This is going to take an amendment to the constitution. The appeals court has ruled multiple times against core ideas of net neutrality [1][2], meaning that, fu

This is going to take an amendment to the constitution. The appeals court has ruled multiple times against core ideas of net neutrality [1][2], meaning that, fundamentally, net neutrality goes against the "law of the land". Well? We need to change the law of the land, then. Brazil has just passed an internet bill of rights [3], and I strongly believe that the internet cannot and will not be protected until the United States enacts something similar within our own constitution. The thing to remember here is that laws are not really the governing rules... it is the society which decides what laws to make, and therefore, it is the job of law to reflect the values and needs of the society. Edit - Maybe I should make myself clear in lieu of the downvoting: The threat of a walled-internet will not go away without proactive legislation to protect it in it's current form. The constitution guarantees "negative liberties"[4] for the people, meaning it protects the people from encroachment of their rights. What the internet needs is a similar protective piece of legislation which prevents encroachment on some of it's fundamental structures. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/technology/appeals-court-rejects-fcc-rules-on-internet-service-providers.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/technology/appeals-court-r... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/business/fcc-to-propose-new-rules-on-open-internet.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/business/fcc-to-propose-ne... [3] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/23/306238622/brazil-becomes-one-of-the-first-to-adopt-internet-bill-of-rights http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/23/306238622/bra... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty