By now you’ve probably heard about the US Federal Communications Commission’s proposed net neutrality rules.
These would prohibit internet service providers from slowing down or blocking access to certain websites or services.
The internet’s core principles are freedom of speech and expression, which are enshrined in the US Constitution.
The proposed rules would also require internet service operators to keep customer data private, and to treat all customers equally.
The US has a long history of surveillance on the internet, as we know.
The net neutrality proposals are being promoted by the internet giants like Google and Facebook.
Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt, has said: “Net neutrality will ensure that everyone is treated equally.”
And Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has promised that the net neutrality plan would be “the best protection for all of us.”
But critics argue that this promise is hollow.
Internet service providers have been using their power to block content, charge users for fast access to websites, and charge internet users for faster access to other internet services, which have been called “fast lanes”.
These practices are not open to any competitor.
These practices are also not available in other countries.
The World Wide Web (WWW) was created in the mid-1990s, in part because it was slow.
It’s one of the biggest technological achievements in history, and one of its fundamental principles is that all data should be free and open.
However, the world is now experiencing a massive influx of data and services, many of which have huge costs for internet users and ISPs.
We need a strong net neutrality framework in the United States to ensure the future of the internet for everyone.
The US’s proposed rules are based on an open internet, and a belief that the internet is a public good.
This idea was expressed in the Federal Communications Act of 1934, which said: “[T]he public interest in the free exchange of ideas, in the diffusion of knowledge, and in the promotion of social welfare outweighs any potential for undue concentration of power in a few hands.”
In addition to the internet service companies, the FCC’s proposed regulations also include internet providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.
These companies have been the most vocal opponents of net neutrality.AT&.;T is an AT&T subsidiary that owns the cable TV networks TLC, Charter and Cox.
It owns a vast number of cable TV services and has been in the telecommunications business for over 40 years.
Verizon is an American multinational telecommunications company that has an annual revenue of about $7 billion.
It also owns the NBCUniversal and Comcast television networks.
The companies also have a vast array of internet services.
The companies have a strong business case against net neutrality, as they can charge more for faster internet service.
However they are also lobbying heavily to keep their profits.
The ISPs say that net neutrality will increase competition and drive down prices.
They say that by limiting internet access and forcing internet providers to offer lower speeds, net neutrality would harm their business models.
The FCC’s proposal is also based on a false assumption that consumers will automatically pay more for the internet they use, even though internet service is free and all internet users are equally entitled to internet.
The United States does not have a “right to be forgotten”, and so a ban on online tracking is unlikely to happen.
The current legal framework of net regulation in the USA is based on the principles of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
This is a set of legal rules that gives internet service users the right to “seek, receive, and keep copies of content and information”.
The US also has a “fair use” doctrine, which allows online services to provide access to copyrighted works, even if they are made available for free.
But the DMCA is a US-centric law.
The law is written in the way that it is written, in a way that is designed to prevent copyright infringement.
The rules in the DMCA apply to US copyright holders only, and do not apply to international copyright holders or non-US internet users.
The DMCA, in its current form, has been used to prevent a number of online platforms and content providers from making money from the sale of content, such as videos, music and movies.
In one example, YouTube has made over $2 billion from ads for its videos.
This is not a new phenomenon.
In the past, US copyright laws have made it difficult for US internet users to access free content online.
For example, in 2012, the US Supreme Court ruled that YouTube was not an “exercise of the exclusive right” to use copyrighted works.
This means that copyright holders in the UK and other countries do not have the same legal protection they have in the States.
This situation is not unique to the US.
The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada and several other countries also have laws that prevent the free internet from being available.
These laws also create a chilling effect for innovation.
Many internet providers have made billions of dollars from the advertising revenues