operate. Are you willing to trust their promises to keep things the same, or would you like to ensure that your rights are preserved? Thank you for reading.

    [read less]

    I do firmly believe that net neutrality should be preserved and regulated by the government. Without net neutrality, certain applications and websites…

    [read more]
    0
  • Max from Wisconsin

    Yes. Corporations wish to undo Net Neutrality as a way of forcing it’s customers to pay more to view certain sites. They says that Net Neutrality will be agreed upon by the public and it will stay, but that’s utter crap. This is capitalism at it’s most basic. Getting rid of Net Neutrality will open up a world of financial benefit for the ISP’s at the cost of the consumer and everyday user.

    [read less]

    Yes. Corporations wish to undo Net Neutrality as a way of forcing it’s customers to pay more to view certain sites. They says that Net Neutrality wi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Trinity from California

    This is a breach of freedom. Not only is this restricting our right to go where we want and do what we want on the internet, but this also forces us into having to pay extra money for something that was already our right before. This mirrors the issue of gun control (not that I want to get anyone heated on that topic), in that the Constitution guarantees us “the right to own and bear arms” and yet we are made to jump through a million hoops to own even a single firearm! This is an infringement of liberty and using “illegal and inappropriate content” as an excuse is not a good reason. Yes, there is that content, but that is for people to exercise their FREE WILL and not look at it. By doing this, it basically takes away free choice.

    [read less]

    This is a breach of freedom. Not only is this restricting our right to go where we want and do what we want on the internet, but this also forces us i…

    [read more]
    0
  • Evan from North Carolina

    Net neutrality should stay the way it is, which is being enforced. First, we have to realize who is actually pushing for this to happen. Aijt Pai USED TO WORK FOR VERIZON. For all the people who voted no on the issue, that means you are being led by a completely BIASED individual who doesn’t even know if it’s right or wrong, he just does it cause he will make the most money out of it. Second, we must look at the supporters at hand. The major companies in support of removing net neutrality: Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, you get the jist. Who’s in favor of keeping it? Everyone else. Look here, the votes as of 12/5/2017 are 50/50, but that’s completely unrealistic. In the first 5 arguments I saw, 2 people actually argued for the Yes side but were uneducated about the prompt to where they voted for the No side. That means that in reality, this is probably like a 75/25 vote, as people who meant to vote Yes voted No and everyone who voted Yes argued for Yes.
    Now let’s look at the actual discussion at hand. I’ll first argue why net neutrality is good, and then I’ll argue against why people think it should be completely “weedwhacked”. Point #1, Net neutrality allows it so that people can share information freely. This is important because the internet is a huge reason why America’s economy has improved so drastically in the past decade or two. Without net neutrality, telecom companies can shut off what they want, and thus not allow the freedom of communication. Let me give you an example. When you submit a vote and post to debate.org, it goes through a step of net neutrality. They do this so that radicalists and trolls won’t be heard, and they also do it so that the website can stay civil. When you post information in a world with no net neutrality, companies can look at the information and say “Oh, we don’t like that”, and shut off the world of free trade. Realize the difference here. Debate.org does it so that the website stays clean and organized; debate.org is also a non-profit organization (I think). On the other hand, Verizon, Sprint, those companies will do it for the money. We cannot let this happen. A company’s #1 priority is profit. These companies will manipulate the actual scenarios just for profit.
    Point #2, Without the free flow of information, lots of minorities (like LGBT groups), along with businesses etc. will not be able to give out their information. If a gay activist writer something on a blog website that Verizon deems is too “profane” (they will just manipulate the situation), then they can delete it in a world without net neutrality. If there’s a company that has different views than itself, it can block the use of that website from anyone using their services. Basically, by giving away net neutrality, you are handing your internet to the companies who make the internet. What will they do? Manipulate it, change it in any way to get a profit. We can take a look at Portgual’s internet to see the devastating effects of net neutrality. There are packages of the internet, and they can be bought in any fashion. You may say, “convenient, right”? No. These companies would have no restrictions on what packages they create. They could go like “hey, buy Google for five dollars”. Really??? And then a new gaming website you’ve played for one month, they could be like, “This would be a great time to get profit”, and you would have to either buy their package or have the hassle of switching providers. Insane, right?
    The counter-argument to this is that it will increase competitiveness. Wait, competitiveness? Then why are all the major telecom companies lining up to support net neutrality? Here’s something that could happen: Big companies like Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T could form an alliance, where they share profits. They will jack up the prices on their packages and make all the viral websites have to be paid for. Now how is it competitive? They are just making money for themselves while shamelessly stealing yours. Are you sure that’s what you want to happen because it’s certainly not what I want?
    In conclusion, giving away net neutrality gives away the decade-long war for us U.S. citizens to take enforce net neutrality. It takes away our freedom and gives it to those same companies who you buy internet from. We are like a poor peasant, and our only right is the vote. We can either stay peasants, to which we control the rights of the internet, or we can be slaves, and slaves to our slave lords, telecom companies. Thank you for reading this, and I hope you agree with me that we should [continue to] ENFORCE NET NEUTRALITY.

    [read less]

    Net neutrality should stay the way it is, which is being enforced. First, we have to realize who is actually pushing for this to happen. Aijt Pai USED…

    [read more]
    0
  • Khira from Texas

    The internet should be accessable to anyone and everyone. Internet providers don’t need anymore money than they already have; the internet does not need to become a more profitable place. As well, banning net neutrality rules will not prohibit viewers from going to a specific sight anymore than the other sights. Don’t fix what ain’t broke, don’t demolish Net Neutrality.

    [read less]

    The internet should be accessable to anyone and everyone. Internet providers don’t need anymore money than they already have; the internet does not ne…

    [read more]
    0
  • Liam from Kentucky

    I am taking a different approach, I believe that everyone has a basic right to access to the entire internet, just like free speech. I also don’t want internet companies telling me what I can and can’t see just to leech money out of me! If the government doesn’t enforce net neutrality, then the first amendments freedom of the press can be violated, as internet companies with one political opinion can totally squelch out others! For all of the above reasons, I strongly urge the government enforce net neutrality!

    [read less]

    I am taking a different approach, I believe that everyone has a basic right to access to the entire internet, just like free speech. I also don’t want…

    [read more]
    0
  • Chase from Montana

    In all honesty, the way this question is presented is pretty confusing. I do think Net Neutrality should stay in our lives. Removing this freedom from our generation is just a despicable cash grab for companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast, to name a few. I don’t want to wake up some day and find that I have to pay an extra twenty dollars just to listen to my favorite songs on Spotify or Pandora and have to pay ten extra dollars to browse for images on sites like Imgur and iFunny. Not to mention, Ajit Pai, the main driving force behind this whole act, is nothing but a worthless scumbag who has done more than enough to show that he doesn’t care about anyone who isn’t making millions a year. The fact that people support such an awful act sickens me.

    [read less]

    In all honesty, the way this question is presented is pretty confusing. I do think Net Neutrality should stay in our lives. Removing this freedom from…

    [read more]
    0
  • adam from Kentucky

    I believe that while the differing levels of internet reception among people is a difficult situation, removing net neutrality will only make it less attainable. If we remove net neutrality the internet’s largest bodies will configure their prices to regulate internet speeds of specific websites in order to choke their flow of users. This could destroy numerous small businesses and remove internet usage amongst the poorer demographic of americans which is the opposite of equal right of access.

    [read less]

    I believe that while the differing levels of internet reception among people is a difficult situation, removing net neutrality will only make it less …

    [read more]
    0
  • Anna from Kentucky

    I believe that the Net Neutrality Act should continue the regulation of internet access. I think it goes against our rights as citizens of the United States to have our internet monitored at all times. I do not think it would be at all fair to pay outrageous prices to access the internet and then additionally experience slowing down of certain websites or websites that you are “coincidentally” unable to access.

    [read less]

    I believe that the Net Neutrality Act should continue the regulation of internet access. I think it goes against our rights as citizens of the United …

    [read more]
    0
  • Marissa from Kentucky

    Net neutrality should stay the same as it is. People should be able to access whatever they want on the internet without being restricted. If it is abolished, only people able and willing to pay extra for internet access will be able to access the internet.

    [read less]

    Net neutrality should stay the same as it is. People should be able to access whatever they want on the internet without being restricted. If it is ab…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cameron from Kentucky

    I do not believe that net neutrality should be enforced because it would cause conflicts between Internet companies and individuals do not have extra money to spend on higher quality internet. Americans should have the freedom to search on the internet at the same speed as everyone else and as America is now, the lower and middle class will not be able to afford it and companies will lose money.

    [read less]

    I do not believe that net neutrality should be enforced because it would cause conflicts between Internet companies and individuals do not have extra …

    [read more]
    0
    • Max from Wisconsin

      Net Neutrality is what is keeping the internet as it is now. Getting rid of Net Neutrality would cause ISP’s to charge as much as they want.

      0
  • Hailey from Kentucky

    I believe that we the people should not be forced to pay for using the internet. The internet is there for us to use freely and to speak our minds. Some people, more likely college students, might not even be able to pay for whatever source they need to work on their research. The internet is here for us to come together as one to fight for what we believe in. It should stay neutral.

    [read less]

    I believe that we the people should not be forced to pay for using the internet. The internet is there for us to use freely and to speak our minds. So…

    [read more]
    0
  • Grace from Kentucky

    I think that everyone should have the same access to basic internet content. The government should provide qualities such as phone calls and internet access to everyone. The internet should not have tiered access, internet providers should not be able to decide when and where faster service is allowed.

    [read less]

    I think that everyone should have the same access to basic internet content. The government should provide qualities such as phone calls and internet …

    [read more]
    0
  • karli from Kentucky

    Yes, I think net neutrality should be enforced. Everyone has an equal right of access to the internet and its components. We have a democracy, so we are run by people who feel as if the decisions they make will benefit our country. People should have the individual freedom to be able to access whatever they want on the internet.

    [read less]

    Yes, I think net neutrality should be enforced. Everyone has an equal right of access to the internet and its components. We have a democracy, so we…

    [read more]
    0
  • Dominic from Kentucky

    Net neutrality should be allowed because websites should all be the same on the internet. Some websites shouldn’t be treated differently than others. If there are no problems, everything should be treated the same on the internet.

    [read less]

    Net neutrality should be allowed because websites should all be the same on the internet. Some websites shouldn’t be treated differently than others. …

    [read more]
    0
  • Landen from Indiana

    Net neutrality should be allowed because everyone shares an equal right to access the internet. So long as an individual shows no signs of suspicious or possibly dangerous activity while on the internet, there is not reason that their access to the internet should be limited or denied.

    [read less]

    Net neutrality should be allowed because everyone shares an equal right to access the internet. So long as an individual shows no signs of suspicious…

    [read more]
    0
  • Olivia from Kentucky

    I think that it should be enacted for the sole purpose of keeping people safe while using the internet. The government and other organizations would be able to help block the inappropriate websites that have hurt thousands of people. I do not think that it would be fair for this to change the pricing of internet access, however. I feel as though the pricing of using the internet should remain the same because Americans are already paying for so much!

    [read less]

    I think that it should be enacted for the sole purpose of keeping people safe while using the internet. The government and other organizations would b…

    [read more]
    0
  • Adam from Kentucky

    I agree with net neutrality because we should be able to go to any site that we chose. If they are allowed to block certain sites, then we won’t be able to access the information of our choice. The internet provider’s job is to give us the service of internet to be able to search information.

    [read less]

    I agree with net neutrality because we should be able to go to any site that we chose. If they are allowed to block certain sites, then we won’t be ab…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jacob from California

    The American government is a democracy. This means that it is the responsibility of the people to choose what is right. The Telecommunications, Act 2 enforces safety through the federal government, yet this is not the way our founding fathers wanted our country to be run. As stated in the Tenth Amendment, ” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This clearly states that the federal government does not have the power to set limitations on I.S.P.’s. Instead this task should be given to the people to figure out through the process of Capitalism. I believe the people of the United States should be given the power to choose the I.S.P they want to use. The only power the federal government has is to step in if one I.S.P takes over creating a monopoly. So in the end, yes I believe Act 2 should be appealed because it is unconstitutional.

    [read less]

    The American government is a democracy. This means that it is the responsibility of the people to choose what is right. The Telecommunications, Act 2 …

    [read more]
    0
  • Parker from Virginia

    The commerce clause of the United States only allows the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce, that is commercial activity between individual states, not within states or internationally. As such, the power to regulate the availability of internet speed or ‘net neutrality’ is unconstitutional. The private sector has the economic right to charge whatever it deems fit for its service.

    Regardless of the availability of internet providers in areas of the US, much like the Healthcare industry where only one company may cover an entire state, unlike Healthcare no one is mandated to purchase internet service. If they do not want to pay for a system that inflates price for smaller websites, then the company will lose customers and thus lose more money than it otherwise may have gained from charging more. Corporations like Comcast have already pledged to maintain ‘net neutrality’ independently as a result of public pressure.

    Lastly, the implications of forcing all websites to have equal speeds to access them is ludicrous and Marxist. The top five websites, Amazon, Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Reddit already account for over half of the internet traffic in the US. Like the Electoral College, repealing ‘net neutrality’ won’t allow the bigger states/websites dominate the smaller ones; they already do.

    Consider the US Mail Service. They offer Overnight mail delivery, Registered, Priority mail, First Class mail, Parcel Post, and Media mail. The higher price you pay, the fast delivery service you receive. In this motif, the “big five” websites are paying the most expensive Over Igor shipping rates for their websites. Yet ‘net neutrality’ stipulates that their speeds must equal to everyone else’s even though they more. That is hardly fair, and is why net neutrality should be abolished.

    [read less]

    The commerce clause of the United States only allows the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce, that is commercial activity bet…

    [read more]
    2
    • Joshua from Wisconsin

      I mostly agree. However, I think a good argument could be made that internet service constitutes “interstate commerce,” especially in accordance with current Supreme Court precedent.

      [read less]

      I mostly agree. However, I think a good argument could be made that internet service constitutes “interstate commerce,” especially in accordance with …

      [read more]
      0
    • Skyler from Utah

      I agree

      0
    • Tristan from Texas

      Amazon, Google/Youtube, Facebook, and Reddit are definitely very popular websites that are responsible for a significant portion of US internet traffic, but these companies pay the internet service providers for numerous dedicated lines to their networks. They pay a very handsome price for these lines, because they can use all of the bandwidth available on each line. If they didn’t pay for these lines, you wouldn’t even be able to access any of their sites right now because there wouldn’t be enough bandwidth for anymore people to connect.

      As consumers we also pay for a line to the ISP’s network, but our lines are much cheaper because we don’t use anywhere near as much bandwidth/data as those bigger companies.

      If you want to watch Youtube, and you pay your ISP to connect you to Youtube, and Youtube (owned by Google) also pays the ISP so that you can connect to their site, doesn’t it make sense that you should be able to watch Youtube?

      Before and after Net Neutrality, ISPs could and did legally charge different prices for different tiers of service, so it doesn’t actually dictate that all data must be carried at equal speeds, just that ISPs cannot play favoritism with the speed they carry a certain website’s data.

      Comcast started the Net Neutrality debate whenever they started intentionally slowing access to Netflix, who was already paying a very high price for their connection. Comcast customers discovered that Comcast’s own movie/TV streaming service wasn’t slow at all, despite the fact that a movie streamed on any service is roughly the same amount of bandwidth/data consumption. This led to the question: Can an ISP slow access to their competitor’s services despite the competitor paying a proportionately higher price for what *should* be a good and un-throttled connection?

      The FCC by classifying ISPs under Title II answered that question with a resounding “No!”

      On December 14th, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal to reverse that decision will be voted on. He claims that these disputes can be handled by the Federal Trade Commission, but this is dubious considering that the FTC doesn’t have authority over communications infrastructure and because if that were true, why weren’t they involved in the first place?

      [read less]

      Amazon, Google/Youtube, Facebook, and Reddit are definitely very popular websites that are responsible for a significant portion of US internet traffi…

      [read more]
      0
    • Parker from Virginia

      Please excuse the typos on the last paragraph. My browser was malfunctioning.
      “the fast delivery service you receive” should be read as “the faster delivery service you receive”
      “Over Igor shipping rates” should be read as “Over Night shipping rates”
      Thank you.

      [read less]

      Please excuse the typos on the last paragraph. My browser was malfunctioning.
      “the fast delivery service you receive” should be read as “the f…

      [read more]
      0
  • Dominic from New Mexico

    We live in a corporate country. We do not have a free market where we freely buy and sell goods. Everything that you buy runs through the government aka regulation. So knowing this the government already enforces net neutrality. Google “FCC” That stands for Federal Communications Commission. Now reread the first word of what the FCC stands for. See it says federal, so the government is already enforcing net neutrality. Seems to me they are tricking you to side with them to expand more government rather than leaving it to the free market. All you are doing is adding fire to even more fire. If you want to actually get something done get rid of the FCC and government all together and leave it to the free market to let ISP’s do there job. This is coming from a Econ and computer science background. Your phones and whatever electronics connect to the internet come with an IP address. When you look at one it will usually look like this 168.212.226.204 these numbers help us communicate with each other. Well technically computers talk to each other. But remember there isn’t an unlimited number of numbers in an ip address each section has 4 numbers at the most that goes from 0 to 9. If you do the math there are only a couple billion ip dresses you can use. And how many people are in the world using electronics that use internet? In the typical family there are 5 to 10 electronics. Each one having an ip address assigned for a couple of months then change. Here’s why, you didn’t buy those ip addresses,if you did those ip addresses would be called static ip addresses, theses are used for business websites and the government. Those are also pretty expensive. So there are different classes of ip addresses that go from Class A Network to Class E Network , in each class the numbers that start in the address are the same. With this knowledge there is a reason why this should be left to the free market aka ISP’s because there are only a certain amount of Ip Addresses in the world.

    [read less]

    We live in a corporate country. We do not have a free market where we freely buy and sell goods. Everything that you buy runs through the government a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Aubrey from Massachusetts

    As stated, the power to be able to regulate things such as internet speed (etc.) is highly unconstitutional. As citizens of a country protected by a constitution, we should not be regulated in any way shape or form when it comes to our freedoms.

    [read less]

    As stated, the power to be able to regulate things such as internet speed (etc.) is highly unconstitutional. As citizens of a country protected by a c…

    [read more]
    0
  • Gideon from Oklahoma

    If you remember what the internet was like in 2015, Its just returning to that. Net neutrality was just a government excuse to take over the internet and it’s not like the internet was ever neutral even under net neutrality. If you search for anything basicly political on google, you will only find the leftist view. This is because in-neutral Google censors the search results to hide the conservative view. If search the same thing you’re looking for on Bing, you will find both political opinions side by side. YouTube has a similar problem where they delete, demonitize, age restrict, and suspend conservative YouTube accounts and their videos.
    The internet is going back to normal as it was in 2015 and after net neutrality was passed in 2015 it only became less neutral.

    [read less]

    If you remember what the internet was like in 2015, Its just returning to that. Net neutrality was just a government excuse to take over the internet …

    [read more]
    0
  • Joshua from Wisconsin

    First off, it seems ridiculous to me to require all internet service be provided equally. The speed of an email should not be required to be the same speed of a Netflix show (a half a second buffer makes a big difference for viewers of the latter but not the former).

    As a matter of principle, companies have the right to control their property. Although ISPs do not own the internet, they do own broadband width and are free to use it the way they want. In a free-market, no one is forced to purchase internet service from a particular ISP. If customers do not like the quality or price of the internet service provided by the ISP, they do not have to buy from them. If enough customers are not satisfied with a particular ISP, then another company will emerge to satisfy consumer demand and compete against them.

    Net Neutrality advocates point out that a few ISPs companies have a monopoly in some areas and net neutrality is therefore justified. However, violating the private property rights of businesses is not the right way of fixing the problem. If we want to address the root problem we should make it easier for small businesses to compete against the monopolies.

    Further, net neutrality has resulted in a loss of investment funding in internet infastructure. It’s common knowledge that if you regulate something, you will get less of it. This is important because investment is how we got the internet in the first place. Investment leads to innovation which leads to technological growth, which leads to a higher standard of living for everyone. In the long run, the free-market is a rising tide that lifts all boats. But such innovation was being stunted by net neutrality.

    [read less]

    First off, it seems ridiculous to me to require all internet service be provided equally. The speed of an email should not be required to be the same …

    [read more]
    0
  • Maria Salvador from Florida

    Net neutrality is another chance for the government and businesses to limit citizen’s freedom of choice. As the government continuously claim America is the land of the free yet we continue to debate topics such as net neutrality.

    [read less]

    Net neutrality is another chance for the government and businesses to limit citizen’s freedom of choice. As the government continuously claim America …

    [read more]
    0
  • Erik from Colorado

    The federal government oversteps the powers granted them in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution much too often. Whether or not you believe that net neutrality should or should not be implemented, it should not be the federal government that regulates it; it should be considered a power of the states as granted in the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights.

    [read less]

    The federal government oversteps the powers granted them in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution much too often. Whether or not you believe that ne…

    [read more]
    0
  • Keyuandra from Georgia

    Net neutrality isn’t benefiting both parties (government and citizens) it’s only benefiting the government along with phone carriers by charging extra to access social media.I understand the government has the right make changes in the economy but, they should at least makes changes that are reasonable but yet effective. I am against the federal bill to make this legitimate.Citizens pay their taxes to receive unlimited services and treated as the first-class individuals.If Net neutrality is passed it would be contradicting what America stands for freedom and equality. United States citizens should have the right to have privacy since our money is the reason why government supplies us with health, public along with financial services.

    [read less]

    Net neutrality isn’t benefiting both parties (government and citizens) it’s only benefiting the government along with phone carriers by charging extra…

    [read more]
    0
  • Katie from Kansas

    I don’t think net neutrality should be supported by the government because it takes away freedom of speech

    0
  • Matthew from Florida

    Net neutrality is not neutrality of the government towards the net. It’s not even the government ensuring the neutrality of the net. Net neutrality is the government forcing internet service providers to deliver all data between internet content providers and end users at the same speed which prevents ISPs from charging more for better service and prevents their customers from paying for better service. This means that all the customers of ISPs, both content creators and their end users, are bound to the lowest level of service that would otherwise be offered in a business model where people could pay more for better service. Internet companies are discouraged from improving their services because they cannot charge more for their better, faster internet connection.

    The main objection with scrapping net neutrality is the ability for ISPs to slow down or refuse to deliver some internet content, but as long as ISPs are required to tell their consumers what content they are sabotaging, this will never happen because nobody would pay for access to half the internet leading to companies that restrict their consumers’ access to the internet losing all their customers and going out of business. Ultimately, competition in the free market improves the free market.

    [read less]

    Net neutrality is not neutrality of the government towards the net. It’s not even the government ensuring the neutrality of the net. Net neutrality is…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cat from Kentucky

    I think net neutrality should be enforced because everyone deserves the right to an equivalent amount of Internet access and what they want to do on the internet. It can help to benefit everyone because it will be distributed evenly and equally.

    [read less]

    I think net neutrality should be enforced because everyone deserves the right to an equivalent amount of Internet access and what they want to do on t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mya from New Jersey

    I do not believe net neutrality should be taken away because some people use the internet for business not pleasure. By taking away net neutrality you may be taking away a scholarship website from a boy in poverty who can not afford school already and now they cant apply because it costs too much to keep using the website. Also, some people like bloggers or people who make podcasts for a living may just be starting off their dream business and now can not afford to keep going based on the fact that increasing the price of their website is too much for them to handle.

    [read less]

    I do not believe net neutrality should be taken away because some people use the internet for business not pleasure. By taking away net neutrality you…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ethan from Kansas

    No the government should not be involved in the internet. Because then that takes away the point. For one Singapore has no control over the internet yet they have the fastest internet in the world. Then we will get more competion and get faster. And companies will advance more and more. Because they are competing and getting more and more advance as a society.

    [read less]

    No the government should not be involved in the internet. Because then that takes away the point. For one Singapore has no control over the internet y…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brian from Kansas

    Yeah, just no we need our freedoms in America and the internet should be one of them. While yes, the government is still in neutrality all the time, it needs to stay where it is at right now. We as a country deserve our freedom, because the government still can see whatever we do right now, and that’s about as far as it needs to go.

    [read less]

    Yeah, just no we need our freedoms in America and the internet should be one of them. While yes, the government is still in neutrality all the time, i…

    [read more]
    0
  • Nahom from Texas

    I truly believe that the netneutrality policy is outrageous just another way of making money to selfish upperclass men

    0
  • Jeremy from Pennsylvania

    Although having complete internet access sounds like a lucrative idea, it comes with many serious issues that are avoidable by not letting people have this much freedom. Letting people go to see private information meant for certain institutions like the government, school or prison can lead to complications with those workplaces, they will not be able to work properly due to possible uproars. Internet crime could also rise since everyone can see everything, not everyone is a saint. Finally having access to illegal sites is ill advised, the black market and other criminal organizations could grow. It would be nice to have such freedom on the web, but the risk of that freedom is too much to bear now.

    [read less]

    Although having complete internet access sounds like a lucrative idea, it comes with many serious issues that are avoidable by not letting people hav…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lauren from Kentucky

    No, I believe that net neutrality should no longer be enforced in the society today because halting the neutrality will promote infrastructure and more innovation in our society. This would cause the internet companies and telecommunication companies to become more competitive with their prices and deals to the everyday American. Revoking the net neutrality will overall lower the internet access packages for Americans per year and cause the efficiency of internet access to improve. Not only will this lower the cost for internet accessibility, but it will also force companies to “be on top of things” when their internet goes out or the service providers crash. All in all, Americans will end up paying less for internet access overall and the internet loading/access will be much more time efficient and assistful if net neutrality gets overruled.

    [read less]

    No, I believe that net neutrality should no longer be enforced in the society today because halting the neutrality will promote infrastructure and mor…

    [read more]
    0
    • Thomas from Pennsylvania

      but here’s the thing, internet will still cost money companies will not go lower than anyone thinks, we have to remember the reason net neutrality is dying is because of money hungry companies, if the prices get too low such as T mobile charging only lets say $30 for internet. Comcast will just use ajit pie again to REPEAL the act for profit

      [read less]

      but here’s the thing, internet will still cost money companies will not go lower than anyone thinks, we have to remember the reason net neutrality is …

      [read more]
      0
  • Samuel from Kentucky

    We should have the right to look at whatever we please and not have to pay to be on websites for the governments gain of money. It is internet freedom and for them to take that away from us is ridiculous. It is not fair for everyone as they will have to pay more for better stream compared to the person next to them.

    [read less]

    We should have the right to look at whatever we please and not have to pay to be on websites for the governments gain of money. It is internet freedom…

    [read more]
    0
    • Max from Wisconsin

      The way it is right now we don’t have to pay more for the same stream. Corporations want to take Net Neutrality away so they can charge customers whatever they please. It’s the government that’s stopping this right now.

      [read less]

      The way it is right now we don’t have to pay more for the same stream. Corporations want to take Net Neutrality away so they can charge customers wha…

      [read more]
      0
  • Cara from Kentucky

    I do believe that net neutrality should be controlled by the government because it would allow citizens more freedom to access the websites they need without having to pay any extra money. If Internet users are already paying for their Internet providers, they should not be forced by the government to pay even more just to access certain websites. If the government no longer controls net neutrality, poorer Internet users would have a more difficult time paying for their Internet and as a result, lose the equal chance to use the Internet.

    [read less]

    I do believe that net neutrality should be controlled by the government because it would allow citizens more freedom to access the websites they need …

    [read more]
    0
  • Nick from Kentucky

    I don’t think that net neutrality should be enforced by the government because we don’t need to pay more money for the internet. The government shouldn’t allow internet companies to slow the internet down.

    [read less]

    I don’t think that net neutrality should be enforced by the government because we don’t need to pay more money for the internet. The government should…

    [read more]
    0
  • Nick from Kentucky

    No they should not change the way it is right now because as of now we have equal access to all websites. If net neutrality ends then we would have to pay more to access websites that our internet providers do not want us accessing.

    [read less]

    No they should not change the way it is right now because as of now we have equal access to all websites. If net neutrality ends then we would have to…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jacob from Kentucky

    No Net Neutrality should not be enforced by the United States government. Everyone should have equal access to internet sites, regardless of whether or not they could afford to pay more for certain sites.

    [read less]

    No Net Neutrality should not be enforced by the United States government. Everyone should have equal access to internet sites, regardless of whether o…

    [read more]
    0
    • Max from Wisconsin

      It’s the US Government and Net Neutrality that is allowing everyone equal access to the internet. Getting rid of Net Neutrality would cause ISP’s to charge what they please.

      0
  • andrew from Kentucky

    The internet has application that should be controlled by the government, but the entire web should not. The internet spreads as an international interactive and one of best ways to receive information. Most of the information is free to everyone and the are many people who would not be able to use the internet. It would limit access for schools, businesses, and organization.

    [read less]

    The internet has application that should be controlled by the government, but the entire web should not. The internet spreads as an international inte…

    [read more]
    0
  • Megan from Kentucky

    I don’t believe that Net Neutrality should be controlled by the government. It is our constitutional right to have free speech and the government could take that away if they controlled the internet. It is up to the ISP’s to decide how fast or slow the internet is.

    [read less]

    I don’t believe that Net Neutrality should be controlled by the government. It is our constitutional right to have free speech and the government coul…

    [read more]
    0
    • Tristan from Texas

      Hi Megan! I agree with you about free speech and the concern that a government-controlled internet would open so many doors for censorship. I also agree that it is the ISP’s right as a business to determine how fast their connections are. I think it is important to note that Net Neutrality doesn’t take internet infrastructure out of the hands of the private ISP companies and it doesn’t tell them how fast or slow their network should be. It just requires that they not play favoritism with how fast they carry data for certain sites/services. I’m glad you also value our Constitutional right to free speech, it has been and will continue to be (with our vigilance) a defining quality of America.

      [read less]

      Hi Megan! I agree with you about free speech and the concern that a government-controlled internet would open so many doors for censorship. I also agr…

      [read more]
      0
  • Andrew from Kentucky

    There is no need to make us pay more for the internet. If we marketize the internet there is a chance that less will use the internet, or less can afford it. The government should do what is best for the people.

    [read less]

    There is no need to make us pay more for the internet. If we marketize the internet there is a chance that less will use the internet, or less can aff…

    [read more]
    0
  • Carlie from Kentucky

    I do not believe that the government should allow internet companies to slow down internet and or monitor what people are using their internet for. Especially not to charge them extra. People already pay so much to have access to the internet. I understand why the government would want to monitor people’s internet but, it should be to a certain extent. I find it ridiculous that internet companies can actually slow down a person’s internet for using too much of it. They pay the price to have internet, not a certain amount of internet.

    [read less]

    I do not believe that the government should allow internet companies to slow down internet and or monitor what people are using their internet for. Es…

    [read more]
    0
  • james from Kentucky

    No I think they should not be because if we are paying for the internet provider, then we would not want to spend even more just to access certain websites at certain speeds, it wouldn’t be helpful for anyone but the internet providers and they would either gain a lot of money from people needing the internet, or they would lose a lot of money from people taking their business elsewhere completely getting rid of their internet use as a whole.

    [read less]

    No I think they should not be because if we are paying for the internet provider, then we would not want to spend even more just to access certain web…

    [read more]
    0
    • Max from Wisconsin

      Net Neutrality keeps us from paying whatever the ISP wants. It stops ISP’s from slowing connections or raising prices.

      0
  • Jason from New Jersey

    If we marketize the interenet, this will rise the cost of internet for the consumers and harm the poor consumers from accessing the internet. This will only benefit the companies and big corporations, not the individual consumers

    [read less]

    If we marketize the interenet, this will rise the cost of internet for the consumers and harm the poor consumers from accessing the internet. This wil…

    [read more]
    0