22 Association of Research Libraries Research Library Issues 293 — 2018 Conclusion Ultimately, the best outcome for strong net neutrality protections would be for the DC Circuit—and the Supreme Court, should it agree to review whatever decision comes out of the lower court—to overturn the FCC’s repeal of its Open Internet Order. Even if Congress acts under the Congressional Review Act, President Trump would certainly not sign the resolution, making repeal of the FCC’s new order through that mechanism highly unlikely. Any legislative solution in Congress, while it may provide stronger protections than the FCC’s new approach, is unlikely to reach the full extent of protections from the 2015 order. Additionally, although states and municipalities can blunt the effect of the FCC’s repudiation of net neutrality regulations, this approach offers a mere piecemeal solution that will result in, at best, a patchwork of net neutrality rules that protects users in some states, but not in others. While the FCC has reversed itself on regulating and protecting an open internet, it is worth noting that many other countries retain strong protections.8 In Canada, for example, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission has a robust framework in place to protect an open internet, including prohibiting the prioritization or favoring of affiliated content and evaluating internet traffic management by ISPs to protect against discriminatory conduct. Hopefully, the FCC’s departure from strongly protecting net neutrality will be brief and the United States will once again be a leader in ensuring that the internet continues to function as it has, flourishing as an open platform. ARL will continue to engage in net neutrality advocacy, individually as well as in various coalitions involving higher education, libraries, ARL provides a unique, non- commercial perspective on net neutrality, speaking on behalf of thousands of students, faculty, and other scholars who use the internet via research institutions.