Home | About | Donate

To Prevent Big Telecom From Gutting Net Neutrality Bill, 'Whole Internet' Urged to Watch Key Hearing


To Prevent Big Telecom From Gutting Net Neutrality Bill, 'Whole Internet' Urged to Watch Key Hearing

Jake Johnson, staff writer

"This could be the single most important moment for net neutrality this year."

That was Fight for the Future's urgent message to internet users across the U.S. on Thursday as the group announced a massive online protest to prevent telecom-backed lawmakers from gutting the Save the Internet Act while no one's looking.


I just got 2 form letter replies from Sen. Ron Wyden. I’m still fuming about the one affirming his dedication to Obamacare and opposition to single-payer and trying to dress it up as “choice.” (I’m happy to share if you want to be mad too.)

The other is on net neutrality. I’m not sure what to make of it. Is he on the right side this time? Is he at least talking the talk, even if he’ll cave to his donors?

Thank you for contacting me about net neutrality. I appreciate hearing from you on this vital issue.

I often say that net neutrality is the principle that, once you’ve paid your bill, you get to go where you want, how you want, on the internet. It means all schoolchildren enjoy equal opportunity to conduct research for class, adults can use the internet for their job search, older folks can stay connected to vital services, and entrepreneurs can keep lit the flames of internet innovation and commerce. And it’s about preventing big cable companies from rigging the internet for the benefit of those who can afford to pay more. But, without net neutrality rules in place, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are prone to act as gatekeepers of the internet, controlling access by throttling download speed of certain content and thereby limiting opportunities for innovation, speech, and commerce.

In 2006, I became the first Senator to introduce net neutrality legislation because I believed then, as I do now, that everyone should have fair and equal access to information. I have spent the past two decades leading the charge for a free and open internet, and I will continue to support any effort that preserves the internet’s essential place as the platform for free expression and association and its good status as the shipping lane of the 21st century.

In February 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), adopted the Open Internet Order to create net neutrality regulations that prohibit these ISPs from blocking or slowing the delivery of internet content to consumers. In my view, these protective rules that ensure ISPs do not provide one form of content preference over the others are the only way that the potential of the internet can be fully tapped and utilized. Unfortunately, in December 2017, Donald Trump’s FCC made the shortsighted and misguided decision to overturn net neutrality and allow paid prioritization and paid fast lanes on the internet.

I believe the 2015 Open Internet Order, including required protections under Title II of the Communications Act, gives the FCC the best authority to ensure a free and open internet, and I strongly opposed the Trump FCC’s harmful decision to reverse it. On the same day the FCC announced its decision, I worked with my colleagues to introduce a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution that would undo the historically awful decision by the FCC and restore the 2015 rules that ensure real net neutrality. While the Senate passed this CRA on a bipartisan basis, the House of Representatives has been unwilling to act and the measure has stalled.

Again, thank you for keeping me apprised of the issues that are important to you. If I may be of further assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.



                                            Ron Wyden

                                            United States Senator

There is only one American I know of in our time who is both patriotic and willing to make sacrifices, his name is Edward Snowden and he’s forced to live in exile in Russia. The Rest aren’t watching this, they collectively expect the government to make decisions for them without their involvement. Most hate the government but in truth have none to blame but themselves. There is no way net neutrality will survive this regime. Nobody here deserves it anyway.


It looks to me as if Wyden solidly favors “real” Net Neutrality in principle, but I am not convinced that he has the courage of his convictions. My own rep, usually pretty progressive, has declined to stick his neck out, and it has recently come out that he gets quite a bit of money from AS&S (and I don’t mean “American Science and Surplus”). I didn’t realize the vote was coming up so soon. I will contact some friends this evening to see if we can organize an offer to him to persuade him to get on board. Ideally the internet would be designated as as “common carrier,” like UPS and similar firms, which I believe the hardware owned by AS&S already is.

1 Like

Ninety-nine percent are on the take. Who can you trust?

1 Like

Some things should be free.

Teach us all to have the humility to admit to the limits of our knowledge and to ask questions and seek answers from reputable sources. Don’t censor anything. Censorship is for Russia and China or will lead to that kind of state. For who is the one who decides what is true and what is false? Don’t take that away from people. it will end badly.


Ol’ weasel word Wyden?

1 Like

Big Pharma , Big Telecom , etc , etc .


Good reply. I think my Congress critter is against Net Neutrality, Rob Wittman. of District 1 In Virginia . If I may Congressman give you some advice, " Don’t vote against Net Neutrality ".


I am afraid it won’t be favorable to consumers because too much money has been put into the hands of politicians to kill it, this includes both parties. If the outcome is bad we must post the names and pictures of all lawmakers who took the money and voted against us and let it be known they will suffer the next election.

1 Like

Gutting net-neutrality is akin to censoring books in the library. Why are these politicians wanting to be labelled as book burners? That’s how I see it.

When we buy a car, the car dealer doesn’t get to dictate which roads we can and cannot drive on or which destinations we can drive to. Why should ISPs be able to do so?


I assume those are rhetorical questions, but I’ll bite anyway.

I think most politicians don’t think much about books, except perhaps the old chestnut, “How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying.” For a variety of reasons many seem to see their mission as maintaining the status quo, and maybe helping or hindering certain groups according to their ideologies. They are focused mostly on getting re-elected, which stokes their egos, and since that requires boatloads of money (every two years for the US House) they come to adopt the ideologies of those who stoke their egos by giving them money.

It’s all about the money in this society. “Capitalism” is roughly Latin for “money worship.” Once the pols or the car dealers have the money they’re done, because neither has to deal directly with any single individual for repeat business.


I’m at a loss as to what type of “activism” this is. While I believe being actively engaged in public discourse is good, how will this change the outcome of our broken system? I think most people can agree that we our far beyond the point of passive protest and can point to multiple instances throughout our history that justify street actions as our only recourse against state opression. However, if you think the government is going to see the errors in their behavior by having a virtual sit-in, I hope you won’t be too disappointed by the the logical outcome.

1 Like

Reciprocity perhaps? Ultimately everything comes down to corruption. Telecoms and Communications companies may be allowed to operate without the regulatory infrastructure of a FCC and the federal government overseeing their operations may be incentive enough. Then there’s taxes, or absence thereof, absence of antitrust legislation is massive mergers and takeovers, freedom to act against the public interest with impunity in exchange for support of corrupt politicians. Massive government contracts for manufacture of propaganda for the status quo may make them many tens of billions of dollars, possibly more, and at a premium price paid in tax dollars… Ultimately , however, we may never know, after all there’s no free public discourse anymore so…Whatever it is, they are doing it, and aggressively so.


“Net neutrality” is a joke. People don’t understand or care to do their own research about what it really is and how it will give you fewer choices and higher prices. The Dems Net Neutrality does not protect real net neutrality like preventing companies like google and Facebook from censoring information they choose and limits choices with Title II regulation. Give me an example of a title II regulated industry with ample competition. Most areas are stuck with one provider due to crap deals the local governments made with providers if you want competition keep government out of it


Your statement is a joke. There’s lack of competition from ISPs directly as a result of lack of gov’t intervention namely anti-trust intervention.

So, why do you prefer an ISP that controls what content you can and cannot access on the internet and why don’t you think that is a joke? Why do you prefer to have ISPs be able to collect data on your internet usage without you’re awareness and then selling that data without paying you for producing it? Why do you want to give away stuff for free like that? Do you enjoy being used and abused by corporations?

1 Like