NEWSWHAT’S NEW NOWWhy 2015 May Be the Year We Solve Ne.docx

NEWS
WHAT’S NEW NOW
Why 2015 May Be the Year
We Solve Net Neutrality
BY CHLOE ALBANESIUS
T
he Internet is an amazing innovation that has transformed the
world as
we know it. But how do we keep it open and accessible to all?
Can
Internet service providers be trusted to police themselves and
let
competition guide the way? Or should regulators step in and set
up rules of the
road to ensure equal access to the Web?
These questions have been plaguing regulators and ISPs alike
for years now,
but it’s looking as though there’s the possibility that in 2015 the
Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) will finally issue rules that
actually stick.
And the agency might get there by taking a very controversial
route.
OPEN

NET NEUTRALITY?
You’ve probably heard the term “net neutrality.”
Perhaps your eyes glazed over as politicians droned on
about “Internet fast lanes” or “protecting the Internet.”
But what are they talking about? The Internet seems to
be working just fine, right?
Therein lies the dilemma. The Internet does indeed
work quite well, but there are those who are concerned
that that might not always be the case. Net neutrality,
therefore, is the idea that everyone should have equal
access to the Internet. Amazon, for example, should not
be able to pay for Amazon.com to load faster than
eBay.com or Etsy.com. ISPs, meanwhile, are at liberty
to speed up (or slow down) their entire networks, but
they cannot cut off access to one particular website or
platform (such as Netflix) because those sites are eating
up a ton of bandwidth.
In theory, all parties in the net neutrality debate are in
agreement about those basic tenets. But they disagree
over whether the government needs to step in and
monitor the situation. If you ask the ISPs, they are fully
capable of policing themselves and would never actively
break the rules of net neutrality because they would lose
customers. They also argue that requiring them to
follow onerous rules would make them less inclined to
invest in new technologies—like gigabit Internet—for
fear that they would not be able to run their networks as
they please.
On the other side, though, are consumer groups and
certain lawmakers who point to examples of ISPs
behaving badly. In fact, the modern-day net neutrality
debate started with accusations that Comcast was
cutting off access to peer-to-peer networks such as

BitTorrent during peak times in order to better manage
its network. Meanwhile, consumers in many cities do
not have multiple options when it comes to high-speed
Internet providers, meaning if they don’t like their
Internet speeds or service, they’re stuck.
The Internet
does indeed
work quite
well, but there
are those who
are concerned
that that
might not
always be
the case.
COMCAST VS. THE FCC
The net neutrality battle royal dates back to 2007, when
Comcast was accused of cutting off access to P2P
networks. Comcast admitted to delaying traffic during
peak times, but denied that it ever blocked access. But a
complaint was filed with the FCC, and the agency’s
then-Chairman Kevin Martin stepped in to issue an
enforcement action against Comcast in late 2008.
There were no fines, but the FCC called on Comcast to
be more transparent about how it runs its network—and
to stop the P2P blocking. Failure to do so meant the
potential for fines or another enforcement action.
By that time, then–presidential candidate Barack

Obama had publicly voiced his support for net
neutrality, so the issue was picking up steam, and
political lines were drawn.
Comcast responded by appealing the FCC’s decision
on the grounds that it was “legally inappropriate.” We
support net neutrality, Comcast said, but Congress—not
the FCC—should make the rules. More than a year later,
in April 2010, a court sided with Comcast and vacated
the FCC’s enforcement action.
VERIZON VS. THE FCC
Under the leadership of a new chairman, Julius
Genachowski, the FCC got to work crafting actual net
neutrality rules in the wake of the Comcast ruling.
After months of back-and-forth with the FCC’s
legal team, a divided commission approved an
order in December 2010 that included three high-
level rules: transparency, no blocking, and no
unreasonable discrimination.
The ISPs were not willing to take that lying down,
though, and this time it was Verizon that sued the
FCC—again on the grounds that it had no authority to
handle this issue. It took several years for that case to
wend its way through the system, but in January 2014
history repeated itself and a court sided with Verizon.
THIRD TIME’S THE CHARM?
That brings us to today and yet another FCC chairman, Tom
Wheeler, who
decided to take up the net neutrality issue once again. But
seeing as how the
FCC was rebuffed by the courts twice, Wheeler knew he needed

a different
approach. What he initially came up with, however, was not
exactly what net
neutrality advocates had in mind.
Wheeler floated the idea of allowing broadband providers to
strike deals for
prioritized traffic, provided those deals are “commercially
reasonable.” The
move was puzzling because it seemed to be the complete
opposite of what net
neutrality was intended to do.
The idea was never really fleshed out (publicly at least), and the
FCC didn’t
identify what would qualify as “commercially reasonable.” The
only example the
agency provided was a prioritized connection to someone with
an at-home heart
rate monitor that didn’t significantly impact Internet traffic to
anyone else. But
detractors envisioned a major broadband provider striking a
deal with a
company like Netflix to serve streams faster than those of a
rival, such as Hulu.
Wheeler repeatedly insisted that it was not his intention to
allow for deals
that created Internet fast lanes, and said his agency would stop
any ISP that
tried to do that. But the uproar prompted the chairman to water
down his
proposal. When the FCC voted in May 2014, it merely asked for
public comment
on the idea of paid prioritization rather than lay out actual rules.

And comment Americans did. When all was said and done, the
FCC had
received more than three million public comments on the issue.
PRESIDENT OBAMA WEIGHS IN
Throughout the net neutrality debate, one controversial option
has been
considered but never implemented: reclassifying broadband
Internet as a
telecom service.
FCC IN THE
HOT SEAT
Tom Wheeler, the
current chairman of
the FCC, is facing
controversy over
approaches for
dealing with the issue
of net neutrality in
the United States.
It sounds like a major yawn, but the mere thought of
reclassification (known
in D.C.-speak as Title II for its placement in the
Communications Act) is enough
to give the nation’s ISPs and wireless carriers a massive
coronary.
Right now, broadband is considered an “information service”
rather than a
“telecom service.” Reclassifying it as a telecom service would
give the FCC more
authority to regulate the industry, and lessen the chances that

future net
neutrality rules would be struck down.
But it’s largely considered a last resort. The road to classifying
broadband as
an information service prompted a court battle that went all the
way to the
Supreme Court in the Brand X case. So any move to reverse that
decision is sure
to face a similarly fierce battle.
One person who is on board with reclassification? President
Obama. In
November, he called on the FCC to develop “the strongest
possible rules to
protect net neutrality”—via Title II.
Reaction was swift, with those in the cable industry saying they
were
“stunned” and the wireless industry calling it a “tectonic shift
[that] would
create devastating results.” AT&T even said it would “pause”
its gigabit Internet
rollout until the uncertainty surrounding net neutrality was
resolved.
Wheeler said he would consider Obama’s proposal, and during a
recent
appearance at the Consumer Electronics Show, Wheeler
suggested that Title II
is on the table.
Though he declined to lay out the specifics of his plan—which
he will circulate
to his fellow commissioners on February 5—Wheeler told CES
attendees that

“there is a way to do Title II right.”
5 6
A FRIEND IN THE
OVAL OFFICE
President Obama
has expressed
support for
reclassifying
broadband Internet
as a telecom
service, thus giving
the FCC more
authority over it. ni
Ultimately, the FCC wants to ensure that “innovators
and consumers have open access to the networks” while
also “creating an environment that provides sufficient
incentive for the ISPs to want to invest [and] build more
and better networks,” Wheeler said.
THE CONGRESS PROBLEM
Ultimately, the easiest way to get net neutrality rules on
the books is for Congress to pass a bill and for President
Obama to sign it into law. But that’s a tall order,
especially with the Republicans now in control of both
the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Democrats have introduced a number of net
neutrality bills over the years, but none has made much
progress. Republicans, meanwhile, have drafted
legislation that upholds the basics of net neutrality
(with some very broad caveats) but would ban action

on Title II. So it will be tough to get past President
Obama’s desk.
THE ROAD AHEAD
Reclassification is not a given. As President Obama
pointed out last year, “The FCC is an independent
agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone.”
The FCC could, of course, just leave the issue alone,
but as those three million comments might suggest,
people are clearly passionate about the issue—on both
sides. And the Internet is not going anywhere. As more
and more people get online, start Web-based
businesses, switch over to mobile-only households, and
just generally live more digital lives, we’re going to need
some rules of the road.
Chairman Wheeler appears to realize this. His new
rules—whatever they may be—are scheduled to go up
for a vote at the agency’s February 26 open meeting.
That could change, but at this point, the FCC is on track
to go into battle once again.
We’re going
to need
some rules
of the road.
PC MAGAZINE DIGITAL EDITION I SUBSCRIBE I
FEBRUARY 2015
Copyright of PC Magazine is the property of ZDNet and its
content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
KIPLINGER’S PERSONAL FINANCE 02/201814
AHEAD
WHAT’S THE DEAL?
5 QUESTIONS ABOUT
NET NEUTRALITY
New rules could change the way you use
the internet, and you may pay more.
has new members appointed
by President Trump, argues
that paid prioritization (so-
called fast lanes) and other
practices could benefit con-
sumers and shouldn’t be
banned outright.
The new rules switch the
web back to a lightly regu-
lated information system
and scrap the regulations
that barred blocking or
throttling legal content and
banned fast lanes. What’s
left is a transparency rule
that forces web providers to
disclose their business prac-

tices to customers if they
block or throttle online
data, or if they strike deals
to speed up certain content
via fast lanes.
Many consumers don’t
think too highly of their
cable or internet service
provider. In a 2017 cus-
tomer satisfaction survey,
cable companies and ISPs
ranked dead last among 43
industries.
Consumers also recoil at
the idea of having their un-
fettered access to the inter-
net change drastically. Plus,
many customers find com-
petition for high-speed home
web service lacking, and
they worry about broadband
providers hiking prices or
rolling out unfair practices.
The debate has incited
both sides of the political
aisle, with Republicans
cheering the regulatory
rollback and Democrats
fiercely opposing it.
Who will police bad behavior?
The FCC says that the move

reinstates the Federal Trade
Commission’s authority to
police deceptive or unfair
practices, and that state
attorneys general still can
crack down on companies
for breaches of their terms
and agreements. The FCC
also points to the antitrust
tools that the Department
of Justice can use to crack
down on future anticompet-
itive behavior. The FCC can
dole out fines to companies
that fail to meet transpar-
ency requirements.
NET NEUTRALITY IS THE IDEA
that all legal internet con-
tent should be treated
equally by internet service
providers. Comcast, Verizon
and other web services, the
thinking goes, are conduits
to the World Wide Web and
should abide by certain
rules. They shouldn’t speed
up, slow down or block cer-
tain sites, for instance. Net
neutrality has become a ral-
lying cry for web advocates
looking to defend what they
call the “free and open” in-
ternet. The theory is simple
to lay out, but in practice it’s
a more complex debate.

What’s happening now, and
why is the debate so heated?
The Federal Communica-
tions Commission is revers-
ing a 2015 order that im-
posed stringent rules on
broadband. The FCC, which
How will internet providers
react to the new rules? If the
rules take hold, internet pro-
viders would slowly but
surely launch a new crop of
money-making services. Ex-
pect fast lanes to crop up for
services such as virtual real-
ity gaming and telehealth.
Cellular providers would
launch more zero-rated
plans, which let users stream
certain apps and websites
without hitting their data
cap. These plans were at risk
of violating the 2015 rules,
so some providers were re-
luctant to offer them.
T-Mobile, for instance,
has used such plans to let
customers use music-
streaming apps and more.
In T-Mobile’s case, no
money is exchanged, but the
apps must meet T-Mobile’s
technical requirements.

Will my internet cost more? It’s
possible consumers will save
money for some services.
Offering zero-rated services
for cellular plans makes
streaming data cheaper. As
cellular providers duke it
out in a competitive wireless
market, prices will stay low
for mobile data. And next-
generation 5G wireless tech-
nology should spur more
competition in some urban
areas. But the FCC rules will
likely embolden more broad-
band companies to launch
data caps for home service
and charge extra when users
go over their limit.
What happens next? The
fight over net neutrality
is headed for another
round of court battles,
which could delay the
new regulations from kick-
ing in. JOHN MILEY
ILLUSTRATION BY VALÉRY GOULET
K2-AHEAD.1.indd 14K2-AHEAD.1.indd 14 12/15/17 2:31
PM12/15/17 2:31 PM
Copyright of Kiplinger's Personal Finance is the property of

Kiplinger Washington Editors
Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
8 T E A C H E R L I B R A R I A N 4 5 : 4
HELEN R. ADAMS AND CHRISTOPHER HARRIS
“Without Net Neutrality,
curriculum decisions may be
influenced by ISPs.”
Net Neutrality is the concept that Inter-net service providers
(ISP) must treat
all Internet content equally “regardless of its
kind, source, or destination” (Merriam-Web-
ster, n.d.). Under Net Neutrality, ISPs were
not allowed to speed up, slow down, favor, or
block Internet traffi c.
Net Neutrality protections were created in 2015 by the Federal
Communications
Commission (FCC), an independent government agency that
oversees and en-
forces communications laws and regulations for state, national,
and international

communications via radio, television, cable, wire, and satellite
(FCC, n.d). Under
its 2015 “Open Internet Order,” the FCC changed the classifi
cation of ISPs from
“information services” to “telecommunication services.” With
that change, In-
ternet service providers became “common carriers,” public
utilities like phone
companies that cannot charge different rates for carrying the
same content. The
“Open Internet Order” prevented the creation of “slow lanes”
and “fast lanes”
for Internet traffi c. This reclassifi cation occurred because,
under a lawsuit brought
by Verizon in 2014, a federal court struck down the ability of
the FCC to impose
Net Neutrality aspects of antiblocking and antislowing on
information services
(McArdle, 2015).
revokinG net neutrality
Never a fan of Net Neutrality, FCC chairman Ajit Pai,
designated chair of the
commission by President Trump in January 2017, signaled early
in his term his

intent to dismantle Net Neutrality protections. In May 2017, the
FCC issued “Re-
storing Internet Freedom Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.” Its
purpose was to
“restore the Internet to a light-touch
regulatory framework” and to change
broadband Internet service back to an
“information service” (FCC, 2017).
The news that the FCC intended to
reverse Net Neutrality created huge re-
actions by advocates who wanted Inter-
net activity to continue with all infor-
mation, content, websites, and services
treated equally. The FCC received 21.8
million comments, most protesting the
rule change, but a controversy over
millions of duplicate messages sent by
spambots caused Ajit Pai to announce
that the FCC would consider only

those that “introduced new facts into
the record or made serious legal argu-
ments” (Romano, 2017). In addition to
comments, there were protests against
the impending FCC action. On July
12, 2017, the American Library Asso-
ciation (ALA) and nearly two hundred
other organizations participated in
“Day of Action,” an online protest to
save Net Neutrality (ALA, 2017).
On December 14, 2017, FCC com-
missioners revoked Network Neutral-
ity rules by a 3–2 vote. As a result, ISPs
can now legally offer “tiered service”
favoring some websites, services, and
applications with faster connections,
blocking others, or charging some con-
Net Neutrality

Why It Matters to School Librarians
F e a t u r e A R T I C L E
tent providers greater fees to connect
to their customers (Fung, 2017). This
is the “fast lane” and “slow lane” con-
cept. Under the new FCC order, ISPs
are required to reveal their service pro-
visions to customers, but transparency
does not mean equitable access. Trans-
parency is only feasible when there is
a viable marketplace where customers
such as schools can select service from
a company that better refl ects their
needs. A deeper issue that consumers
face, however, is the nebulous nature
of the Internet. Even if a consumer’s
direct ISP is not fi ltering traffi c, other

steps in the connection between the
consumer and the content being ac-
cessed may cause a problem.
Regardless of the vote, this issue is
not over. Political discourse, legal ac-
tion, and active advocacy will continue.
The FCC’s actions are expected to trig-
ger legal challenges. On the day of the
vote, the New York State Offi ce of the
Attorney General (2017) announced
that it will spearhead a multistate law-
suit to fi ght the elimination of Net
Neutrality rules.
ALA and other advocates will con-
tinue to work toward restoration of
Net Neutrality. ALA president Jim
Neal asserts,
Teachers, librarians and students

in K–12 schools have benefi ted enor-
mously from effective and equitable
access to Internet resources, appli-
cations, educational materials, and
communities of learning. The dis-
mantling of Net Neutrality places
this educational innovation at risk,
as the speed and quality of access is
eroded, and all ideas and perspec-
tives are not treated equally. (per-
sonal communication, December
28, 2017)
potential consequences For
schools
Although there is considerable specu-
lation, the full impact of the end of
Net Neutrality for schools and school
libraries is unknown at this time and
may remain so for many months. Rob-

ert Bocher, senior fellow for ALA’s Of-
fi ce for Information Technology Policy,
notes that broadband providers and
ISPs can now legally make decisions
regarding the content that is carried
on their networks related to its speed
and cost (personal communication,
December 31, 2017). This changes the
role of both a school and library’s ISPs
and all of the interconnected networks
from being neutral carriers of content
to potentially being gatekeepers of
content. This change could be direct—
slowing down or even blocking content
based on provider or topic—or more
indirect—with information content
providers charging schools and librar-
ies to recoup costs imposed by their

ISP or other network providers.
Marijke Visser, associate director
for the Offi ce for Information Tech-
nology Policy at the ALA Washington
offi ce, provided some insight into the
effect for schools. A major concern is
whether educational content will be
slowed down so ISPs can give preferen-
tial treatment in a “fast lane” to content
that will give them greater fi nancial re-
turn or in which they have ownership.
Visser expressed special concern for
rural areas, explaining,
If provider X starts throttling
[slowing] content for a school, then
the school would have no other op-
tion but to move its business to an-
other ISP that would not throttle

school-based content (or content it
teen issues
Balinson, Andrea. depression, anxiety
and bipolar disorders (Living with
Diseases and Disorders). Mason
Crest, 2018. 64p. LB $31.93. ISBN:
9781422237557. Grades 7-12. With a
brief glossary preceding each chapter,
the reader understands the vocabulary.
Back matter has some valuable
information including a Q-code video to
show students how to help friends with
depression. The section “What to Say and
What Not to Say” is powerful. Additional
reading, extensive glossary, and index are
included.
Goldy-Brown, Sarah. autism spectrum
disorder (Diseases and Disorders). Lucent
Greenhaven, 2018. 104p. LB $39.90. ISBN:
978153456122-9. Grades 7-10. The broad
range of Autism manifests itself in many
ways. Understanding the range helps the
person as well as friends and family. Each
chapter discusses the causes, treatments,
and the features of autism. Fact boxes
condense facts for a quicker read. Chapter
notes, glossary, further information, and
index conclude this rich title.
Haelle, Tara. vaccination investigation:
the history and science of vaccines.
Twenty-First Century, 2018. 120p. LB
$37.32.ISBN: 97-1512425307. Grades

8-12. Beginning chapters cover the
history of vaccines, and the author also
presents a chapter, “Pushback against
Vaccines,” which is useful for research
including cultural understanding of why
some people choose not to get vaccines.
Very informative fact boxes are included.
Extensive back matter will serve the
research student.
Orr, Tamra B. coping with breakups and
Jealousy (Coping). RosenYA, 2018. 112p.
LB $27.85. ISBN: 9781508173885.Grades
7-12. This series deals with current social
issues that teens are concerned with such
as cyberbullying, gender dysphoria, racial
inequality and more. Well-developed
fact boxes and charts assist teens in
handling these issues. A glossary, in-depth
bibliography, and index conclude this title.
bookmarkIT
s a r a c a t h e r i n e h o W a r d
ya nonFiction
A P R I L 2 0 1 8 9
dismantling Net Neutrality rules will
affect schools. He posed the question,
“Will school districts be stuck with the

bill for higher transport costs levied
on digital content providers?” (CoSN,
2017). He was concerned that, under
the new FCC order, requiring ISPs to
disclose their pricing and practices
does nothing to protect schools from
higher carriage fees charged by ISPs to
licensed educational content providers,
such as reference databases, and then
passed along to schools (personal com-
munication, December 16, 2017). In
other words, even if the school’s direct
service provider is completely transpar-
ent about not charging the school, any
other provider in the chain between the
school and the content provider could
be imposing fees that result in a higher
cost to the school.

Scott Floyd, chief technology officer
for White Oak ISD in Texas, articulates
the uncertainty for districts like his,
The ISPs will have the power to
decide who they allow full access
and who they do not. Sadly, it will
all revolve around who is paying for
the extra usage and who isn’t. Does
that mean Google tools like Hangout
or Microsoft’s Skype will be slowed?
Only time will tell, but there will be
no rules in place protecting those
tools and keeping the bandwidth
constant for everyone. In the end,
the dollar makes the decision. (per-
sonal communication, December 4,
2017)
possible solutions

Solution
s for schools facing a future
without Net Neutrality are not plen-
tiful and favor those with strength in
numbers of districts, large and small,
banding together into groups to cre-
ate leverage. Krueger sees regional or
statewide educational networking con-
sortia as one potential solution:
Those schools and libraries that
are from larger organizations and/
or can aggregate their purchasing

power through cooperative purchas-
ing are likely to be best protected in
this new world. State education net-
works, RENs, and state contracts
are all likely to be able to better
protect rural schools and libraries.
(personal communication, Decem-
ber 16, 2017)
He recommends that those with
market choices work toward contracts
that “prohibit blocking, throttling, and
paid prioritization—in other words,

embedding Net Neutrality in their
contracts.”
In rural regions, municipal broad-
band may be a strong possibility, but
the same companies that fought hard
to kill Net Neutrality are also trying to
block this potential solution. Currently
there are battles in many state legisla-
tures to prevent the creation of mu-
nicipal broadband providers that offer
competition to established ISPs, and
more than 20 states ban or limit mu-
nicipal broadband networks (Chang,

2016). School districts, especially
smaller or rural districts, may need to
collaborate on contracts or work with
local municipalities or public libraries
to gain sufficient bargaining power to
dictate favorable terms.
net neutrality and
intellectual Freedom
With Net Neutrality eliminated, In-
ternet users in K–12 schools face an
wanted to use like some YouTube
video on chemical compounds or a

video from National Geographic on
bird migration). (personal commu-
nication, December 7, 2017)
Without Net Neutrality, curricu-
lum decisions may be influenced by
ISPs. What if ISP X signs a deal with
McGraw-Hill to make it the exclu-
sive digital textbook partner? As a re-
sult, access to other digital textbooks
could be terminated or slowed down.
Or perhaps the local ISP makes deci-
sions about which streaming video

services will work. These are curricu-
lum decisions that should be made by
the school, but because access comes
through the ISP, it can intrude upon
local decision-making.
An easy solution would be for the
school to change to an ISP that would
agree not to filter traffic. Unfortu-
nately, in many rural areas, there are
often few choices for ISPs, creating a
lack of competition. An FCC report
from June 2017 found that about 75%
of U.S. census block regions have zero

choice in terms of high speed Internet/
broadband access (Brodkin, 2017).
The FCC has claimed that market
competition will provide a check on
potential ISP abuse. “Given the ex-
tent of competition in Internet access
supply,” the FCC’s (2017) new order
states, “the protections regulating ISPs
are not necessary” (p. 144). Despite
the frequent claims of competition
throughout the document, the statis-
tics included by the FCC show that

competition is not as widespread as it
would like to claim.
Cost is also a factor. Consortium on
School Networking (CoSN) CEO Keith
Krueger alluded to costs when he asked
FCC commissioners to consider how
abridgement of their intellectual free-
dom. Under Net Neutrality, ISPs were
required to treat all Internet traffic
equitably, reflecting the principal of
nondiscrimination. Because the 2015
“Internet Open Order” was revoked

and replaced by the ironically titled
“Internet Freedom Order,” ISPs and
broadband providers can now differen-
tiate among Internet content, and their
“tiered access” systems can prioritize
digital speech for fast delivery, delay, or
blocking. As a result, the full spectrum
of diverse speech (including educa-
tional content) is curtailed for anyone
seeking to express or receive ideas.
One of the major purposes of
schools is to educate students for their

future roles as citizens or residents of
a democratic society. Students learn
information-literacy skills including
discerning between fact and opinion.
Schools provide Internet access for stu-
dents’ instruction, information seeking,
and learning. When there are barriers
to the provision of Internet service
such as blocking legal content or dra-
matically increasing the cost of access,
it affects students’ ability to access on-
line content and learn what is needed,
putting U.S. democracy at risk.

Neal saw the threat to reverse Net
Neutrality and asked the ALA Intel-
lectual Freedom Committee (IFC) to
write a position statement consider-
ing the “intellectual freedom impli-
cations of the efforts to set aside Net
Neutrality” (personal communication,
July 13, 2017). Between July 2017 and
February 2018, an IFC working group
created the statement laying out the
arguments for the ways Net Neutral-
ity is an intellectual freedom issue and

requesting comment from the library
community. In February 2018, ALA
Council approved “Network Neutral-
soccer/Futball
Challen, Paul. What does a Forward do?
(Soccer Smarts). PowerKids, 2018. 32p.
LB $26.25. ISBN: 9781508154457. Grades
3-6. This series covers the additional
positions of Defender, Goalkeeper,
and Midfielder, with the Forward
considered the “star.” The emphasis on
respect, sportsmanship and team-play
is encouraged. Included is a simple
glossary, additional information, and an
index.
Doeden, Matt. the World cup: soccer’s
Global championship (Spectacular
Sports). Lerner, 2018. 64p. LB $33.32.
ISBN: 9781512427554. Grades 5-10. From
Introduction to Source Notes, this title
showcases important games through

the years including information about
some of the best world-class players.
To understand the importance of soccer
around the world, the author describes
the culture of some of the “Heroics and
Heartbreak” through the years.
Luke, Andrew. team usa (The Road
to the World’s Most Popular Cup).
Mason Crest, 2018. 80p. LB $24.95. ISBN:
9781422239520. Grades 5-10. Some
consider soccer to be new to the United
States, but the first games were played
in 1884 at Rutgers University. To achieve
a high level of popularity has taken many
years. This title is filled with QR Codes,
sidebars, colorful photos, research
projects, and a brief glossary at the end
of each chapter. An extensive glossary,
additional reading, and full index
completes the title.
Schuh, Mari. soccer (Spot). Amicus, 2018.
16p. LB $25.65. ISBN: 9781681570897.
Grades PK-2. Each page has a full

color picture of some aspect of soccer
and helps to teach the beginning or
non-reader new vocabulary inside the
“spot” through a fun search. A page at
the end gives the answers within a red
circle.
bookmarkIT
s a r a c a t h e r i n e h o W a r d
Junior nonFiction
ity: An Intellectual Freedom Issue” as
an official statement of the ALA. The
full statement is available on the ALA
website (http://www.ala.org/advocacy/
intfreedom/netneutrality).
What can school librarians
do?
The ALA and partner organizations

will continue to apply political pres-
sure until Net Neutrality is restored.
School librarians can play an active
role, and it begins with being well in-
formed on current political, legal, and
advocacy efforts. There are two key
information sources, and anyone may
use them. Register to receive the ALA
Washington Office’s District Dispatch,
a weekly e-newsletter with information
on library and education federal legis-
lation and updates on Net Neutrality

(http://www.districtdispatch.org/).
Subscribe to the Intellectual Freedom
News, a free weekly compilation of ar-
ticles on a range of intellectual freedom
issues including Net Neutrality on the
OIF Blog web page (http://www.oif.
ala.org/oif/) by entering your email
address. The next step is becoming
an active advocate for Net Neutrality.
Educate colleagues, students, admin-
istrators, school board members, and
parents about Net Neutrality and what
its loss means to schools and communi-

ties. Mobilize local support to respond
when needed and to contact senators
and representatives relating personal
stories of the realities of no Network
Neutrality rules.
the net in 2018
Net Neutrality is a difficult concept to
explain with esoteric policy language
from the FCC and other federal agen-
A P R I L 2 0 1 8 11

cies. To make things more challenging,
the Internet didn’t appear to change on
December 14 when the FCC ended Net
Neutrality. The ramifications discussed
in this article outline the possibilities
experts are concerned may happen now
that protections are gone. The problem
will be identifying what, if anything, is
being done by ISPs behind the scenes.
This determination will likely require
the collection of data over time to pro-
vide evidence of slowdowns for some
content or in some locations. Indi-

viduals can help by participating in
independent speed tests like those con-
ducted by Measurement Lab at http://
measurementlab.net.
reFerences
American Library Association (ALA).
(2017). July 12 day of action to save
Net Neutrality. Retrieved from http://
www.ala.org/advocacy/july-12-day-
action-save-net-neutrality/
Brodkin, J. (2017). 50 million US
homes have only one 25Mbps Internet

provider or none at all. Retrieved from
https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2017/06/50-million-us-
homes-have-only-one-25mbps-inter-
net-provider-or-none-at-all/
Chang, R. (2016). Laws prohibit or re-
strict municipal broadband networks in
20-plus states. Retrieved from https://
thejournal.com/articles/2016/09/08/
laws-prohibit-or-restrict-local-gov-
ernments-from-building-broadband-
networks.aspx/
Consortium on School Networking

(CoSN). (2017). CoSN: Aggressive
Net Neutrality plan raises questions for
schools. Retrieved from http://cosn.
org/about/news/cosn-aggressive-net-
neutrality-plan-raises-troubling-ques-
tions-schools/
Federal Communications Commis-
sion (FCC). (n.d.). About the FCC.
Retrieved from https://www.fcc.gov/
about/overview/
Federal Communications Commis-
sion (FCC). (2017). Restoring Internet

freedom notice of proposed rulemaking.
Retrieved from https://www.fcc.gov/
document/restoring-internet-free-
dom-notice-proposed-rulemaking/
Fung, B. (2017). The FCC just voted
to repeal its Net Neutrality rules, in a
sweeping act of deregulation. Retrieved
from https://www.washingtonpost.
com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/14/
the-fcc-is-expected-to-repeal-its-
n e t - n e u t r a l i t y - r u l e s - t o d ay - i n - a -
sweeping-act-of-deregulation/?utm_
term=.7c140e19d5a6/

McArdle, J. (2015). Internet providers
are now common carriers: What does that
mean for you? Retrieved from https://
p o t o m a c i n s t i t u t e c e o . wo rd p r e s s .
com/2015/04/03/internet-providers-
a re - n ow - c o m m o n - c a r r i e rs - wh a t -
does-that-mean-for-you/
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.) Net Neutral-
ity. Retrieved from https://www.mer-
riam-webster.com/dictionary/net%20
neutrality/.
New York State Office of the Attorney

General. (2017). Press release: A. G.
Schneiderman: I will sue to stop the ille-
gal rollback of Net Neutrality. Retrieved
from https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/
ag-schneiderman-i-will-sue-stop-ille-
gal-rollback-net-neutrality/
Romano, A. (2017). The FCC asked
for Net Neutrality opinions, then re-
jected most of them. Retrieved from
h t t p s : / / w w w. v o x . c o m / t e c h n o l -
ogy/2017/12/1/16715274/fcc-net-neu-
trality-spambots-comments-pew/.
Helen R. Adams, MLS, is an online

senior lecturer for Antioch University–
Seattle in the areas of intellectual free-
dom, privacy, ethics, and copyright.
A Wisconsin resident, she formerly
worked as a school librarian and served
as president of the American Associa-
tion of School Librarians (AASL). She
is chair of the American Library As-
sociation Intellectual Freedom Com-
mittee and a member of the AASL
Knowledge Quest Advisory Board. She
authored Protecting Intellectual Free-

dom and Privacy in Your School Library
(2013) and co-contributed a chapter on
intellectual freedom to the second edi-
tion of The Many Faces of School Li-
brary Leadership (2017).
Christopher Harris is the director
of the School Library System for the
Genesee Valley Educational Partner-
ship, serving 22 small, rural school
districts in western New York. He also
serves as a fellow for Youth and Tech-
nology Policy Issues with the American
Library Association Office for Infor-

mation Technology Policy. He is the au-
thor of the Teaching Through Games
series (2015) and the activities for the
Spotlight on Kids Can Code interactive
ebooks (2016). He can be reached at
[email protected]
Copyright of Teacher Librarian is the property of EL Kurdyla
Publishing LLC and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.
References:

NetNeutrality: Why It Matters to School Librarians.
Authors:
ADAMS, HELEN R., HARRIS, CHRISTOPHER
Source: Teacher Librarian. Apr2018, Vol. 45 Issue 4, p8-12. 5p.
Document Type: Article
Subjects: NETWORK neutralityINTERNET service
providersCURRICULUM planningSCHOOL librariansUNITED
States. Federal Communications Commission
Abstract:
The article discusses the impact of the end
of netneutrality protections on school librarians. It is noted
that net neutrality protections were created in 2015 by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and in May 2017,
it issued "Restoring Internet Freedom Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking." It is stated that without netneutrality, curriculum
decisions may be influenced by Internet service providers
(ISPs).
ISSN: 1481-1782
Accession Number: 129318050
Database: MasterFILE Premier
5 QUESTIONS ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY.
Authors:MILEY, JOHN
Source: Kiplinger's Personal Finance. Feb2018, Vol. 72 Issue 2,
p14-14. 1p. 1 Color Photograph.

Subject Terms:
· BROADBAND communication systems
· CONSUMERS
· FINES (Penalties)
· NETWORK neutrality
Geographic Terms:UNITED States
Company/Entity: UNITED States. Federal Communications
CommissionT-Mobile USA Inc.
NAICS/Industry Codes:
· 517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers
· 926130 Regulation and Administration of Communications,
Electric, Gas, and Other Utilities
Abstract:
The article discusses net neutrality and impact of rule changes.
Topics discussed include changes in rules by the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) on broadband to benefit
consumers, fines to companies that fail to meet transparency
requirements and launch of plan by T-Mobile to let customers
use music streaming applications (apps).
Full Text Word Count: 612
ISSN: 1528-9729
Database: Business Source Premier
Why 2015 May Be the Year We Solve NetNeutrality.
Authors: ALBANESIUS, CHLOE

Source: PC Magazine. Feb2015, p12-17. 6p.
Subjects:
NETWORK neutralityCOMMUNICATION policyINTERNET
access controlINTERNET service providers -- Law &
legislationUNITED States. Federal Communications
Commission
Abstract:
The article focuses on the solutions for netneutrality in the U.S.
It mentions that netneutrality is the principle that Internet
service providers and the government should provide equal
access to the Internet. It reflects on the rules issued by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S.
ISSN: 2373-2830
Database: MasterFILE Premier
NetNeutrality Issues and Different Cross-sections of Society --
An Indian Perspective.
Authors:
Mukherjee, Debarshi1[email protected]Dhir,
Sonia2[email protected]
Source:
IPE Journal of Management. Jul-Dec2016, Vol. 6 Issue 2, p80-
91. 12p.

Subject Terms:
NETWORK neutralityTELECOMMUNICATION policy --
IndiaINDIA. Telecom Regulatory Authority
Author-Supplied Keywords:
NetNeutralityTRAI Consultation PaperZero Pricing
Company/Entity: AMAZON.COM Inc.
DUNS Number: 884745530
Ticker: AMZN
Reviews & Products:
GOOGLE (Web resource)FACEBOOK (Web resource)
Abstract:
The principle of netneutrality has gained much attention since
2006 and again in 2015 in India when Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India released its consultation paper in which it
invited public opinions with regard to the regulation of free
availability and access of content (text, voice and media) on
internet by various service providers. The topic gained much
attention when the established telecom corporations started
suggesting that they should be paid by the internet content
providers like Facebook, Youtube, Google etc, for providing
them the network for reaching the masses. Telecom companies
argue that the internet content providers have been making high
profits from low investments while they are the ones to have
made high investments in building the infrastructure for these
service providers to operate, due to which the internet service

providers should share their revenues with the telecom
companies. The violation of netneutrality will take place if any
kind of discrimination takes place in terms of providing any
type of data to the consumers. This means their very right to
free access to information from internet will be violated.
Violation of netneutrality has generated much uproar around the
world since telecom corporations like Airtel demanded that
telecom companies like Airtel should be paid by the content
providers like Google, Facebook, Amazon etc for letting them
display their content on internet to the mass consumers and
generating huge profits. This violation means that differential
pricing is likely to be practised by the telecom firms in terms of
charging both the internet service providers and consumers.
Currently there are no laws in India which
govern netneutrality which means the content available on
internet can be accessed by anybody without any kind of
discrimination. This study seeks to fulfill the knowledge gap by
empirically analyzing the various cross sections of the society
which are bound to get affected by the violation
of netneutrality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of IPE Journal of Management is the property of
Institute of Public Enterprise and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users

may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This
abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the
accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original
published version of the material for the full
abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Author Affiliations:
1Associate Professor, Department of Business Management,
Tripura University, Agartala
2Assistant Professor, IMS Noida, Uttar Pradesh
ISSN: 2249-9040
Database: Business Source Premier
https://0-search-proquest-
com.library.acaweb.org/docview/1894951324?accountid=9864

NEWSWHAT’S NEW NOWWhy 2015 May Be the Year We Solve Ne.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to NEWSWHAT’S NEW NOWWhy 2015 May Be the Year We Solve Ne.docx

Similar to NEWSWHAT’S NEW NOWWhy 2015 May Be the Year We Solve Ne.docx (17)

More from curwenmichaela

More from curwenmichaela (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

NEWSWHAT’S NEW NOWWhy 2015 May Be the Year We Solve Ne.docx