For those still in the dark about net neutrality and why it’s so important, the New York Times produced this little video to explain:
The text of the new FCC rules, ironically and misleadingly named “Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet NPRM,” is here. (NPRM = “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.”)
You have until July 15 to register your comments with the FCC and to sign whatever petitions you can find. One to President Obama is here.
For the latest information about the Internet, threats to it, and what you can do, you can always count on the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
11 thoughts on “NYT explains net neutrality (video)”
Did a quick post about this as well so I hope people sign up for it. In Europe it’s net neutrality so hope the states realise they cant push this ridiculous policy through.
US Internet speed already lags so far behind other parts of the world that it’s almost criminal. Or it may be criminal. I’m not sure. But laws like this will only compound the problem, which is, of course, the intent.
Great video PT. I’ve shared it around…
By all means spread the word. People need to understand what’s going on here and speak up. Loudly, insistently, and often.
Thank you again. This explains it in simple terms. For me, that is.
I think a clear, simple explanation helps everyone understand. The techies get lost in the weeds, and Washington is desperately in need of things like this. When it comes to the Internet, I think most Washington politicians are legislating on stuff they do not understand.
This is such an important issue.Thanks for sharing the video. It was concise and very clearly presented.
We don’t need our legislators thinking the Internet is a “series of tubes” and having the telcoms “explaining” things to them. That’s the danger here.
Glad to see you doing your bit to spread the word. Nice clip from the NYT. Amazing how they’re learned to twist words so you never know what you’re voting for or what they’re really up to.
They learn tricky wording at an early age. I remember back in Okla. how the pols could frame a state question in such a way that a “No” vote ended up being in favor of passage.