The FCC voted to eliminate net neutrality regulations in 2017, although the removal of these regulations has not yet taken effect. There are arguments being made against it in both Congress and the courts right now. In the meanwhile, several governments are taking steps to safeguard their inhabitants from internet service providers that refuse to provide them with services.

The reclassification of internet service providers has been brought about as a result of the abolition of net neutrality. The judgement does not, however, preclude states from implementing their own legislation or executive orders barring commerce with internet service providers (ISPs) who violate net neutrality principles. This is because the ruling does not restrict states from having the authority to do so. Those who are in support of net neutrality are concerned that large internet service providers would take advantage of their unrestricted power to impede the performance of rival services and may even exempt their own content from usage caps.

If the FCC repeal is successful, it is possible that most people in the United States will no longer have access to the internet for free. At this time, 83 percent of Americans are against it. However, it is essential to have an understanding of the reasons behind the debate around the repeal of net neutrality. There is a possibility that it will have an effect on schools. It is possible that students’ access to online learning materials may be restricted if net neutrality is not maintained. It is also possible that it may widen the existing opportunity divides in society.

In the event that the FCC decides to do away with the regulations, it is quite probable that this decision would be challenged in court. It has previously stated that the procedure that is used to gather data in accordance with the regulations governing net neutrality is incorrect. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has acknowledged that the new restrictions may make it more difficult for customers to obtain material online.
According to the defendants, doing away with the principle of net neutrality would be detrimental to free expression on the internet.

The principle that all of the traffic on the internet should be handled in the same manner is known as “net neutrality.” According to W. Kamau Bell, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, the elimination of it would be a catastrophe for the creative community as well as for the voices of those without authority. In an opinion piece that he wrote for the New York Times, Bell argued that the removal of net neutrality will have the consequence of silencing the voices of those who do not have the same kind of influence.

In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved the Open Internet Order, and in 2016, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeal confirmed its ruling. The decision mandated internet service providers to keep the internet open and accessible to all users and controlled the speeds of their networks in accordance with the FCC’s recommendations. Despite the fact that the Open Internet Order was adopted by the FCC, Verizon and Comcast fought against it and launched a lawsuit to halt its implementation. But when the FCC decided to reverse its decision in May of 2017, state attorneys general stepped in to defend the Open Internet Order and filed a lawsuit to protect it.

The current chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, has made it clear that he intends to do rid of the guidelines and turn internet regulation up to the Federal Trade Commission. It is anticipated that legal action will be taken after tomorrow’s vote, if it is successful. Ajit Pai has advocated for the elimination of what he refers to as “heavy-handed” and “unnecessary” net neutrality restrictions, stating that these regulations impede the exercise of free speech on the internet.

The matter was brought to light by a ruling that was handed down not long ago in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. It also sheds light on how the general public has a basic misunderstanding of their right to freedom of expression. In point of fact, the First Amendment provides a precise definition for some kinds of speech while imposing limitations on other kinds of expression.

The idea of “net neutrality” refers to the principle that the internet should remain unrestricted, non-discriminatory, and fee-free to all users. They are joined in this position by a number of other significant online firms. Opponents contend that there is no need for net neutrality and that the proposed laws would stifle innovation and market competitiveness.