Net neutrality represents an essential regulatory tool to ensure free speech on the Internet. The U.S. should restore this policy immediately. Net neutrality bans Internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking or slowing down Internet access for selected websites. It mandates indiscriminate treatments from ISPs to all online information. [1] The lack of net neutrality threatens online freedom of speech. The Internet has become an integral tool for organization and expression across the political spectrum. The lack of net neutrality enables ISPs to block access to any websites of their choice. Such a powerful tool can lead to significant erosion of the freedom of speech by business and political authorities. For example, At&T can block comments critical of its business. [2] On a political level, opinions deemed unfavorable can receive legal censorship. If pushed to an extreme, the lack of regulation allows complete censorship, akin to China’s “Great Firewall” program. Such authority infringes on the First Amendment of the United States and a cornerstone of any healthy democracy. [3] For the sake of free speech, the U.S. should restore net neutrality. [1]. McSherry, Corynne. 2017. "An Attack On Net Neutrality Is An Attack On Free Speech". Blog. Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-attack-free-speech. [2]. Vanden Heuvel, Katrina. 2017. Net Neutrality Is the Free Speech Fight of Our Generation Rebecca Vallas Interview by . In person. [3]. Travers, Georgia. 2018. "Net Neutrality: What’S At Stake And Why It Matters". Blog. Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic. https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/net-neutrality-whats-stake-and-why-it-matters.

**TL;DR – Net neutrality for the internet gives way to opportunistic competition for companies that we, as consumers, get to enjoy freely because of net neutrality.** The FCC's reclassification of broadband internet as a telecommunication service showed an even more inherent need for net neutrality, but they have since changed their mind. Essentially, ISPs need to be limited in their description against service providers. AOL was once a monopoly in the sense that they provided internet access as well as email and news. Broadband is now geographically distinguished with little competition in the US – as opposed to the UK having many providers for internet in specific areas based on shared signals. A main source of interference that is combated with net neutrality comes from cable companies against companies attempting to reach customers. Companies without a partnership or service with the cable company are at a disadvantage. Free speech plays a strong role in this especially with political groups trying to spread word without being limited by cable companies. For personal context, a strong example of net neutrality is shown through streaming services. With so many of them (Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video, HBO), users have a choice to use whichever they want. Without net neutrality, it is possible for ISPs to slow down their sites and direct consumers elsewhere. https://www.law.nyu.edu/news/ideas/christopher-jon-sprigman-net-neutrality-explained