Jayson Rich posted Apr 7, 2022 1:36 PM

Net neutrality must be eliminated from the control of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to prevent them from increasing the cost to consumers for profit gain. ISPs have the capability to control the speed and content delivery to consumers as long as they are providing the service fairly. This has not always been the case; in the early 2000s many ISPs limited the speed and content (specifically application types) upon the free will of customers. The issue became a hot point in 2004, when a small provider names Madison River Communications, LLC. began limiting the content exchange on their networks. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) became involved with the issue birthing new regulations which would prevent such an issue among ISPs in the future (Wu, 2017). However, ISPs have found other ways to limit net neutrality to further capitalize on the Internet market. The FCC must continue to develop and implement regulations within the laws of the state and federal government without hampering the ISPs from improving the quality of Internet to consumers. Without a Federal court decision, net neutrality will remain an issue within each state until an overarching decision is passed into law.

The State of California’s internet-related law, Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA), limits the ability for larger ISPs to monopolize the digital market and allows for more competition among smaller entities (California Cable Laws, 2020). By preventing ISPs from continuously raising their service rates, the smaller providers are able to build a customer base without fear of the larger providers forcing customers to stay due to a lack of choice. States like California must commit to net neutrality to protect the citizens living within their borders. Until federal laws are enacted to protect the entire U.S. population, each state must act accordingly to ensure everyone within their jurisdiction is protected against ISPs.

Prosecuting or fining ISPs for breaking laws or code must fall under the jurisdiction which created the law initially. If a nation state holds a law which explains how a law is violated, the nation must make judgment on the decisions violated. International laws can become a gray area on deciding authority but must be taken by the first court which the law is filed. As discussed by Reidenberg et al (2013), the jurisdiction lies at the location which the act was executed and not necessarily where the act affecting the outcome. In my opinion, the jurisdiction must be placed at the location where the plaintiff lives or conducts business. The court then can make a final decision on whether the jurisdiction affects the law in that district or must be handled by another state or nation’s court of law. Without a national law and guidelines on jurisdiction, each will continue to be handled separately until an overarching decision gives authority directly to specific courts

References

California Cable Laws (2020). Retrieved from https://calcable.org/government-relations/state-go…

Reidenberg, Joel R., et al (2013). “Internet Jurisdiction: A survey of legal scholarship published in English and United States Case Law.”

Wu, Tim (2017). The courts and net neutrality. The New York Times.