Hook. “I care about a lot of issues. I care about libraries, I care about healthcare, I care about homelessness and unemployment. I care about net neutrality and the steady erosion of our liberties both online and off. I care about the rich/poor divide and the rise of corporate business.”(Sara Sheridan)Key points: Point 1The Internet is a valuable tool for individuals to reach an audience that might otherwise be inaccessible. Point 2While net neutrality is a highly charged term that means many different things to many different people, the regulatory debate surrounding net neutrality revolves around the statutory language of the Communication Act, the Telecommunication Act, the FCC declaratory rulings and orders, and the judicial decisions. Point 3Net neutrality, while judicially defined in terms of legal andadministrative precedent, is a resonant political issue for those concerned with various issues such as free and open communication, consumer rights,business interests, economic autonomy, and limited government.Thesis Statement: The Internet is a valuable tool for individuals to reach an audience that might otherwise be inaccessible. It is also a valuable tool for businesses to reach consumers. Further, because it enables the uninhibited exchange of ideas and money, the Internet itself is a valuable product. Internetgatekeepers (i.e., Internet Service Providers or ISPs) such as Comcast andVerizon recognize its market value. And these valuable aspects of theInternet affect three interested parties in the net neutrality debate: end users,edge providers, and the telecommunication companies that connectthe two.Body of paper- Point 1:The Internet is a valuable tool for individuals to reach an audience that might otherwise be inaccessible.Topic Sentence: Any devolution of network neutrality rules will harm independent artists, musicians and social justice advocates that currently use the open.Internet to reach audiences otherwise inaccessible in a heavily corporatized and consolidated media.Research Information – The last decade has seen a strident public debate about the principle of ‘net neutrality.’ The economic literature has focused on two definitions of net neutrality. The most basic definition of net neutrality is to prohibit payments from content providers to internet service providers; this situation we refer to as a one-sided pricing model, in contrast with a two-sided pricing model in which such payments are permitted. Net neutrality may also be defined as prohibiting prioritization of traffic, with or without compensation. The research program then is to explore how a net neutrality rule would alter the distribution of rents and the efficiency of outcomes. After describing the features of the modern internet and introducing the key players, (internet service providers, content providers, and customers), we summarize insights from some models of the treatment of internet traffic, framing issues in terms of the positive economic factors at work. Our survey provides little support for the bold and simplistic claims of the most vociferous supporters and detractors of net neutrality. The economic consequences of such policies depend crucially on the precise policy choice and how it is implemented. The consequences further depend on how long-run economic trade-offs play out; for some of them, there is relevant experience in other industries to draw upon, but for others there is no experience and no consensus forecast. The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) path to enforce net neutrality rules to preserve an open Internet has been complicated and controversial. In its 2010 Open Internet Order, the FCC proposed net neutrality rules consisting of four core principles: transparency, no blocking, no unreasonable discrimination, and reasonable network management (FCC 2010). These rules were later struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which assessed that the FCC only has limited regulatory options for broadband as an information service (Nagesh and Sharma 2014). During a five-month period in 2014, the FCC solicited public comments on the net neutrality issue and received nearly four million comments, which makes it the most commented-upon issue in the agency’s history. In February 2015, the FCC introduced its new open Internet rules (FCC 2015), but was soon challenged again in court (Risen 2015).Topic Sentence: Before addressing the legal and administrative principles behindInternet regulation, it is important to understand the architecture andpolitics of both the Internet and net neutrality.Research Information -Net neutrality (a.k.a. “network neutrality” or “open Internet”) “is the principle that those who manage networks should provide access to all applications, content, platforms, and websites on a non-discriminatory basis.” In layman’s terms, a truly neutral Internet treats all content equally,regardless of origin or type. For example, Amazon’s ability to reach an end user would be no different than that of a local mom-and-pop retailer. One current hot topic in net neutrality is the concept of “fast lane” access, where a company must pay in order to ensure competitive transmission speeds Point 2- While net neutrality is a highly charged term that means many differentthings to many different people, the regulatory debate surrounding netneutrality revolves around the statutory language of the CommunicationAct, the Telecommunication Act, the FCC declaratory rulings and orders,and the judicial decisions.Topic Sentence: Research Information The Telecommunications Act defines the Internet as an “international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks,” and as “the combination of computer facilities and electromagnetic transmission media, and related equipment and software, comprising the interconnected worldwide network of computer networks that employ the TCP/IP or any successor protocol to transmit information.” The Supreme Court more succinctly described the Internet as a “network of interconnected computers.” The FCC derives its authority to regulate the Internet from the Telecommunications Act of 1996,31 passed to update and amend the Communications Act of 1934.32 Prior to passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the FCC regulated the Internet under the auspices of the Computer II rules, developed to regulate those data processing services transmitted over telephone wires. The Computer II regime categorized communications services in one of two mutually exclusive categories depending on the extent to which information was processed during transmission: either as a “basic service” or as an “enhanced service.” Basic services were subject to Title II common carrier regulation, while enhanced services were not. The FCC reasoned at the time that Title II regulation of this nascent data-processing technology would be inappropriate, as it would limit the potential services that vendors could offer in this fast-moving, competitive market. The FCC further reasoned that “regulation also would deserve the interest of consumersPoint 3- Topic Sentence: The Internet is not anunlimited resource. Congestion increases as more consumers access the Internet more regularlyResearch Information Network management practices, which involve defacto discrimination in order to make sure that as much data as possible istransmitted from end-to-end, could be stymied by a net neutrality regime, even one that purports to include an exception for network management practices. Further, online streaming is only increasing in popularity, using an enormous portion of the Internet’s bandwidth. Anti-neutrality proponents argue that basic business practices support allowing telecommunication companies, as private entities, to charge more for the use of such a large portion of their service. These players and their viewpoints—on both sides of the debate—have influenced legislative, judicial, and administrative developments in Internet regulation. the Telecommunications Act was enacted, at which point thecategorization was re-named from “basic” and “enhanced” communication services to “telecommunication” and “information” services, respectively. Although the FCC, during the Computer II regime, opted not to regulate Internet service furnished over telephone lines as a basic/telecommunications service subject to Title II common carrier regulations, the FCC initially categorized DSL Internet, or broadband Internet service furnished over telephone lines, as a telecommunicationservice, subjecting it to Title II regulation.Point 4- Topic Sentence: Prior to 2002, the FCC abstained from classifying cable modem service for high-speed Internet access.Research Information The FCC addressed the issue of cable modem service classification in 2002, in a Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities. In determining how to classify cable modem services, the FCC looked to its Universal Service Report, which had found that Internet access services should be classified as information services under the Act “because the provider offers a single, integrated service” to the user. The FCC reasoned that elements of Internet service such as e-mail, web browsing, access to applications, and computer interconnectivity are not separate services and therefore should not “be deemed to have separate legal status” as a telecommunication serviceSummary– The 2015 Open Internet Order will likely overcome judicial scrutiny because the FCC laid sufficient foundational groundwork in the Order to both overcome the Chevron analysis and avoid being found to have acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner under the Administrative Procedure Act. While the Order will be vigorously challenged by net neutrality opponents, and while no one can predict with certainty the outcome of such challenges, the fact that the Order is so well supported by proper adherence to the APA offers a measure of security and certainty for Internet users and businesses that trade in or rely on Internet services. Regardless of the outcome, Conclusion –Everyone who is affected by the Internet will benefit from clear and enforced rules. If the current Order stands, end-users and consumers will receive the benefit of certainty as well as the protection of anti-discrimination, anti-blocking, anti-throttling Internet principles, making the Internet more free and users less affected by the business decisions of Internet gate-keepers.