The battle for net neutrality will never end unless it is restored the way it is.
Notable net neutrality proponents faced the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom order in court, not only because of its unacceptable regulation but its illegitimacy as well. The D.C. Circuit of U.S. Court of Appeals heard the proponents’ challenge with the federal agency regarding its rollback of the rules. Non-government parties have been given until August 20 deadline for introductory briefs that have to be made public. However, the Public Knowledge epitomized the focal points.
Public Knowledge, INCOMPAS, the Benton Foundation, Mozilla, and other net neutrality proponents have disputed for a long time that the agency is formulating wayward resolutions when the majority of Republicans voted to repeal net neutrality. Those are the compelling rules that hinder Internet Service Providers from blocking, throttling, or engage in paid prioritization. According to them, Chairman Ajit Pai and his agency “broke the law.” This is the reason they pointed out why the court needs to shift it and put back the rules.
They argued that the FCC decided that it missed all authority over the internet. Net neutrality proponents said it’s a drastic maneuver that determined the rule. Besides being “illegal”, the agency’s singling out of investment is a proof to rationalize the inevitable result of turning the Title II category.
The agency retaliated informing that the reason for the repeal was because the net neutrality rules restrained capitalization which includes broadband implementation to rural and remote areas. Public Knowledge, on the other hand, indicated that Pai and his office disregarded testimony to the opposite in administering a cost-benefit study that only served their ideological inclination.
“The FCC needs to accept statutory responsibility in protecting those user rights – a responsibility that every previous FCC has supported until now. That’s why we’re suing to stop them from abdicating their regulatory role in protecting the qualities that have made the internet the most important communications platform in history, ” said net Mozilla, one of the neutrality proponents.
The corporation outlined the full legal brief in three key grounds.
- The regulation to forsake existing net neutrality rules basically misidentifies the way internet functions – by efficiently disputing that it is not plausible for an ISP to offer website access without some degree of intervention.
- The agency has absolutely abandoned its important function as an enforcer. Its most recent regulation tosses internet access concerns over to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) which was also legally challenged since it has no authority, unlike Congress.
- Likewise, it failed to accomplish a logical decision-making by disregarding much of the public record including their own data demonstrating that consumers do not have a competitive selection of internet access. There is no curtailment of proof that the public comment process was a mockery of the highest order or it could be that the internet access industry in the US is a disaster.
Net neutrality proponents noted that the reason for suing is to protect users’ entry to the internet without intrusions from gatekeepers (ISPs). They also suggest that it is essential that all internet traffic has equal treatment without discrimination against content or kind of traffic.
Consumers can still regain their freedom through the Decenternet platform. Users are provided with unrestrained access to the decentralized and centralized network. They can freely communicate online since there is no blocking, throttling, or employment of paid prioritization. All kinds of internet traffic are treated equally without any discrimination or bigotry.
Personal data is secured and protected without any possibility of a data breach. Users’ information is not shared without the consent of its owners since they are the only ones who have the rights to their own personal information.