Jim Webb Supports Net Neutrality

By: Lowell
Published On: 7/27/2006 4:15:58 PM

This is great news.  To quote the pro-internet-neutrality group, "Save the Internet:"

The SavetheInternet.com Coalition is a real grassroots alliance of organizations, citizens, businesses and bloggers that have banded together to protect Internet freedom.

The Coalition believes that the Internet is a crucial engine for economic growth and free speech. We are working together to urge Congress to preserve Network Neutrality, the First Amendment for the Internet that ensures that the Internet remains open to new ideas, innovation and progress.

From its beginnings, the Internet has leveled the playing field for all. Everyday people can have their voices heard by thousands, even millions of people. The SavetheInternet.com Coalition -- representing millions of Americans from all walks of life -- is working together to ensure that Congress passes no telecommunications legislation without meaningful and enforceable Network Neutrality protections.

Besides Jim Webb, who else supports net neutrality?  An amazing coalition, with groups ranging from the ACLU to the Christian Coalition, from Common Cause to the Gun Owners of America. 

Who opposes net neutrality?  Take one guess.  According to George Allen:

I'm really concerned about the unintended consequences of hasty government action, worrying about a perceived problem that has not yet occurred, and then doing something that ends up being untoward.

Yeah, right, like supporting a hasty invasion of Iraq to prevent a perceived problem that had not yet occurred?  Heh.

Lowell Feld is Netroots Coordinator for the Jim Webb for US Senate Campaign.  The ideas expressed here belong to Lowell Feld alone, and do not necessarily represent those of Jim Webb, his advisors, staff, or supporters.

Comments



Something like that (Joan K Nyne - 7/27/2006 5:43:25 PM)
Or it might be a vague way of saying "I haven't figured out which side of this bread has the most butter on it."


WTF??? Hasty? (Eric - 7/27/2006 7:12:24 PM)
WTF is Allen talking about?  By voting against NN he's advocating a change which could have unintended consequences.  Although most of the consequences, namely all of us paying more and a few select telcoms making record profits, are intentional.

The simple fact of the matter is that with his vote he wants to change the status quo.  So how can continuing with things the same as they are be "hasty" or have "unintended consequences"? 

Damn it, Allen just lost my vote  ;-)