More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Craig Aaron

GET UPDATES FROM Craig Aaron
 

Senate Vote Saves Net Neutrality... For Now

Posted: 11/10/11 05:52 PM ET

Today the Senate voted down a dangerous resolution that would have shuttered the open Internet.

Good riddance. This outrageous measure would have stripped us of our right to communicate freely online and handed control of the Internet to companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.

But the public outcry -- including hundreds of thousands of emails and phone calls to all 50 senators in just the past week -- stopped this resolution in its tracks. Net Neutrality's champions in Congress spoke out passionately and persuasively about the importance of the free and open Internet before the final 52-to-46 vote today.

The proponents of this outlandish measure tried to argue that Net Neutrality would make the government a gatekeeper on the Internet. That's absurd. Net Neutrality is what prevents gatekeepers and allows anyone with a good idea, a new product or something important to say to find an audience without any interference.

Net Neutrality fosters innovation and is the reason a few grad students can launch Google, a few hobbyists can start eBay, and some students can invent instant messaging. None of these innovations came from a phone or cable company.

If we were to lose Net Neutrality, we would lose all of the great new things that haven't yet been invented or imagined. Getting rid of Net Neutrality won't keep away the gatekeepers. It will create them.

What's Next?

Now that we've thwarted this partisan stunt in the Senate, we can get back to the real priority: strengthening the Federal Communications Commission's rules so that they protect all Internet users, whether they access the Web via their home connection or a mobile device.

The FCC's new rules go into effect on Nov. 20. They include some modest protections for Internet users, but they fail to protect us from corporate abuse on the mobile Internet. As more and more of us use phones and tablets to get online, we need to make sure that all Internet users are protected.

In the months to come, Free Press will push the FCC to make its Open Internet rules much stronger -- even if that means going to court, where we are suing the agency for failing to protect all Internet users.

Of course, Net Neutrality's enemies will keep attacking, as well. And Verizon is already suing the FCC, claiming it doesn't have the authority to protect consumers from the company's plans to discriminate online.

But today's Senate vote is a major victory for the public and sends a resounding message: the American people don't want companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon blocking websites or interfering with our ability to access whatever we want, whenever we want it, from wherever we are.

Today, at the least, the Senate showed it was willing to stand up to extremists who would rather waste time with partisan measures than make good policy. But the fight for the free and open Internet is far from over.

 

Follow Craig Aaron on Twitter: www.twitter.com/notaaroncraig

 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Charles Queen
I am a disabled nam vet
08:36 PM on 11/13/2011
I'm very glad this went thru for now.I do not like the idea of the FCC taking control of the internet for any reason whatsoever.It is not the signs of a democratic government if this was allowed to happen.I believ our freedom of speech includes TV newspapers,radio's and of course the internet
photo
oneeasyrider
E=mc2: From light you exist
05:52 PM on 11/12/2011
It's always the same three companies looking to tap into guaranteed money with a monopoly: AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. I boycott all three every chance I get.
10:09 PM on 11/11/2011
Hardly a resounding win for web neutrality with a 52 to 46 vote. Corporate America need only get a few more individuals in their pocket and they'll have it made.

Woe to those that pluck away our remaining freedoms.
09:01 PM on 11/11/2011
This is exactly the reason why we need a government ie: Citizens of the US, owned communications network in this country. And the same goes for banks, healthcare system, energy supplies, etc. as well. A government of, by, and for THE PEOPLE. NOT a government of the corporations or just the 1%, ALL of the people!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FabulousTahoe
Opinions from Lake Tahoe
02:22 PM on 11/11/2011
Net Neutrality is only as good as the bill that enforces it... We need to focus on electing a congress that's not sold out to big telecom and then we can have a real, enforceable law on the subject.
Wib
Liberal former Marine who loves fly fishing and is
11:38 AM on 11/11/2011
What you are saying is that these companies want to become this nation's "China," or "Syria," or "Iran." Why don't we given them these nicknames to let them know what we think of them and to help keep us focused on what it is they want to do. We could refer to Verizon as "China" -- just be sure to use the quotation marks to indicate it is a nickname -- AT&T could be "Syria" and Comcast could be "Iran." I'm sure there's a "North Korea" out there, along with some other repressive regimes that could be assigned the nicknames of other companies seeking to control what we read on the Internet.
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
10:44 AM on 11/11/2011
Under net neutrality­, Netflix can continue to use 37% of the Internet bandwidth, and growing. "Neutralit­y" means equally-fr­ee bandwidth, including to the hogs. You can't discriminate against a site based on bandwidth, all packets are equal no matter how much a site puts out there. ___ Bet Netflix stock goes way up after this, they are probably the biggest sponsor.
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
10:40 AM on 11/11/2011
The changes to Net Neutrality would have allowed some sites to have faster video on your cell phones, instead of none of them working adequately. It was only cells, not WiFi. And it allowed selective speedup, not blocking sites. This had nothing to do with free Internet, it's TV to your cell phones.
09:40 AM on 11/11/2011
Those who don't want to net neutrality are attempting to wage misinformation like Fox- like online.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Frank
My last name is FRANK so thats what I am..
09:31 AM on 11/11/2011
this is creating jobs..somewhere I think...maybe...well maybe not
photo
orlum
Occupy your mind!
03:42 PM on 11/11/2011
No, but it's a free speech issue, so it is also important.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ashleypell
You don't need a PhD
08:48 AM on 11/11/2011
Entrenched big money interests see freedom as the enemy of continuing profits. They strive to restrict freedom every way they can. Net Neutrality is essential in our modern world. The Arab Spring and the Occupy Movement may not have happened without access to the internet. We see what has happened to the national news organizations when large corporations bought the networks. They feed people watered down pap and propaganda. We cannot afford to let huge corporations gain control of the internet. They will stifle the voice of freedom and enrich themselves further in the process.
09:42 AM on 11/11/2011
That is exactly what they want.
Wib
Liberal former Marine who loves fly fishing and is
11:42 AM on 11/11/2011
Amen and Amen several times over. You get the what's going on. As to bandwidth, as the Internet develops that will become a moot point as have so many other such things. In the meantime, the FCC simply could limit band use width by any and all users to a specified size.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LeftLeanWing
RightKickFoot
08:20 AM on 11/11/2011
calls to all 50 senators in just the past week -- stopped this resolution in its tracks.

last time I checked we had 100 Senators.....
photo
bbrown37
Wherever you go, there you are
10:12 AM on 11/11/2011
Could be a few reasons for this oversight by the poster:

a) This is HUFFPO, most of it's readers only recognize one party.

b) Only 52 senators voted AS IF THEY WERE QUALIFIED to represent actual people.
10:32 PM on 11/10/2011
What this shows is that if we don't have democrats in the senate the internet will become the reign of oligarchs like all other "free market" farces.
photo
bbrown37
Wherever you go, there you are
10:14 AM on 11/11/2011
It's things like this that keep me voting Dem despite how terrible they are, the alternative is worse.

What a crappy way to govern a country, least evil wins.