Net neutrality, because of extreme corporate influence, has been a contentious issue ever since it was introduced. In fact, the subject has been completely muddied by a lack of understanding from various outspoken anti-Obama groups to the point where a large majority of people who oppose it have no idea what it is they are opposing.
For further insight into this dilemma, check out the comments from a Breitbart TV piece. Statements like:
Here’s a thought…maybe since obummer and the socialist have used the internet to over through governments, they want to use net neutrality to make sure they control the internet so nobody over throughs their nwo.
Steve sure helped clarify Net Neuter for me. The traffic jam analogy was very good, and how EVIL corporations like Google that are *Okay for the libtarded to operate, potentially unhindered is now made crystal clear for me.
Help prove the abject ignorance that surrounds the topic. Yes, there are legitimate criticisms of how the FCC modeled their approach to net neutrality, but the concept is a vital one, especially for those of us who do not want to see Internet service provision become an offshoot of cable television packages.
Or those of us who don’t want corporate influence to determine when, where, how, and why we use the Internet.
With that in mind, the news that President Obama will veto any repeal of net neutrality should be welcomed with open arms from those of us who truly want a free and open Internet. Currently, a group of Republican senators are working hard to remove the bill from the books, following the lead of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The Hill explains:
The House approved a resolution to repeal the rules in April. The Senate version is sponsored by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and has an additional 42 Republican co-sponsors. It has no Democratic co-sponsors.
For an extended look at Hutchinson’s misguided approach to Internet legislation, take a look at this gem:
Once again, the utterly incorrect stance of “net neutrality stifles innovation” is used by Hutchinson, when, in fact, the exact opposite is true. Hutchinson says she’s against the government controlling the Internet, but she apparently has no issue with companies like AT&T, Verizon, Time-Warner, and Comcast assuming that role. Of course, if you take a quick look at the corporations that contributed to Hutchinson’s coffers, you’ll find AT&T, one of the companies that would lose control if the FCC’s version of net neutrality survives the legislative process.
And that’s where Obama’s veto hammer comes into play. The Hill has a quote from the White House, explaining their position quite clearly:
“The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J. Res. 6, which would undermine a fundamental part of the nation’s Open Internet and innovation strategy — an enforceable, effective but flexible policy for keeping the Internet free and open,” the White House said.
It should be noted that Obama’s list of donors include Time-Warner and he has rubbed shoulders both AT&T and Verizon. Nevertheless, at least in the case of net neutrality, Obama hasn’t let these companies influence his stance.
Now, in regards to PROTECT-IP and other related legislative pieces, perhaps, but not with net neutrality, something his veto talk should indicate quite clearly.