Senator Al Franken is Desperately Trying to Save Net Neutrality

Senator Al Franken is Desperately Trying to Save Net Neutrality

Senator Franken says net neutrality "is the free speech issue of our time."

Senator Al Franken is not a fan of the FCC's new "Fast Lane" policy, and he's taken to YouTube to get you on the net neutrality train.

In conjunction with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Franken has taken to the camera to declare, in no uncertain terms, that the FCC's new "fast lane" policy (which allows large content-creating corporations to pay large telecommunications providers large sums of money for faster broadband throughput) is not in the best interest of the American taxpayers.

"We cannot allow the FCC to implement a pay-to-play system that silences our voices, and amplifies that of big corporate interests," Franken says. "We've come to a crossroads. Now is the time to rise up and make our voices heard to preserve net neutrality. We paid for a free and open Internet. We can't let it be taken away. We have to win this [fight], and we have to win this now."

Dramatic? A little, perhaps, but Senator Franken is not one to tolerate trampling of the Internet. He's still trying to kill the TWC-Comcast merger, after all.

Permalink

Watched, shared and petition signed. GO AL GO!

Shit like this is why I identify as progressive. It's like being a libertarian, but acknowledging that "the market" is just as fallible and potentially harmful to consumers as government, and that corruption comes from the revolving door between corporate interests and government (like for example, the fact that the current head of the FCC used to be Comcast's top lobbyist). And usually politicians and activists who identify that way actually try to do something about it.

And less conspiracy theories.

Nice to see that there's at least some politicians who aren't chugging Kool-Aid by the gallon. "By the liter" for all my metric friends out there. :P

Never thought I'd be agreeing with Al Franken on anything. Times really have changed.

P.S. Thanks

At least there's one politician out there that I can say I support. More power to ya Al!

Covarr:
Never thought I'd be agreeing with Al Franken on anything. Times really have changed.

P.S. Thanks

I'm with you on that. I disagree with Franken on practically everything, but not this. I'm glad he's giving this as serious a tone as it needs. Consumers have a ton at stake here, even if they don't realize it or downplay the issue.

Best piece of news I have seen on this site.

Internet coming in 'bundles' akin to cable.. the cringiest of cringe.

It'd be nice if judges even those in the Supreme Court were required to stay up to date on the basics of science, technology, and medicine. It's easy to be indifferent to something that you're wholly ignorant about.

You can never be too dramatic when it comes to the importance of an open internet. I'm grateful for Franken's voice on this.

When is Google going to chime in on this?

We all know how the gov treats petitions, especially online ones. "Oh, that's cute. They don't like what we're doing. I guess we better amend this bill to sound better to them." Even the SOPA internet blackout back in January 2012 only got them to drop that particular bill, not ideals it represented. They're still occasionally bringing similar bills up in committees before thankfully get shot down, for now.

Good someone with a loud voice and position in the government is addressing this issue in a way that isn't taking money from the taxpayers (with the ISP as the middle man). If he speaks up, maybe more Congress will nut up, possibly after more constituents notice this BS happening behind their backs and writes more letters.

I'm wish that the international community would stop tolerating the US dominance over the internet. The U.S. gov't has proven time and again it's intentions of handing nearly unlimited control to American corporations and the NSA to the detriment of everyone else. Bravo to Mr. Franken for trying to do something about it but even his motivation is solely reserved for the American public whereas everyone else just has to deal with it.

I think the freedom of speech line alone goes down as 'contraversal as hell'. Could go a long way towards the right frame of mind in this issue.

If anyone is still confused check this video out.

Just imagine how an ISP with a bone to pick with a political or watchdog group or competing company could throttle your connection to them if not completely cut any traffic.

Net Neutrality is not a fair system. The best analogy is like an Interstate highway. It would be unfair to lets say Ford cars can go faster than Toyota cars, everything should be equal, however the interstate is also clogged with oversized Semi-trailer trucks. Shouldn't we be able to regulate them to make sure traffic is flowing smoother. Right now net neutrality is suggesting that these huge oversized semi-trailers are the same as the cars. Netflix right now counts for 32% of internet traffic, and Youtube counts for 18%, those two sources alone are half the internet traffic going on right now. Two sources of millions, yet those two sources should be treated as equally as the other millions?

Net Neutrality sounds good in theory, in the practical sense it is not good for the internet.

Baldr:
Net Neutrality is not a fair system. The best analogy is like an Interstate highway. It would be unfair to lets say Ford cars can go faster than Toyota cars, everything should be equal, however the interstate is also clogged with oversized Semi-trailer trucks. Shouldn't we be able to regulate them to make sure traffic is flowing smoother. Right now net neutrality is suggesting that these huge oversized semi-trailers are the same as the cars. Netflix right now counts for 32% of internet traffic, and Youtube counts for 18%, those two sources alone are half the internet traffic going on right now. Two sources of millions, yet those two sources should be treated as equally as the other millions?

Net Neutrality sounds good in theory, in the practical sense it is not good for the internet.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Is it that companies/websites with high traffic should pay more per bit than smaller sites or what?

Every interpretation of this that I can think of seems to imply that you don't actually know what Net Neutrality actually means, and/or that you don't understand internet technology, so it's confusing the hell out of me. The whole point of net neutrality is to ensure that every website is provided the same infrastructure (to use your metaphor, the same vehicle) and that ISPs cannot institute a policy that forces everyone but those who pay extra to use the slow version (the aforementioned semi-trailers, to stick with the metaphor).

Johnson McGee:
I'm wish that the international community would stop tolerating the US dominance over the internet. The U.S. gov't has proven time and again it's intentions of handing nearly unlimited control to American corporations and the NSA to the detriment of everyone else. Bravo to Mr. Franken for trying to do something about it but even his motivation is solely reserved for the American public whereas everyone else just has to deal with it.

However, we should turn it over to countries like China (banned Youtube), Russian (registering bloggers and banning profanity), Korea (banned nearly everything!), or Germany (bans violence and anything in reference to WWII). Because all those players are a lot less worse off than the US government....right....

Captcha has a great idea for a solution: dueling banjos. Have at it, Capital Hill!

Al Franken backing it makes me wonder if there isn't something else behind this that we're not seeing... just like every other piece of Government legislation out there. Maybe because I don't trust the government to handle this or even understand the internet when they had no fucking clue how to build a working accessible website with a 3 year deadline.

Do I think everyone should have fair access? Of course. I also see that open internet isn't yet possible bandwidth wise seeing as how many people here complain about their own poor speeds due to location, lack of infrastructure, etc. We simply aren't at the point where it would work out right now... and there's potential for bottlenecking. See: Exaflood.

Deathfish15:

Johnson McGee:
I'm wish that the international community would stop tolerating the US dominance over the internet. The U.S. gov't has proven time and again it's intentions of handing nearly unlimited control to American corporations and the NSA to the detriment of everyone else. Bravo to Mr. Franken for trying to do something about it but even his motivation is solely reserved for the American public whereas everyone else just has to deal with it.

However, we should turn it over to countries like China (banned Youtube), Russian (registering bloggers and banning profanity), Korea (banned nearly everything!), or Germany (bans violence and anything in reference to WWII). Because all those players are a lot less worse off than the US government....right....

Captcha has a great idea for a solution: dueling banjos. Have at it, Capital Hill!

Ok, you can turn the internet over to North Korea if you want but I was thinking of something more along the lines of the World Trade Organization. Something that would keep any one country from dominating an important aspect of worldwide infrastructure. We already have the W3C, IETF and IANA devoted to ensuring the technological aspects are internationally standardized, why not an organization for the political aspects as well?

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here