Net neutrality is the principle that all internet traffic should be treated equally.
It’s the principle underpinning the internet’s fundamental principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
It’s been in the spotlight for a while now, thanks to the recent saga surrounding the US government’s proposed rules on the internet.
Net neutrality was designed to protect the interests of internet service providers, such as Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon, who charge extra fees for internet access.
The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has since released proposals for a set of new rules on net neutrality, and there are now strong arguments that they would be a step backwards for the internet as a whole.
We’ve previously reported on the many arguments put forward by proponents of net neutrality and their supporters, but it’s worth revisiting why they’ve been put forward in the first place.
First, the issue of net equality is a very complex one.
Net equality is not just about equal access to internet content.
Net equality is also about equal treatment in the way we access the internet, and that’s why net neutrality advocates have argued for a single, open internet.
The US has more than 100,000 internet service companies, which include cable, phone and internet service provider (ISP) companies such as Time Warner Cable and Comcast.
The US government has also been heavily criticised for its attempt to regulate internet service, and the result has been net neutrality in action.
As we noted in a recent article, the US has taken a rather aggressive approach to net neutrality:The government is considering legislation that would essentially force internet service to treat all traffic equally, with internet service that offers services such as broadband, video streaming and streaming video, and mobile apps, treated as a utility and not a service.
This is bad for the US economy, because it means that companies will be able to charge more for certain services, while paying less for other services, and will be forced to offer services that are less popular or less useful.
And it’s also bad for consumer choice, because the more popular services will be more expensive for consumers.
What net neutrality supporters have said is that net neutrality will improve internet service delivery.
However, as the article notes, this has been widely debunked, with some arguing that internet service is now too expensive for many consumers.
As a result, the government is proposing to change the rules on how internet service should be delivered, but with a big caveat: The internet will be treated as an equal resource for all internet users, regardless of the platform, device or connection they use.
So, it’s likely that internet services that offer the most powerful content, such a streaming video service, or the fastest internet, could be exempt from net neutrality regulations.
The proposal would also change how net neutrality is applied to other services.
ISPs could charge different prices for the same content, and would be able charge different speeds based on the quality of that content.
These changes are intended to give ISPs more freedom to offer the content they want, while also allowing them to offer different speeds depending on the size of the data they’re sending to consumers.
In the end, the internet will likely remain open, but net neutrality proponents have said that there will be a transition period, where certain services would be prioritised and others not.
But that’s not really a problem, as it would still be possible to access a wide range of content.
The internet is already a huge platform for innovation and creativity.
There are hundreds of millions of users across the globe, with more than 1 billion devices on the web, and they’re using these devices for a range of things, including playing games, reading, watching videos and sharing pictures.
We’re talking about millions of people on the planet, with billions of hours of content available.
If net neutrality were to be overturned, the impact on these users would be massive.
In the short-term, it would make it difficult for many of these users to access the content that matters to them.
Over the long-term it would mean that millions of new innovations will be blocked, and more traditional services like TV, newspapers and radio will become more difficult to access.
In a sense, the net neutrality debate is already over.
The future of net regulationThe net neutrality proposals from the US are still not universally popular.
Some people believe the government should focus on the problems of copyright, while others believe that the government could use the internet to address other issues such as privacy.
Others are opposed to the idea of a single internet provider and have expressed concern that this would lead to monopolies, and lead to a more limited internet.
We have a lot of people who are not happy with the proposed regulations, and we have a good chance of winning the fight against net neutrality before the end of the year.
It would be really good to have the fight at hand sooner rather than later, but we have to make sure that the people who believe in