First off, Mr. Wyden, as an Oregonian I am glad to be able to vote for someone who cares to know about the issues like you do.
I am a supporter of net neutrality. I think, as it seems most people do, that the most direct route to it is to strengthen FCC regulation of ISPs through invoking Title II of the Communications Act. However, I am concerned that this will not eliminate "internet fast lanes" that privilege paying content over everything else. In fact, some interpretations of Title II language that I've seen suggest that it will facilitate those practices, as long as they aren't openly discriminatory. Will Title II Common carrier status be enough to maintain the open internet? If not, what else would be needed?
ncmentis102 karma
First off, Mr. Wyden, as an Oregonian I am glad to be able to vote for someone who cares to know about the issues like you do.
I am a supporter of net neutrality. I think, as it seems most people do, that the most direct route to it is to strengthen FCC regulation of ISPs through invoking Title II of the Communications Act. However, I am concerned that this will not eliminate "internet fast lanes" that privilege paying content over everything else. In fact, some interpretations of Title II language that I've seen suggest that it will facilitate those practices, as long as they aren't openly discriminatory. Will Title II Common carrier status be enough to maintain the open internet? If not, what else would be needed?
View HistoryShare Link