AND THIS IS MY DISCUSSION WRITING ABOUT IT : Regulation is a point to having a body or entity that provides operation by setting standards and rules on achieving the same

Lessig concept of “Regulability" of Internet

Lessig contends that the structure of the Internet architecture is critical in determining the regulability of certain behaviors. He acknowledges that regulation of cyberspace may have appeared more difficult initially due to the Internet's fundamental open-ended architectures and the functions of various applications, which made no distinction between types of information and promoted a decentralized model of communication. However, he argues, this began to change following the medium's commercialization and popularization, as economic incentives and the necessity to help and safeguard transactions and user interactions against phenomena such as cybercrime drove companies to create code that facilitated tighter control.

Lessig (2006) asserts that four restrictions may be used to govern Internet activity in general: "the law, social standards, the market, and architecture" (p. 123). Law specifies activities that are permissible to avoid legal consequences. Societal norms "restrain via the shame imposed by the community" (Lessig, 2006, p. 124). In most cases, a significant financial cost constraints consumers' behavior; these costs are market forces. The expense of technology, known as architecture, limits the behavior of individuals in cyberspace.

Globally, many states have adopted the Lessig’s framework is to regulate the Internet. For instance, in China, the primary component of regulation is legislation. The Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) cyber laws are generally based on the CCP's moral imperatives. They are promulgated by the CCP's various public agencies, including the Ministry of Information Industry (MII) and the Public Security Bureau, which together manage Internet gatekeeping and connectivity, as well as the types of filtered information. The Chinese market has historically been highly regulated, with prohibitive requirements for foreign telecommunications investments and financially burdensome compliance policies demonstrating a firm government grip on Internet market growth, particularly given that many large infrastructure companies remain state-owned despite their privatization. Unavoidably, the CCP's substantial influence on lawmaking, market structure, and, ultimately, code promulgation has affected Internet-usage norms. At the same time, the CCP's objectives are assisted by other, historically endemic Chinese social means.

Network neutrality legislation in the United States dates back to 1999 when it was implemented through merger conditions imposed on major IAPs. In research from Finley (2020), this argument arose in 1999, when academics worried that cable television's closed economic model might eventually supplant the Open Internet. While concerns about possible discrimination by IAPs date all the way back to 1999, the phrase 'network (net) neutrality was created in 2003 by Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University, in a study on online discrimination. We expressed concern that internet providers' proclivity for limiting innovative technology will stifle innovation in the long run and urged for anti-discrimination legislation.

The 2010 Order was extremely controversial due to its omission of wireless, resulting in various data limits, most significantly by 2011 AT&T, the introduction of zero-rating programs, and the Order itself being ineffective due to a 2014 lawsuit settlement.

The FCC decision in December 2017 effectively repealed the 2015 regulations in their entirety. New FCC's regulations eliminate internet companies' common carrier designation and any limits on banning or restricting material. In its stead, the new regulations mandate only that ISP reveal techniques about network management. The Federal Trade Commission will now be responsible for protecting consumers from alleged net neutrality infractions.

Congress, the courts, and the states now control the destiny of net neutrality. Twenty-one state attorneys general and numerous consumer advocacy groups in January 2018, sued the FCC to stop the new regulations and reinstate the old ones. In 2019, a federal court found mostly in favor of the FCC but said that the agency could not overrule state-level net neutrality rules (Finley, 2020).