Home | About | Donate

'Uphill Battle,' But Net Neutrality Defenders Say Victory in House Possible


#1

'Uphill Battle,' But Net Neutrality Defenders Say Victory in House Possible

Jon Queally, staff writer

Celebrating the 'historic win' in the Senate on Wednesday for only the briefest of moments, advocates for the open Internet who have worked relentlessly to reverse an effort by the telecommunications industry and Trump's FCC to kill net neutrality protections have immediately turned their attention to the U.S. House of Representatives where they say victory is possible if the American people keep up the pressure.


#2

Net Neutrality is the most important effort in maintaining equal access to the network, maintaining current prices (or reducing prices), and making universal reasonable access possible. Is there anyone who believes the big network providers (Comcast, AT&T , etc.) aren’t already raping their customers with excessive charges (much more than other countries)? Why would we give them even more license to reduce service and increase costs.


#3

We (spouse and I) are in the media business. Theres hardly ever mention of the arts or culture and how those would be affected. I resistbotted our congressman today requesting his support and a personal visit at his office. We can win and we have the numbers.


#4

“Back by powerful corporate interests and the telecom lobby, FCC Chairman Aijit Pai has expressed confidence that the Democrats will not succeed.”

Before you go further after what I consider to be my first amendment rights in the form of net neutrality, let me just say Fuck You, Aijit Pai. (There, a bit of today’s “pursuit of happiness” for me.)


#5

Rep. Morgan Griffith of the 9th district of VA. has already made clear he does not support net neutrality. Help me change his mind please.


#6

I have, as yet, failed to find any rational reason for destroying net neutrality. Not one. What I do find is the corrosive effects of corporate power on the fibers of our community and what we can expect in the future. There has never been a corporate effort that did not consider the well being of the corporation over those of the population. The only mitigating factor is the “Can we get away with this without being sued for more than we profit from it?” conundrum. WE do not need more exposure to or protections given to the rapacious nature of the psychotic corporate personhoods. The only reason there can be any debate on this issue and many others is that our political parties are in the thrall of corporate largess. When it is time for us to reelect the often tainted people we are offered to write our laws we must consider our votes as a last chance to save any hope of a democracy.