ItsOurNet.org: The boy who cried wolf

ItsOurNet.org continues the well-established net neutrality pattern of crying “wolf" in hopes of scaring people into running to their rescue on net neutrality. They obviously think people are stupid and won’t remember what they say. Just like the proverbial boy who cried wolf learned the hard way, if people can’t trust that your cries for help are true, they won’t believe you when you do tell the truth. People aren’t stupid and they do remember. The e-commerce giants’ latest crying-wolf, with absolutely no evidence to support it, is shameless: implying that Moms won’t be able to protect their families; e-mail users won’t be able to keep in touch with family and friends, small businesses won’t be able to survive online, and churches won’t be able to get their messages out to congregants. Where is the evidence for these slanderous accusations? How do they logically explain why companies would actually engage in such a nonsensical behavior? The facts and evidence show resoundingly that:

• The market for Internet access is becoming increasingly competitive and that competition is creating more and more internet access options for consumers;
• The current Internet transition from the “slow lane" of dial-up access to the “faster lane" of broadband access, is resulting in many people getting the fast lane of broadband cheaper than they paid for the slow lane of dial-up!
• Consumers are routinely willing to pay more for more Internet speed.
• And contrary to the fear-mongering that people will be cut off the Net, competition is letting more people connect to the Internet at faster speeds than ever before!

All this talk about consumers is a clever smokescreen by the e-commerce giants to distract people from what the net neutrality debate is really about. The e-commerce giants want the government to create a special low regulated Internet rate -- just for them – while consumers would still have to pay the competitive rate. They want the subsidized rate so they can clog the Internet with lucrative new video-streaming services and shift all the cost to the customer. This isn’t about saving the Internet. It’s a classic corporate welfare scheme and a naked attempt to get the government to protect companies with 80-90% gross profit margins from more competition.