In a video of a Senate debate Wednesday morning, Minnesota Senator Al Franken defends Net Neutrality against a Republican-led attempt to repeal the law passed by the FCC in 2010. In the video, he lashes out against the repeal attempt, calling it a "partisan resolution" that needs to be stopped in its tracks.
Franken delved into the purpose of net neutrality, explaining that it was put in place to make sure that all traffic on the internet is equally accessible; it prevents anyone, such as corporations, from paying an ISP money in exchange for slowing down access speeds to a site. For example, a company could pay an ISP large sums of money to prevent users of that ISP from accessing a site of one of the company's competitors. This would severely limit the ability for new businesses to start up, since corporations could simply pay to make their sites inaccessible.
A similar message hit The Huffington Post on November 8 as Franken wrote, "If Republicans have their way, large corporations won't just have the loudest voices in the room. They'll be able to effectively silence everyone else. Every small business they'd prefer not to compete with. Every blogger who publishes something they don't like. We have to stop them."
As Franken defends net neutrality by mentioning its usefulness and the cons of repealing it, he also brings to light yet another effort by the GOP to focus on issues that are pretty much guaranteed to fail instead of focusing on measures that would influence the issues our country sees today.
The White House itself pledged that Obama would use his veto power if the bill came across his desk, saying, "It would be ill-advised to threaten the very foundations of innovation in the Internet economy and the democratic spirit that has made the Internet a force for social progress around the world."
The Republicans, despite facing this clear opposition, have decided to press on, no doubt more intent on pursuing corporate interests with the same stubborn attitude they have displayed in the past when vehemently voicing their opposition to pretty much anything that would help our country escape our real problems.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 18
The term "social justice", has nothing to do with justice, but with control.
They call it a regulation.
FCC Approves New Regulations for Net Neutrality
The many "people" having the control instead of a few corporations!!!
I just hope the law first of all fails and if it does get though that Obama will keep his promise.
Names that are on their deathbed or have jumped the shark that people thought were too big and controlling many years ago: AOL, Microsoft's Internet Explorer, Blackberry, Palm, to name a few.
The high tech world is too competitive and too innovative for anyone to have power that long.
It's called freedom.
The 99% took control in Cuba and Venezuela and look what the got them.
I can't pay much attention to something like this. Not to take away from the actual events, but when you have so many protesters across the world, it's not going to be a completely seamless endeavor. Labeling all liberals for the actions of those who misbehave is like blaming all cops for the violence some exhibited, especially when plenty of OWSers have openly decried violence and damage caused by the others. I wouldn't imagine that link of yours would want to comment on that, however. It's easier to just say 'oh them liberals.'
My attitude was more along the lines that this is the kind of issue that will stir a great deal of attention and concern -- deservedly, yes -- and thus allow other important matters to be left unattended. It was a reaction to the timing, more than anything else. If this were a war, it would be a battle opening up on a new front.
I completely agree: net neutrality is vital.