Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Explainer: What You Should Know About the Net Neutrality Ruling
Explainer: What You Should Know About the Net Neutrality Ruling
Feb 1, 2026 4:14 AM

What just happened?

On MondaytheD.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), sayingthe agency had the legal authority to enact their Open Internet Order (i.e.,net neutrality rules.)

What was this case about?

Last Spring theCTIA, the trade group that represents the munication sectors, filed a lawsuit with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the FCC’s decision to “impose sweeping new net neutrality rules and reclassifying mobile broadband as mon carrier utility.” The CTIA had argued that thethe FCC had “opted to resuscitate mand-and-control regulatory regime, including a process where innovators must first seek permission from the FCC before rolling out new services.” In so doing, they claim, the FCC “usurped the role of Congress and departed from a bipartisan mobile-specific framework to create a new intrusive regulatory framework.”

What is net neutrality?

Net neutrality (short for “network neutrality”) refers to both a design principle and laws that attempt to regulate and enforce that principle. The net neutrality principle is the idea that a public information network should aspire to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally. At its simplest, network neutrality is the idea that all internet traffic should be treated equally and that every website — from to Acton.org — should be treated the same when es to giving users the bandwidth to reach the internet-connected services they prefer.

Net neutrality laws are legislation or regulation that prevents Internet service providers (ISPs) from discriminating or charging different prices based on such criteria as user, content, site, platform, application, or type of attached equipment.

What is the basic argument in favor of net neutrality regulation?

Proponents of net neutrality regulation fear that without regulation ISPs will abuse their power. For example, an ISP like Comcast could charge users more to access services of petitors. Since Comcast has it’s own video-on-demand service, they could charge an additional access fee for users who want to use Netflix and stream videos over their Internet connection.

Another argument is that ISPs could stifle innovation by forcing its customers to use preferred services that have a contract with the ISP. panies, for instance, would be able to pay higher fees to the ISPs, while new, smaller start-ups may not have the resources to pay for access to the ISPs customers.

What is the basic argument against net neutrality regulation?

Critics of net neutrality regulation argue that ISPs have a right to distribute their network differently among services, and that this is necessary for innovation. For instance, in the example of Comcast and Netflix, they point out that if Netflix is hogging up bandwidth, pany should be charged more for the necessary updates that Comcast’s systems will require.

Free market advocates also say that government regulation petition and innovation and that the market will provide the best solution. For instance, as applied to the previous example, Comcast customers who are upset about having to pay more for Netflix could switch to another ISP, such as AT&T.

What changes were made by court rulings?

The FCC had previously claimed that ISPs were mon carriers.” This meant they had to abide by the same rules as panies and not give special preference to one type of call (or traffic) over another. In 2014 a federalappeals court ruled that the FCC’s net neutrality rules wereinvalid. The court ruled that while the FCC has authority to regulate how Internet traffic is managed, it couldn’t impose rules on ISPs based on how they classify the content.

What are the FCC’s net neutrality rules?

In their Open Internet order, the FCC included three “bright line” rules:

No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no “fast lanes.” This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

Why should Christians care about net neutrality laws?

Christians are divided on the issue of net neutrality regulation. Although some advocacy groups, such as the Christian Coalition, favor net neutrality laws, many others (such as American Values and CatholicVote.org), oppose the regulations.

Christian supporters fear that without the regulation political organizing and religious advocacy could be slowed by the handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups or candidates to pay a fee to join the “fast lane.”

Christian opponents claim that the regulations will only stop future innovation, including the types of filters and blocks that parents can use to prevent children from viewing pornography. The groups hope that Internet providers will continue to be allowed to block content from some sites, which could be barred under net neutrality proposals.

Yet other opponents worry that rather than creating a neutral platform for all viewpoints, net neutrality regulation would empower ISPs to censor out viewpoints they don’t like as long it’ fits the FCC’s criteria of ‘reasonable network management.’

What happens now?

As expected the panies have said they’ll appeal this verdict, leaving theSupreme Court to decide theultimate fate of net neutrality.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
We’re doomed. Just accept it.
Whoever wrote this deserves an award for managing to keep all of the various threads together. It’s almost a perfect storm of public policy ineptitude: Just in case you lost track of the bouncing ball, here it is: Virginia has finally put the crisis-ignoring haters of truth in their place by passing a roads package to encourage the use of cars that are destroying the planet, so people can reach their sprawling subdivisions that Virginia is trying to keep in...
If the earth can be God, why can’t Al Gore be a prophet?
Back in September of 2003, Michael Crichton delivered an address in which he made the claim that modern environmentalism has e much more than a desire to be wise stewards of our environment; rather, he said, it has e a full-fledged religion. Here’s a sample: I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can’t be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is...
Emissions and a new coal boom
One more note related to the week’s reflections on energy and the environment. This brief piece from Marketplace highlights coal’s newfound popularity, “Coal makes eback” (here’s an in-depth and more technical piece from the NYT. HT: Instapundit). Marketplace reporter Jeremy Hobson notes the need for coal to be integrated into an energy policy oriented toward independence: “The U.S. has more coal than any other country. $27 billion worth is mined every year. That’s why everyone, from unions to politicians to...
Earth Day and the environment
Over the last week I’ve done a couple radio interviews related to my op-ed in the Detroit News, “U.S. must move beyond Earth Day slogans.” Thanks to The Bill Meyer Show out of Medford, Oregon, who had me on in the morning last Thursday. And thanks also to The Paul Edwards Program for having me on yesterday. I spoke with Paul at some length about plications of owning Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (CFLs). In the course of the interview (which you...
Global Warming Consensus Watch, Volume II
This week in the PowerBlog’s Global Warming Consensus Watch: A final pass at the Sheryl Crow/Toilet Paper controversy, just to ensure that the issue is wiped clean; The fight against climate change goes to 11; Global warming causes everything, and we’ve got professional athletes to prove it; and finally, what – if anything – are those carbon offsets offsetting? Flushing away the residue of a botched joke: As I noted earlier, Sheryl Crow has decided to inform the rest of...
2007 Samaritan Award call for entries
The Acton Institute is looking for great charities. The Samaritan Award is a $10,000 award given to a charity that is primarily privately funded and whose work is direct, personal and accountable. There are also second and third place prizes of $1,000 as well as a special edition of WORLD Magazine that will feature the top 10 charities in the United States. All programs that apply for the Samaritan Award will be entered into the Samaritan Guide which is prehensive...
Free economies and the common good
Could the early socialists have envisioned an organization such as Wal-Mart or predicted the thousands of jobs created by such a firm? In this week’s Acton Commentary, Rev. Robert A. Sirico examines the mon good” and free markets in this excerpt from a recent speech at the first annual Free Market Forum, sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Center for the Study of Monetary Systems and Free Enterprise. Read the mentary here. ...
Google faces free speech resolution
Via Slashdot, es today that Google’s next shareholders meeting will feature a vote on a shareholder resolution to protect free speech bat censorship by intrusive governments. According to the proxy statement, Proposal Number 5 would require the recognition of “minimum standards,” including, that pany will use all legal means to resist demands for censorship. pany will ply with such demands if required to do so through legally binding procedures,” and that pany will not engage in pro-active censorship.” Part of...
Archbishop resigns board over Sheryl Crow
Tim Townsend, of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports: ST. LOUIS — Rock singer Sheryl Crow ing home to Missouri this weekend to sing her polished, roots-rock songs at the Fox Theater to help raise money for children with cancer. But St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke was not interested in Crow’s altruism. He was interested in her activism — specifically her support for embryonic stem cell research, which the Roman Catholic church believes is akin to abortion. On Wednesday, Burke said...
Global warming consensus alert!
Via Stephen Hayward at Planet es word of another scientist off the “consensus” reservation. According to David Evans (who, according to his bio, is a genuine rocket scientist – sweeeet…), “… in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical. As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved