This is the story of the internet war.
It’s the story that led to a federal judge deciding that the internet should be regulated, a decision that, while technically valid, was overturned by a federal appeals court on Monday.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Andrew Napolitano in San Antonio means that the federal government must comply with a court order that bars it from blocking, throttling, or slowing the internet.
Napolitan also ordered the government to implement new standards to prevent the spread of viruses and malware.
The ruling, however, could still have ramifications for the country’s other major internet providers.
The government’s proposed rules could make it easier for companies to censor the internet, Napolitana wrote in his opinion.
Napolietano wrote that the government has “an extraordinary interest in protecting consumers” by making sure they can access content online.
But in the case of ISPs, he wrote, that interest is more complicated.
For the most part, the government argues, ISPs are merely providing a platform to serve content to consumers.
But the ruling also shows that ISPs aren’t the sole providers of internet access.
“The internet has always been a decentralized network, but the ability to make that network more efficient and responsive to consumer needs has always depended on the ability of users to interact with each other,” Napolitani wrote.
“As a result, the ability for ISPs to compete effectively and efficiently in the marketplace has always existed.
That is a dynamic that has been shaped by competition, not by government regulation.”
The court found that the Federal Communications Commission’s “common carrier” regulation of internet providers doesn’t actually allow the government “to interfere with the flow of communications,” but only to “provide a means for consumers to connect with each others.”
The government has argued that the FCC’s rules have been a boon to internet service providers because they allow them to offer faster speeds for consumers without compromising their ability to provide quality internet.
In particular, the court found, the FCC is allowed to regulate “net neutrality” by exempting broadband providers from some of the regulations that are part of the Telecommunications Act.
That allows ISPs to charge different rates for different content, for example.
“This is a huge, gaping loophole that is not adequately addressed by the FCC,” said Matt Wood, policy director for Open Technology Institute, a group that advocates for more internet openness.
The FCC’s proposed rule exempts “certain broadband providers” from certain regulations.
That would include Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable.
In the opinion, Napolio argued that a blanket exemption of ISPs from these regulations would prevent the government from protecting consumers from internet service provider “predatory” practices, including “fast lanes.”
While ISPs are technically exempt from the FCC regulations, they are required to “use reasonable, nondiscriminatory practices to provide a level playing field for all.”
“The Commission’s proposed net neutrality rules will effectively permit internet service companies to charge internet users differently for different services,” the court said.
But as the ruling notes, the agency hasn’t explicitly prohibited the ISPs from doing that.
“Given the Commission’s lack of specific guidance on the issue, the Commission has not interpreted net neutrality to prohibit ISPs from charging different rates to different service tiers,” Napoliaty wrote.
The court also said that the proposed rules would not protect consumers from the “unlawful and unjustified discrimination of any Internet Service Provider, and may not prevent ISPs from unfairly blocking, slowing, or otherwise throttling lawful and lawful online content.”
The decision comes as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is weighing a proposed rule that would ban ISPs from blocking websites.
Under that rule, ISPs would be prohibited from blocking or slowing internet content, including those that are illegal or harmful to people or the environment.
The FTC has been trying to figure out whether or not to impose such a rule for years.
But despite the fact that the US Federal Communications Board, the federal agency charged with enforcing the net neutrality regulations, has been clear that the rules are unconstitutional, it has not proposed one.
The Trump administration has said it intends to withdraw the FCC proposal and, in a speech last month, Trump said that ISPs should be allowed to “be part of this marketplace” and that they would be free to charge for faster connections.
“That’s exactly what they should be doing, right?”
“And that’s what the FCC and the FCC has been doing.
They’ve been allowed to be part of a free and open marketplace, and the only thing they’ve been getting is the kind of money that they’re getting.”
But the FCC, which is made up of just a handful of commissioners, has said that it would prefer to wait and see what happens with the Trump administration.
“We’ve been very clear from the beginning that this rule will be subject to the rule of law and the