PierzStyx
12-09-2017, 06:44 PM
"Net neutrality" regulations ensure companies like Comcast and Spectrum are able to prevent small ISPs from ever growing large enough to compete against the strangle hold massive corporations have on Internet service! If you want cheaper, more effective Internet service, we must get rid of "net neutrality" regulations!
Here's what you can do - takes less than a minute on a computer with a keyboard.
1. Go to www.gofccyourself.com
(the shortcut John Oliver made to the hard-to-find FCC comment page which we are going to hijack his support of state regulations.)
2. Click on the 17-108 link (Restoring Internet Freedom)
3. Click on "+ express"
4. Be sure to hit "ENTER" (or tab) after you put in your name & info so it registers. (I used my SPAM email)
5. In the comment section write, "I strongly support the repeal of net neutrality as it strangles small ISPs and grants large corporations unchallenged control of Internet service, allowing them to charge high prices and provide poor service without fear of competition."
6. Click "Continue to Review"
7. Review and then Click submit
- Make sure you hit submit at the end!
ECFS
FCC.GOV
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/proceedings?q=name:((17-108))
Even the opponents of ending net neutrality laws are forced to admit that getting rid of it would provide cheaper, more customizable service to people. The below image was tweeted by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a prominent advocate of net neutrality, supposedly as an argument against it. A little math demonstrates this isn't the case.
https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/25152247_10156151562509880_1603910358835169879_n.j pg?oh=3b91b0307e4d6ecc412500ef64f31563&oe=5AC9CA8B
In the upper portion of the graphic, bundled internet appears for $54.99. In the lower, post–net neutrality world, internet service is divided into specific uses one can opt in or out of. The total price is $54.96. Khanna's graphic even appears to depict an option where that price could be even lower, if you use only one streaming service or social media network. For example, do you really only use Facebook? Congratulations, your internet is cheaper! Or maybe you only use Twitter on your phone? Congratulations, your internet is cheaper! Do you not engage in online gaming? Congratulations! Your internet service is cheaper! I personally would have an internet bill that is, at minimum, $20 CHEAPER without "net neutrality" government regulations!
That this is shared as an argument for net neutrality boggles the mind. Many Americans don't use the internet for video, email, gaming, and social media. They could see serious savings if internet access were sold piecemeal like this. Forcing programs on people that they don't use and then charging them for it is but one of many ways "net neutrality" regulations benefit corporations over consumers. It is nothing less than corporate welfare.
Here's what you can do - takes less than a minute on a computer with a keyboard.
1. Go to www.gofccyourself.com
(the shortcut John Oliver made to the hard-to-find FCC comment page which we are going to hijack his support of state regulations.)
2. Click on the 17-108 link (Restoring Internet Freedom)
3. Click on "+ express"
4. Be sure to hit "ENTER" (or tab) after you put in your name & info so it registers. (I used my SPAM email)
5. In the comment section write, "I strongly support the repeal of net neutrality as it strangles small ISPs and grants large corporations unchallenged control of Internet service, allowing them to charge high prices and provide poor service without fear of competition."
6. Click "Continue to Review"
7. Review and then Click submit
- Make sure you hit submit at the end!
ECFS
FCC.GOV
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/proceedings?q=name:((17-108))
Even the opponents of ending net neutrality laws are forced to admit that getting rid of it would provide cheaper, more customizable service to people. The below image was tweeted by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a prominent advocate of net neutrality, supposedly as an argument against it. A little math demonstrates this isn't the case.
https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/25152247_10156151562509880_1603910358835169879_n.j pg?oh=3b91b0307e4d6ecc412500ef64f31563&oe=5AC9CA8B
In the upper portion of the graphic, bundled internet appears for $54.99. In the lower, post–net neutrality world, internet service is divided into specific uses one can opt in or out of. The total price is $54.96. Khanna's graphic even appears to depict an option where that price could be even lower, if you use only one streaming service or social media network. For example, do you really only use Facebook? Congratulations, your internet is cheaper! Or maybe you only use Twitter on your phone? Congratulations, your internet is cheaper! Do you not engage in online gaming? Congratulations! Your internet service is cheaper! I personally would have an internet bill that is, at minimum, $20 CHEAPER without "net neutrality" government regulations!
That this is shared as an argument for net neutrality boggles the mind. Many Americans don't use the internet for video, email, gaming, and social media. They could see serious savings if internet access were sold piecemeal like this. Forcing programs on people that they don't use and then charging them for it is but one of many ways "net neutrality" regulations benefit corporations over consumers. It is nothing less than corporate welfare.