Bypass Net Neutrality
Net neutrality is dead! Four ways to get around … – TheNextWeb
A lot has been happening over the past few weeks: Mark Zuckerberg appeared before congress to testify about Facebook’s role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook was found to quietly move about 1. 5 billion users out of the reach of the new GDPR law, and Alibaba was recently reported to have overtaken Amazon as the world’s number one e-commerce site. However, a very important piece of news hasn’t gotten much coverage from the media: today, April 23, net neutrality FCC’s repeal of net neutrality will start to go into effect today. In case you aren’t very familiar with it, the net neutrality law mandates ISPs to treat all data on the Internet the same way. In other words, an ISP cannot discriminate against, or throttle, any form of data relating to specific users or websites. With the repeal of net neutrality, however, things will change. ISPs will have the power to throttle and block content they do not like — although most ISPs promise that this power will not be abused, history shows that they are only paying lip service: Comcast has broken net neutrality laws before by throttling uploads to P2P applications and torrents, and, despite protests, it didn’t stop until it was compelled by the FCC to stop. AT&T was caught limiting access to FaceTime in order to give subscribers to its shared data plans preferential access, and Madison River Communications once restricted its customers’ access to rival, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely: when given complete power to determine what kind of content can be accessed, where, and when, you can be sure that ISPs — as they are wont to — will abuse this power. Not only will they abuse it for their own interests, but they will also abuse it for the interests of their, while the media has been interestingly silent (or at least not as vocal) about the net neutrality repeal that goes into effect today, I think it doesn’t matter. Net neutrality is dead. Even if the repeal is eventually revoked, attempts will still be made for another repeal, again and again (as has always been the case) until it is eventually repealed. There is just too much at stake for the ISPs to give up. While there are very good reasons to fight the repeal, I think ultimately, besides simply fighting the repeal, equal focus should be placed on something else: educating web users and ensuring that they are savvy enough to circumvent the repeal should it eventually take are some ideas:1. Use a VPN serviceThe first common sense way to go about circumventing the net neutrality repeal is to use a VPN. Find a good VPN service (TNW recommends both NordVPN and Ivacy and has deals on them). However, using a VPN service is not as simple as it used to be. There are two key issues to pay attention to:The logging policy of a VPN service. As recently reported here on TNW, while most VPN services claim not to log your data, they do in fact log your data. While this might not seem like a big deal initially, any form of logging could lead to your activities being eventually traced to you. In other words: you are not safe. So, pay careful attention to the logging policy of any VPN service you rottling of any and all VPN traffic. The second major challenge with using VPN services is that major ISPs could throttle VPN traffic — and with the net neutrality repeal, you can expect a trend of ISPs throttling VPN traffic. In fact, there are reports that this is already happening. Now, it will be difficult for ISPs to throttle all VPN traffic (because doing so is so complicated that it can affect traffic from “legitimate customers”), so you might have to trial a few services before deciding on which one to use. That said, some other recommendations in this article will come in handy. 2. Use the Tor networkAnother alternative method for circumventing net neutrality repeal is by using the Tor network. That said, while Tor is an option it is not completely immune to being restricted by ISPs. With the repeal, ISPs have the option of throttling Tor or even completely blocking it. However, these restrictions can be circumvented by using bridges to connect to Tor. 3. Share other people’s IP addressYou can also circumvent net neutrality repeal by sharing the IP address of other users from countries not affected. As it is today, while the repeal has practically gone into effect in the U. S., there are several other countries that have taken a stand against it. It is possible to anonymously transmit your data through the IP addresses of users from these countries. Services like IPSX facilitate sharing of IP addresses between users from different countries; this could be a single IP address from a country not affected by net neutrality, or a dynamic IP address from users from different countries, thereby allowing you access to data that would have otherwise been throttled without restriction. 4. Connect through I2P (Invisible Internet Layer)I2P, also known as the Invisible Internet Layer, is a network layer that focuses on anonymizing and routing your network traffic through volunteer-run P2P communication. With over 55, 000 computers distributed all over the world, it is going to be very difficult to monitor or throttle traffic going through I2P. I2P essentially builds an internal decentralized internet of its own, with traffic distributed across users all over the world, and is certain to give ISPs a run for their money post net neutrality repeal. Here’s a detailed guide on how I2P works.
Published April 23, 2018 – 6:20 pm UTCBack to top
The End of Net Neutrality – You Need a VPN | VyprVPN
What Does the Repeal of Net Neutrality Mean For You? With the repeal of net neutrality, ISPs and broadband providers can now handle Internet traffic however they please. This leaves a dangerous opportunity for them to restructure the backbone of the Internet for their benefit. Without net neutrality regulations in place, ISPs may impact your Internet experience in some major ways. SpeedPrior to the repeal, providers were known to throttle – or slow down – Internet speeds based on a user’s Internet activity (even though this was prohibited). Now, without regulation, this practice will certainly expand causing users to experience significantly slowed Internet speeds. Providers are now free to build “fast lanes, ” or charge Internet users more for faster speeds. This forces consumers and businesses to choose between paying more or experiencing slow speeds. Download speeds or data caps could also be inflicted on those that have a considerably higher bandwidth. This means users that enjoy streaming their favorite shows using web services such as Netflix, or eSports players that compete in online games, would be unfairly impacted and forced to either pay the “toll” to purchase a higher-bandwidth or experience unequal speeds. For many, paying a higher rate simply isn’t an cessWithout net neutrality, providers will have full authority to decide which websites or applications are accessible to their customers. This decision could be based on either what they deem too valuable to be free, or what they deem a threat to society or their bottom line. You may be charged more to use your preferred services, or forced to access whatever content your provider would prefer you use based on what content your provider owns or whom they have business relationships with. As with speed implications, this consequence could particularly impact marginalized netizens without the means to access “more expensive” web ivacyThe repeal of net neutrality also has scary consequences for privacy. In granting ISPs more power in regards to how they treat Internet traffic, the FCC is also granting them authority over the data that comes as a result of browsing, leaving consumers vulnerable. An announcement recently made by the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) presented a plan to coordinate efforts to “police the internet” – meaning they’ll watch but have no authority to act. The FCC additionally blocked online privacy protections for consumers earlier this year, so ISPs do not need consent to conduct invasive practices including the collection, sharing and selling an Internet users’ personal data to advertisers and third parties. The rollback of net neutrality will thus impact all Internet users, and anyone that relies on the net for public good for education, business, communication or any other purpose. There are additional repercussions for businesses and competition in the marketplace overall.
Net neutrality – Wikipedia
Portuguese Internet service provider MEO offers smartphone contracts with monthly data limits, and sells additional monthly packages for particular data services.  Critics of the EU’s net neutrality rules say they are broken with loopholes that allow data for different services to be sold under zero rating exceptions to data limits.  Consumer advocates of net neutrality have cited this pricing model as an illustration of Internet access with weak net neutrality protection. 
Network neutrality, most commonly called net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication. 
With net neutrality, ISPs may not intentionally block, slow down, or charge money for specific online content. Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block traffic from specific services, while charging consumers for various tiers of service.
The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems.  Net neutrality regulations may be referred to as “common carrier” regulations.  Net neutrality does not block all abilities that Internet service providers have to impact their customers’ services. Opt-in/opt-out services exist on the end user side, and filtering can be done on a local basis, as in the filtration of sensitive material for minors. 
Net neutrality means that no one with more money receives special treatment. Without net neutrality, ISPs can slow down the websites or services of small businesses that can’t afford to pay for the so-called fast lanes.
Research suggests that a combination of policy instruments will help realize the range of valued political and economic objectives central to the network neutrality debate.  Combined with strong public opinion, this has led some governments to regulate broadband Internet services as a public utility, similar to the way electricity, gas, and the water supply are regulated, along with limiting providers and regulating the options those providers can offer. 
Proponents of net neutrality, which include computer science experts, consumer advocates, human rights organizations, and Internet content providers, assert that net neutrality helps to provide freedom of information exchange, promotes competition and innovation for Internet services, and upholds standardization of Internet data transmission which was essential for its growth. Opponents of net neutrality, which include ISPs, computer hardware manufacturers, economists, technologists and telecom equipment manufacturers, argue that net neutrality requirements would reduce their incentive to build out the Internet, reduces competition in the marketplace, and may raise their operating costs which they would have to pass along to their users.
Net neutrality is administered on a national or regional basis, though much of the world’s focus has been on the conflict over net neutrality in the United States. Net neutrality in the US has been a topic since the early 1990s, as they were one of the world leaders in online service providing. In 2019, the Save the Internet Act to “guarantee broadband internet users equal access to online content” was passed by the United States House of Representatives but not by the US Senate. However, they face the same problems as the rest of the world. Finding an appropriate solution to creating more regulation for Internet Service Providers has been a major work in progress. Net Neutrality Rules were repealed in the US in 2017 during the Trump administration and subsequent appeals have upheld the ruling. 
Definition and related principles
Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.  Internet traffic includes all of the different messages, files and data sent over the Internet, including, for example, emails, digital audio files, digital video files, torrents etc. According to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, a public information network will be most useful if all content, websites, and platforms (e. g., mobile devices, video game consoles, etc. ) are treated equally,  which is the principle of network neutrality.
Net neutrality is the principle that an internet service provider (ISP) has to provide access to all sites, content and applications at the same speed, under the same conditions without blocking or giving preference to any content. Under net neutrality, whether you connect to Netflix, Internet Archive, or a friend’s blog, your ISP has to treat them all the same.  Without net neutrality, an ISP can decide what information you are exposed to. Proponents argue that this could cause an increase in monetary charges for companies such as Netflix in order to stream their content. 
Under an “open Internet” system, the full resources of the Internet and means to operate on it should be easily accessible to all individuals, companies, and organizations. 
Applicable concepts include: net neutrality, open standards, transparency, lack of Internet censorship, and low barriers to entry. The concept of the open Internet is sometimes expressed as an expectation of decentralized technological power, and is seen by some observers as closely related to open-source software, a type of software program whose maker allows users access to the code that runs the program, so that users can improve the software or fix bugs. 
Proponents of net neutrality see this as an important component of an “open Internet”, wherein policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those using the Internet to easily communicate, and conduct business and activities without interference from a third party. 
In contrast, a “closed Internet” refers to the opposite situation, wherein established persons, corporations, or governments favor certain uses, restrict access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content. Some countries such as Thailand block certain websites or types of sites, and monitor and/or censor Internet use using Internet police, a specialized type of law enforcement, or secret police.  Other countries such as Russia,  China,  and North Korea also use similar tactics to Thailand in order to control the variety of internet media within their respective countries. In comparison to the United States or Canada for example, these countries have far more restrictive internet service providers. This approach is reminiscent of a Closed Platform system, as both ideas are highly similar.  These systems all serve to hinder access to a wide variety of internet service, which is a stark contrast to the idea of an open Internet system.
The term “dumb pipe” was coined in the early 1990s and refers water pipes used in a city water supply system. In theory, these pipes provide a steady and reliable source of water to every household without discrimination. In other words, it connects the user with the source without any intelligence or decrement. Similarly, a dumb network is a network with little or no control or management of its use patterns. 
In a dumb network, the endpoints are thought to be where the intelligence lies, and as such, proponents argue that the network should leave the management and operation of communications and data transfer to the end users, not a government bureau or Internet company.  In 2013, the software company MetroTech Net, Inc. (MTN) coined the term “dumb wave”, which is the 2010s-era application of the “dumb pipe” concept to the ubiquitous wireless network. 
Experts in the high-technology field will often compare the dumb pipe concept with intelligent networks –also known as smart pipes—and debate which one is best applied to a certain portion of Internet policy. These conversations usually refer to these two concepts as being analogous to the concepts of open and closed Internet respectively.  As such, certain models have been made that aim to outline four layers of the Internet with the understanding of the dumb pipe theory:
Content Layer: Contains services such as communication as well as entertainment videos and music.
Applications Layer: Contains services such as e-mail and web browsers.
Logical Layer (Also called the Code Layer): Contains various Internet protocols such as TCP/IP and HTTP.
Physical Layer: Consists of services that provide all others such as cable or wireless connections. 
The end-to-end principle of network design was first laid out in the 1981 paper End-to-end arguments in system design by Jerome H. Saltzer, David P. Reed, and David D. Clark. The principle states that, whenever possible, communications protocol operations should be defined to occur at the end-points of a communications system, or as close as possible to the resources being controlled. According to the end-to-end principle, protocol features are only justified in the lower layers of a system if they are a performance optimization; hence, TCP retransmission for reliability is still justified, but efforts to improve TCP reliability should stop after peak performance has been reached.
They argued that reliable systems tend to require end-to-end processing to operate correctly, in addition to any processing in the intermediate system. They pointed out that most features in the lowest level of a communications system have costs for all higher-layer clients, even if those clients do not need the features, and are redundant if the clients have to re-implement the features on an end-to-end basis. This leads to the model of a minimal dumb network with smart terminals, a completely different model from the previous paradigm of the smart network with dumb terminals. Because the end-to-end principle is one of the central design principles of the Internet, and because the practical means for implementing data discrimination violate the end-to-end principle, the principle often enters discussions about net neutrality. The end-to-end principle is closely related, and sometimes seen as a direct precursor to the principle of net neutrality. 
Traffic shaping is the control of computer network traffic to optimize or guarantee performance, improve latency (i. e., decrease Internet response times), and/or increase usable bandwidth by delaying packets that meet certain criteria.  In practice, traffic shaping is often accomplished by throttling certain types of data, such as streaming video or P2P file sharing. More specifically, traffic shaping is any action on a set of packets (often called a stream or a flow) which imposes additional delay on those packets such that they conform to some predetermined constraint (a contract or traffic profile).  Traffic shaping provides a means to control the volume of traffic being sent into a network in a specified period (bandwidth throttling), or the maximum rate at which the traffic is sent (rate limiting), or more complex criteria such as generic cell rate algorithm.
If the core of a network has more bandwidth than is permitted to enter at the edges, then good quality of service (QoS) can be obtained without policing or throttling. For example, telephone networks employ admission control to limit user demand on the network core by refusing to create a circuit for the requested connection. During a natural disaster, for example, most users will get a circuit busy signal if they try to make a call, as the phone company prioritizes emergency calls. Over-provisioning is a form of statistical multiplexing that makes liberal estimates of peak user demand. Over-provisioning is used in private networks such as WebEx and the Internet 2 Abilene Network, an American university network. David Isenberg believes that continued over-provisioning will always provide more capacity for less expense than QoS and deep packet inspection technologies. 
Device neutrality is the principle that in order to ensure freedom of choice and freedom of communication for users of network-connected devices, it is not sufficient that network operators do not interfere with their choices and activities; users must be free to use applications of their choice and hence remove the applications they do not want.
It can be defined with the following analogy to network neutrality:
Network neutrality: Neutrality principles are codified ex-ante, and a judicial route is available for redress. Connectivity providers can implement traffic management, but the rules must be the same for everyone. The antitrust alternative, takes more time and offers few precedents.
Device neutrality: Similarly, neutrality principles are codified ex-ante and avail judicial remedies. Device vendors can establish policies for managing applications, but they, too, must be applied neutrally.
An unsuccessful bill to enforce network and device neutrality was introduced in Italy in 2015 by Hon. Stefano Quintarelli.  The law gained formal support at the European Commission by BEUC, the European Consumer Organisation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Hermes Center for Transparency and digital human rights. A similar law was enacted in South Korea.  Similar principles were proposed in China.  The French telecoms regulator ARCEP has called for the introduction of Device Neutrality in Europe. 
Invoicing and tariffs
ISPs have the possibility to choose a balance between a base subscription tariff (monthly bundle) and a pay-per-use (pay by MB metering). The ISP sets an upper monthly threshold on data usage, just to be able to provide an equal share amongst customers, and a fair use guarantee. This is generally not considered to be an intrusion, but rather allows for a commercial positioning amongst ISPs.
Some networks like public Wi-Fi, or Google Loon can take traffic away from conventional fixed or mobile network providers. This can significantly change the end-to-end behaviour (performance, tariffs).
Discrimination by protocol
Discrimination by protocol is the favouring or blocking information based on aspects of the communications protocol that the computers are using to communicate.  In the US, a complaint was filed with the Federal Communications Commission against the cable provider Comcast alleging they had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using the popular file-sharing software BitTorrent.  Comcast admitted no wrongdoing in its proposed settlement of up to US$16 dollars per share in December 2009.  However, a U. S. appeals court ruled in April 2010 that the FCC exceeded its authority when it sanctioned Comcast in 2008 for deliberately preventing some subscribers from using peer-to-peer file-sharing services to download large files. However, the FCC spokeswoman Jen Howard responded, “the court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet, nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end”.  Despite the ruling in favour of Comcast, a study by Measurement Lab in October 2011 verified that Comcast had virtually stopped its BitTorrent throttling practices. 
Discrimination by IP address
During the 1990s, creating a non-neutral Internet was technically infeasible.  Originally developed to filter harmful malware, the Internet security company NetScreen Technologies released network firewalls in 2003 with so-called deep packet inspection capabilities. Deep packet inspection helped make real-time discrimination between different kinds of data possible,  and is often used for Internet censorship. In a practice called zero-rating, companies will not invoice data use related to certain IP addresses, favoring use of those services. Examples include Facebook Zero,  Wikipedia Zero, and Google Free Zone. These zero-rating practices are especially common in the developing world. 
Sometimes Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will charge some companies, but not others, for the traffic they cause on the ISP’s network. French telecom operator Orange, complaining that traffic from YouTube and other Google sites consist of roughly 50% of total traffic on the Orange network, made a deal with Google, in which they charge Google for the traffic incurred on the Orange network.  Some also thought that Orange’s rival ISP Free throttled YouTube traffic. However, an investigation done by the French telecommunications regulatory body revealed that the network was simply congested during peak hours. 
Aside from the zero-rating method, ISPs will also use certain strategies to reduce costs of pricing plans such as the use of sponsored data. In a scenario where a sponsored data plan is used, a third-party will step in and pay for all the content that it (or the carrier or consumer) does not want around. This is generally used as a way for ISP’s to remove out-of-pocket costs from subscribers. 
One of the criticisms regarding discrimination is that the system set up by ISPs for this purpose is capable of not only discriminating but also scrutinizing full-packet content of communications. For instance, the deep packet inspection technology installs intelligence within the lower layers in the work to discover and identify the source, type, and destination of packets, revealing information about packets traveling in the physical infrastructure so it can dictate the quality of transport such packet will receive.  This is seen as an architecture of surveillance, one that can be shared with intelligence agencies, copyrighted content owners, and civil litigants, exposing the users’ secrets in the process. 
Favoring private networks
Proponents of net neutrality argue that without new regulations, Internet service providers would be able to profit from and favor their own private protocols over others. The argument for net neutrality is that ISPs would be able to pick and choose who they offer a greater bandwidth to. If one website or company is able to afford more, they will go with them. This especially stifles private up-and-coming businesses. ISPs are able to encourage the use of specific services by using private networks to discriminate what data is counted against bandwidth caps. For example, Comcast struck a deal with Microsoft that allowed users to stream television through the Xfinity app on their Xbox 360s without it affecting their bandwidth limit. However, utilizing other television streaming apps, such as Netflix, HBO Go, and Hulu, counted towards the limit. Comcast denied that this infringed on net neutrality principles since “it runs its Xfinity for Xbox service on its own, private Internet protocol network”.  In 2009, when AT&T was bundling iPhone 3G with its 3G network service, the company placed restrictions on which iPhone applications could run on its network.  According to proponents of net neutrality, this capitalization on which content producers ISPs can favor would ultimately lead to fragmentation, where some ISPs would have certain content that is not necessarily present in the networks offered by other ISPs. The danger behind fragmentation, as viewed by proponents of net neutrality, is the concept that there could be “multiple ‘Internets, ‘” where some ISPs offer exclusive internet applications or services or make it more difficult to gain access internet content that may be more easily viewable through other internet service providers. An example of a fragmented service would be television, where some cable providers offer exclusive media from certain content providers.  However, in theory, allowing ISPs to favor certain content and private networks would overall improve internet services since they would be able to recognize packets of information that are more time-sensitive and prioritize that over packets that are not as sensitive to latency. The issue, as explained by Robin S. Lee and Tim Wu, is that there are literally too many ISPs and internet content providers around the world to reach an agreement on how to standardize that prioritization. A proposed solution would be to allow all online content to be accessed and transferred freely, while simultaneously offering a “fast lane” for a preferred service that does not discriminate on the content provider. 
There is disagreement about whether peering is a net neutrality issue.  In the first quarter of 2014, streaming website Netflix reached an arrangement with ISP Comcast to improve the quality of its service to Netflix clients.  This arrangement was made in response to increasingly slow connection speeds through Comcast over the course of 2013, where average speeds dropped by over 25% of their values a year before to an all-time low. After the deal was struck in January 2014, the Netflix speed index recorded a 66% increase in connection. Netflix agreed to a similar deal with Verizon in 2014, after Verizon DSL customers’ connection speed dropped to less than 1 Mbit/s early in the year. Netflix spoke out against this deal with a controversial statement delivered to all Verizon customers experiencing low connection speeds, using the Netflix client.  This sparked an internal debate between the two companies that led to Verizon’s obtaining a cease and desist order on 5 June 2014 that forced Netflix to stop displaying this message.
Favoring fast-loading websites
Pro-net neutrality arguments have also noted that regulations are also necessary due to research that has shown low-tolerance to slow-loading content providers. In a 2009 research study conducted by Forrester Research, online shoppers expected the web pages they visited to download content instantly.  When a page fails to load at the expected speed, many of them simply click out. A study found that even a one-second delay could lead to “11% fewer page views, a 16% decrease in customer satisfaction, and 7% loss in conversions”.  This delay can cause a severe problem to small innovators who have created new technology. If a website is slow by default, the general public will lose interest and favor a website that runs faster. This helps large corporate companies maintain power because they have the means to fund faster Internet speeds.  On the other hand, smaller competitors have less financial capabilities making it harder for them to succeed in the online world. 
Legal enforcement of net neutrality principles takes a variety of forms, from provisions that outlaw anti-competitive blocking and “throttling” of Internet services, all the way to legal enforcement that prevents companies from subsidizing Internet use on particular sites.  Contrary to popular rhetoric and statements by various individuals involved in the ongoing academic debate, research suggests that a single policy instrument (such as a no-blocking policy or a quality of service tiering policy) cannot achieve the range of valued political and economic objectives central to the debate.  As Bauer and Obar suggest, “safeguarding multiple goals requires a combination of instruments that will likely involve government and nongovernment measures. Furthermore, promoting goals such as the freedom of speech, political participation, investment, and innovation calls for complementary policies. “
Governments of countries which comment on net neutrality usually support the concept.
Net neutrality in the United States has been a point of conflict between network users and service providers since the 1990s. Much of the conflict over net neutrality arises from how Internet services are classified by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under authority of the Communications Act of 1934. The FCC would have significant ability to regulate ISPs should Internet services be treated as a Title II “common carrier service”, or otherwise the ISPs would be mostly unrestricted by the FCC if Internet services fell under Title I “information services”. In 2009, the United States Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009, which granted a stimulus of $2. 88 billion for extending broadband services into certain areas of the United States. It was intended to make the internet more accessible for under-served areas, and aspects of net neutrality and open access were written into the grant. However, the bill never set any significant precedents for net neutrality or influenced future legislation relating to net neutrality.  Through 2017, the FCC has generally been favorable towards net neutrality, treating ISPs under Title II common carrier. With the onset of the Presidency of Donald Trump in 2017, and the appointment of Ajit Pai, an opponent of net neutrality, to the chairman of the FCC, the FCC has reversed many previous net neutrality rulings, and reclassified Internet services as Title I information services.  The FCC’s decisions have been a matter of several ongoing legal challenges by both states supporting net neutrality, and ISPs challenging it. The United States Congress has attempted to pass legislation supporting net neutrality but have failed to gain sufficient support. In 2018, a bill cleared the U. Senate, with Republicans Lisa Murkowski, John Kennedy and Susan Collins joining all 49 Democrats but the House majority denied the bill a hearing.  Individual states have been trying to pass legislation to make net neutrality a requirement within their state, overriding the FCC’s decision. California has successfully passed its own net neutrality act, which the United States Department of Justice is challenging on a legal basis.  On February 8, 2021 the U. Justice Department withdrew its challenge to California’s data protection law. Federal Communications Commission Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel voiced support for an open internet and restoring net neutrality. 
Net neutrality in Canada is a debated issue in that nation, but not to the degree of partisanship in other nations such as the United States in part because of its federal regulatory structure and pre-existing supportive laws that were enacted decades before the debate arose.  In Canada, Internet service providers (ISPs) generally provide Internet service in a neutral manner. Some notable incidents otherwise have included Bell Canada’s throttling of certain protocols and Telus’s censorship of a specific website supporting striking union members.  In the case with Bell Canada, the debate for net neutrality became a more popular topic when it was revealed that they were throttling traffic by limiting people’s accessibility to view Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister, which eventually led to the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) demanding the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to take action on preventing the throttling of third-party traffic.  In October 22, 2009, the CRTC issued a ruling about internet traffic management, which favored adopting guidelines that were suggested by interest groups such as and the Open Internet Coalition. However, the guidelines set in place require citizens to file formal complaints proving that their internet traffic is being throttled, and as a result, some ISPs still continue to throttle internet traffic of its users. 
In the year 2018, the Indian Government unanimously approved new regulations supporting net neutrality. The regulations are considered to be the “world’s strongest” net neutrality rules, guaranteeing free and open Internet for nearly half a billion people,  and are expected to help the culture of startups and innovation. The only exceptions to the rules are new and emerging services like autonomous driving and tele-medicine, which may require prioritised internet lanes and faster than normal speeds. 
Net Neutrality in China is not enforced, and ISPs in China play important roles in regulating the content that is available domestically on the internet. There are several ISPs filtering and blocking content at the national level, preventing domestic internet users from accessing certain sites or services or foreign internet users from gaining access to domestic web content. This filtering technology is referred to as the Great Firewall, or GFW. 
In an article published by the Cambridge University Press, they observed the political environment with net neutrality in China. Chinese ISPs have become a way for the country to control and restrict information rather than providing neutral internet content for those who use the internet. Unlike countries such as the Unites States of America, values such as free speech and equality are not even in question when it comes to China’s standards of net neutrality. 
Proponents of net neutrality regulations include consumer advocates, human rights organizations such as Article 19,  online companies and some technology companies.  Many major Internet application companies are advocates of neutrality. Yahoo!, Vonage,  eBay, Amazon,  IAC/InterActiveCorp, Microsoft, Reddit, Twitter, Tumblr, Etsy, Daily Kos, Greenpeace, along with many other companies and organizations, have also taken a stance in support of net neutrality.  Cogent Communications, an international Internet service provider, has made an announcement in favor of certain net neutrality policies.  In September 2014, there was an online Internet Slowdown protest for the equal treatment of internet traffic in which large companies such as Netflix and Reddit have participated in. 
In 2008, Google published a statement speaking out against letting broadband providers abuse their market power to affect access to competing applications or content. They further equated the situation to that of the telephony market, where telephone companies are not allowed to control who their customers call or what those customers are allowed to say.  However, Google’s support of net neutrality was called into question in 2014.  Several civil rights groups, such as the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Press, SaveTheInternet, and Fight for the Future support net neutrality. 
Individuals who support net neutrality include World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee,  Vinton Cerf,  Lawrence Lessig,  Robert W. McChesney, Steve Wozniak, Susan P. Crawford, Marvin Ammori, Ben Scott, David Reed,  and former U. President Barack Obama.  On 10 November 2014, Obama recommended that the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service in order to preserve net neutrality.  On 12 November 2014, AT&T stopped build-out of their fiber network until it has “solid net neutrality rules to follow”.  On 31 January 2015, AP News reported that the FCC will present the notion of applying (“with some caveats”) Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 and section 706 of the Telecommunications act of 1996 to the Internet in a vote expected on 26 February 2015. 
Control of data
Supporters of net neutrality in the United States want to designate cable companies as common carriers, which would require them to allow Internet service providers (ISPs) free access to cable lines, the same model used for dial-up Internet. They want to ensure that cable companies cannot screen, interrupt or filter Internet content without a court order.  Common carrier status would give the FCC the power to enforce net neutrality rules.  accuses cable and telecommunications companies of wanting the role of gatekeepers, being able to control which websites load quickly, load slowly, or do not load at all. According to these companies want to charge content providers who require guaranteed speedy data delivery – to create advantages for their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video services – and slowing access or block
Frequently Asked Questions about bypass net neutrality
Would a VPN bypass net neutrality?
A VPN enables you to bypass location-based censorship and access a free and open Internet regardless of what restrictions are imposed on you by your ISP. For example, with VyprVPN you can change your location to another country that does not censor the Internet and imparts strong net neutrality protections.
What happens without net neutrality?
Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block traffic from specific services, while charging consumers for various tiers of service. … Net neutrality does not block all abilities that Internet service providers have to impact their customers’ services.
What does no net neutrality mean?
Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) should provide all online content equally without favoring or blocking specific products, websites or types of content. In short, it means that all traffic on the internet is equal and equally accessible.Sep 7, 2021