http://www.savetheinternet.

com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

What happened?

In May 2014, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler released a plan that would have
allowed companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to discriminate online and
create pay-to-play fast lanes.
Millions of you spoke out and fought back.
Thanks to the huge public and political outcry, Wheeler shelved his original
proposal, and on Feb. 4, 2015, he announced that he would base new Net
Neutrality rules on Title II of the Communications Act, giving Internet users the
strongest protections possible.
The FCC approved Wheelers proposal on Feb. 26, 2015. This is a watershed
victory for activists who have fought for a decade to protect the open Internet.

What is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is the Internets guiding principle: It preserves our right to
communicate freely online. This is the definition of an open Internet.
Net Neutrality means an Internet that enables and protects free speech. It means
that Internet service providers should provide us with open networks and
should not block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over
those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn't decide who you can call
and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn't be concerned with the content
you view or post online.
Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the Internet into
fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors' content or block
political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few
content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment
relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open
Internet.
What was the FCCs Open Internet Order?
The FCCs 2010 order was intended to prevent broadband Internet service
providers from blocking or interfering with traffic on the Web. The Open Internet

Order was generally designed to ensure the Internet remained a level playing
field for all that's the principle we call Net Neutrality (we say generally, since
the FCCs rules prohibited wired ISPs from blocking and discriminating against
content, while allowing wireless ISPs to discriminate against but not block
websites).
In its January 2014 ruling, the court said that the FCC used a questionable legal
framework to craft the Open Internet Order and lacked the authority to implement
and enforce those rules.
Did the court rule against Net Neutrality?
No. The court ruled against the FCC's ability to enforce Net Neutrality under the
shaky legal foundation it established for those rules. The court specifically stated
that its task as a reviewing court is not to assess the wisdom of the Open
Internet Order regulations, but rather to determine whether the Commission has
demonstrated that the regulations fall within the scope of its statutory grant of
authority.
When the FCC made its 2010 open Internet rule, it relied on two decisions the
Bush-era FCC made, rulings that weakened the FCCs authority over broadband
Internet access providers. Nothing in the January 2014 court decision prohibited
the FCC from reversing those misguided decisions and reclassifying ISPs as
common carriers.
In fact, both this decision and a prior Supreme Court decision showed that
reclassification would provide the best means of protecting the open Internet.
What does reclassify mean?
When Congress enacted the 1996 Telecommunications Act, it didnt want the
FCC to treat websites and other Internet services the same way it treats the local
access networks that enable people to get online . Congress understood that the
owners of the access networks have tremendous gatekeeper power, and so it
required the FCC to treat these network owners as common carriers, meaning
they couldnt block or discriminate against the content that flows across their
networks to/from your computer.
However, in a series of politically motivated decisions first by FCC Chairman
Michael Powell (now the cable industrys top lobbyist) and then by FCC
Chairman Kevin Martin, the FCC decided to classify broadband Internet access
service as an information service, meaning that the law sees it as no different
from a website like freepress.net or an online service like LexisNexis. These
decisions removed the FCCs ability to prohibit ISPs from blocking or

discriminating against online content (it also removed the FCCs ability to ensure
that ISPs protect your privacy).
In Verizon vs. FCC, the court stated that the FCC lacks authority because of the
Commissions still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as
providers of telecommunications services but instead as providers of
information services.
On Feb. 26, the FCC voted to define broadband as what we all know it is a
connection to the outside world that is merely faster than the phone lines we
used to use for dial-up access, phone calls and faxes.
Doing so gave the agency the strongest possible foundation for rules prohibiting
discriminatory practices.
What did the FCC vote on?
The new rules, rooted in Title II of the Communications Act, ban throttling,
blocking and paid prioritization.

Why is Net Neutrality important for businesses?

Net Neutrality is crucial for small business owners, startups and entrepreneurs,
who rely on the open Internet to launch their businesses, create a market,
advertise their products and services, and distribute products to customers. We
need the open Internet to foster job growth, competition and innovation.
Net Neutrality lowers the barriers of entry for entrepreneurs, startups and small
businesses by ensuring the Web is a fair and level playing field. Its because of
Net Neutrality that small businesses and entrepreneurs have been able to thrive
on the Internet. They use the Internet to reach new customers and showcase
their goods, applications and services.
No company should be able to interfere with this open marketplace. ISPs are by
definition the gatekeepers to the Internet, and without Net Neutrality, they would
seize every possible opportunity to profit from that gatekeeper control.
Without Net Neutrality, the next Google would never get off the ground.

Why is Net Neutrality important for communities of color?

The open Internet allows communities of color to tell their own stories and to
organize for racial and social justice.

The mainstream media have failed to allow people of color to speak for
themselves. And thanks to economic inequality and runaway media
consolidation, people of color own just a handful of broadcast stations. The lack
of diverse ownership is a primary reason why the media have gotten away with
portraying communities of color stereotypically.
The open Internet gives marginalized voices opportunities to be heard. But
without Net Neutrality, ISPs could block unpopular speech and prevent dissident
voices from speaking freely online. Without Net Neutrality, people of color would
lose a vital platform.
And without Net Neutrality, millions of small businesses owned by people of color
wouldn't be able to compete against larger corporations online, which would
further deepen the economic inequality in our nations most vulnerable
communities.

The latest hooblah about Net neutrality was when ISP (internet service
providers) were trying to be the ones regulating internet traffic, something
that the people didnt want the government to have power over. With Net
Neutrality being fresh off a great victory, we can recap over what has
happened. The ISPs wanted to be able to profit on the internet in a way
that would not be equal or fair. The idea of the internet was to give
everyone an equal voice and let them grow it themselves with hard work,
making their voice bigger because it is what people want to hear. When Net
Neutrality was in its darkest hour people were coming together for the
common goal, save the internet, when we see such strong alliances
between people for a single goal, there is probably good reason behind it.
Net Neutrality is protection for the largest communications outlet in the
world. The same way that we dont allow the mailman to decide on which
mail we should be getting whether its an ad or junk mail or a summons for
court, we do not allow the people who give us what is ours to decide what
we should and should not have *within reason, no one likes anthrax in their
mail.*