By Michael McAuliffAssociated PressFor the past year, net neutrality has been the subject of intense debate.
It has led to the FCC, the agency charged with enforcing the law that prevents Internet providers from charging more for access to consumers than they pay for it, to adopt rules aimed at curbing internet providers’ practices.
For many, net-neutrality has become synonymous with the “war on drugs,” but the debate over whether the agency should regulate the internet also raises the specter of the end of the US as a global economic leader and the threat of the global economy’s dependence on US technology.
Net neutrality is not a war on drugs.
It’s a war for free markets and a free and open Internet.
And it’s a battle that has already had an impact.
The war on marijuana has made marijuana more available and cheaper, but the war on opioids has made prescription painkillers more available, and prescription opioids more accessible.
It’s not just drugs, of course.
Many other industries have been affected.
The rise of Uber and Airbnb has resulted in an explosion in home deliveries.
And the global economic crisis has led many to believe that it is time to relax the rules on how much we can charge for access.
There is some good news.
The FCC’s proposal would not require any new regulation or change in the way we charge for broadband, which is one of the most basic and most basic services consumers need.
Instead, the commission proposes to eliminate the current caps on how many megabits per second we can send, and it would instead set a new one based on the size of the network.
This would mean that if we send 100 megabitbps, our ISP would charge us a flat rate of $0.01 per gigabit.
This is in keeping with what the Federal Communications Commission has said is the FCC’s intention.
But there are some problems with this plan.
The first is that it assumes the existing internet service providers (ISPs) can’t be changed.
This assumes that existing ISPs will keep up with the changing needs of the market and adapt to the needs of new technologies.
The truth is that ISPs are already changing, and some are adapting to new technologies and services.
The most notable example is Verizon, which has already begun offering video services to its customers using its FiOS internet service.
The FTC’s proposal does not address the problem of existing ISPs.
The second problem is that the commission would not even consider regulating existing ISPs, let alone regulating broadband companies.
The Federal Trade Commission has proposed a plan to require Internet service providers to sell their customers broadband connections.
If the FCC adopts this plan, the FCC would not be able to regulate ISPs under Title II of the Communications Act.
This means that any regulation of broadband providers would be subject to Congressional approval, and this would put a stop to efforts to regulate broadband providers.
In the past, Congress has passed legislation to regulate telecommunications.
In 2015, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 banned telecommunications companies from using antitrust powers to limit competition.
The same year, Congress passed the Telecommunications Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which mandated that all broadband providers have to offer consumer protections.
But the FCC is proposing a rule that would not protect consumers from unreasonable or discriminatory practices.
In other words, it would not set a standard for broadband providers to protect consumers, or set a benchmark for broadband service.
Instead it would simply establish rules that would apply to all providers, regardless of their size, or their technology.
If this proposal becomes law, it will put an end to the ability of the FCC to regulate the industry.
The Commission’s proposal will also create uncertainty for consumers, as the FCC could set new rules on the use of a wireless carrier’s network, for example, and ISPs would be unable to enforce those rules.
The lack of a regulatory framework for the broadband industry will also mean that new rules will not be enforced, creating a dangerous situation for consumers.
And this is only a first step.
The commission is proposing to set up a new regulatory authority that would have the power to regulate all broadband, including wireless carriers, to the extent necessary to protect consumer rights and interests.
This new authority will have broad powers and authority to regulate wireless carriers.
But this proposal will not prevent future attempts by the FCC or the Federal Trade Commissions to regulate these and other industries, including telecommunications.
Congress could pass new legislation to limit the FCC and the FTC’s ability to regulate, or it could pass legislation to protect broadband providers and consumers from unfair practices.