Senator Franken and Net Neutrality: Nothing at All Might Be Better

Senator Al Franken (D-MN) does not like the new net neutrality proposal and has said publically that it could do "more harm than doing nothing at all." Franken says this for a number of reasons: it exempts wireless broadband from any nondiscrimination provisions, it gives a nod of approval to paid prioritization. In his view, the FCC would be better off waiting and doing net neutrality the right way.

Franken is not alone in his criticism; Republicans don’t want any form of net neutrality, while Democrats — including advocacy groups such as Free Press and the ECA – don’t like it because it doesn’t do enough.

"I am very worried that the draft Order does not do enough to preserve that openness," he wrote to FCC Chair Julius Genachowski. In fact, as presently written, it could do "more harm than doing nothing at all."

Franken goes on to say that, "absent significant changes to the draft Order as it has been described to me, adopting these rules as they are may actually send signals to industry endorsing any closing off of the Internet that is not specifically prohibited."

Source: Ars Technica

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    King of Fiji says:


    Just give it time.  Eventually some sort of regulation hidden under the disguise of a Law intended to do something else will cripple the internet.  It happened with terrestrial radio and its only a matter of time before it happens with the internet.

    If your going to make light of free satelite then something is wrong with you sir.  : P

  2. 0
    greevar says:

    Why would I even bother? Why can’t I centralize my phone, TV, and world wide web over one line? It’s all anyone really needs today. All of the others are just attempts to milk the public for more money. Screw satellite and cable! I can get any and all shows/movies from the internet and I can watch it when I’m ready to watch it, as many times as I care to watch it.


  3. 0
    King of Fiji says:

    "They don’t want us to stop using their expensive legacy services, it’s too profitable and competition is scarce"


    Free to air sattelite.  You may not get as many channel as you would via cable but you get enough that makes dumping pay tv worth it considering alot of cable content is already on the internet.

    Competition isn’t scarce.  Its just badly promoted.

  4. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    "Bam, I got you, you’re dead"

    "Uh, but, i’m wearing armor that’s invisible and makes me invincible, so I can’tr die"

    "You can’t do that"

    "Nuh uh, I just did"

    "No, I killed you, you can’t do that"

    *huffs* "I’m going home!!"

  5. 0
    greevar says:

    It seems to me that the current version would actually do the opposite of what neutrality means to do. I escpecially don’t like the section that encourages ISPs to charge by usage. That gives them the power to make cutting the cable more inconvenient. They don’t want us to stop using their expensive legacy services, it’s too profitable and competition is scarce. If I want to watch my favorite shows by way of the internet, I shouldn’t be punished because it happens to be a large file. They don’t cap our connections because the network is overwhelmed, they do it because that makes it harder to depend solely on the internet for communications and entertainment. They’re like spoiled children, throwing a trantrum because they can’t be allowed to abuse the rules to their benefit. So they lie, cheat, and steal to keep their superior position while the rest of the kids at the table are feeling mistreated.


Leave a Reply