Google, Facebook, Twitter Support Net Neutrality; Comcast Supports Chairman Pai
Net Neutrality
(Last Updated On: July 15, 2017)

On July 12th, 2017 various large social media networks and digital content providers partook in a “Battle for the Net” campaign to help spread awareness about the possible shortcomings of losing Net Neutrality if certain big businesses and FCC Chairman Ajit V. Pai get their way.

CNBC compiled some of the more recognized names and faces supporting the Battle For The Net campaign, which managed to garner more than 2 million comments and widespread support from a number of content creators, comedians, pundits, activists and celebrities. You can also sign-up to support the campaign right now by visiting the official Battle For The Net website.

For people still confused about the topic, thankfully there are some simple videos out there to help guide you in the right direction.

Philip DeFranco spent just over two minutes not only explaining what Net Neutrality is, but some of the ways in which broadband corporations can use these measures to screw over people, throttle net services and make the online ecosystem a living nightmare for anyone who can’t afford to make it heaven.

While Facebook, Twitter, Google and Amazon have all come out in support of Net Neutrality, others have made cases explaining why they’re against it. Speaking to BBC, former Stack Exchange programmer Ben Collins told them that it should be about the free markets determining who lives and who dies when it comes to corporations offering broadband services, not the neutrality of internet infrastructure…

“Fundamentally we want free markets to work, and that the best way for that to happen is for there to be little regulation,” […] “In the history of the internet there was basically no regulation until this came in, and from my perspective it seems like the only reason we changed things at a fundamental level is because some people were nervous that we might get charged a bit more for fast internet access.”


There is market pressure on Comcast and the other providers not to treat their customers poorly,” […]”A lot of the arguments in favour [of net neutrality] seem to boil down to me that ‘I want better internet access to my house’. The market will provide this but it takes time.”

What Collins fails to account for is that if people already have serviceable internet why would they need to wait and get stuck with throttled service so that it can take time for the market to finally offer them competitive service at a decent price?

Collins also fails to account for the fact that companies like AT&T, Time-Warner and Comcast are currently running monopolies or duopolies in some regions, where people don’t have much of a choice but to sign up with one or the other for net service. In that regard, your pricing and speeds are at the mercy of Comcast’s greed.

Speaking of Comcast… BBC linked to a post made by David L. Cohen, senior executive vice president at Comast, which was published back in April of 2017, praising FCC Chairman Pai for wanting to put more of the control back into the hands of broadband telecommunications companies instead of legislation, writing…

“We applaud both Chairman Pai for launching this proceeding and Commissioner O’Rielly for his thoughtful support. It is time to put this net neutrality debate to rest. The existing FCC rules, the new rulemaking proceeding, and our ongoing commitment to abide by legally enforceable net neutrality protections provide a bridge to the time when Congress acts and finally resolves this issue through bipartisan legislation.


“We all need to step back from the partisan rhetoric that has too often impeded rational discussion on net neutrality. There is widespread consensus on what strong net neutrality rules should look like. It’s time for all of us to work together to protect American consumers and to advance those important principles without a misguided Title II overhang.“

Most consumers don’t trust Comcast or Time-Warner not to throttle speeds for competing services such as HBO Go, Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime or the WWE Network. Without Net Neutrality, big telecoms corporations can effectively throttle, speed up or slow down various internet destinations, forcing people to pay more for access to certain services, or force certain companies to pay more in order to provide better access to consumers.

This sort of technocratic plutocracy isn’t the sort of thing most customers trust will be handled well and to their benefit if Net Neutrality is dissolved in favor of letting the corporations run the digital asylum.

Ads (learn more about our advertising policies here)


Billy has been rustling Jimmies for years covering video games, technology and digital trends within the electronics entertainment space. The GJP cried and their tears became his milkshake. Need to get in touch? Try the Contact Page.

  • VersVlees

    I really wished they stopped fucking around with Net neutrality. Just send me my megabytes over the internet cables.

    As for net neutrality, recently the Dutch Tmobile got in trouble due to letting their 4G subscribers stream music without charging any mb’s from their subscription. Violating net neutrality because, well Tmobile has to filter the data to see if their users are using it for their data free music or surfing for porn. Off course the AFM (a regulatory watchdog) sued Tmobile.
    However, the judge ruled in favour of Tmobile so they can still offer Data free music. While in this case it might have been beneficial for the consumer. I’m kinda worried other internet providers will most certainly exploit this to screw the consumer over. Because muh Tmobile got their Data free music we wanna have our own exemptions from net neutrality.

    I rather have the flawed Net Neutrality we have now. I don’t think anyone is waiting for Comcast (insert any other shitty internet provider here) selling you segmented interwebs subscriptions with 50 GB bandwidth limits.

  • Alistair

    Hmmm net neutrality, what is it.

    If this site takes ages to load up, OMG BT you bastards you slow down my broadband speed and I paid for faster speed.

    Or watching YouTube SJWs meltdowns vids then its buffers OMG BT you did it again.

    That what you get for get rid of net neutrality. So basically a ISP can throttle the speed and if you want to be unthrottle you have to pay More.

  • durka durka

    meanwhile eu forbids employees from looking at facebook profiles of people they intend on hiring after a interview.

    • fnd

      And how would they enforce this law?

      • durka durka

        who knows? Not even EU propably, EU cant “enforce” shit.

  • tajlund

    I’d be less paranoid about net neutrality if there weren’t so many bad players backing it. What do they gain? I’ve been sort of watching on the fringe of this for a long time and still don’t understand it. I just know that when something looks really really good and there are bad guys backing it, it’s usually really really bad for everyone.

    • Right now the big bad guys (Google, Facebook, Twitter) enjoy large swathes of people accessing their services, paying for their services, and being fed ads through their services without any inhibitions.

      If you take away net neutrality and Comcast decides they want to screw over Google by adding a YouTube fee, they can do that. If you don’t pay the YouTube fee, they can slow down your net service. Comcast can regulate speeds based on usage, and Google doesn’t get to see a cent. As you can imagine, most normies would fork over cash to have better access to Google services. People who don’t, well… they’ll just go elsewhere.

      From Google’s perspective… how does it benefit them if they lose customers from the lower-end of the consumer bracket? All those advertisers leave as well, from fabric softeners to cheap insurance companies. They’ll go where the customers are.

      Abolishing net neutrality could seriously screw-up the targeted demographic ad services Google runs across their search engine and YouTube.

      With Facebook also trying to push heavily for VR through their digital storefront, what happens when Comcast/Time-Warner put a throttle on internet VR services? Sure, people who have VR could likely afford it, but it automatically locks out everyone else who already didn’t want to pay more for VR.

      I can think of a 1001 ways the big broadband corps can screw over the internet ecosystem to make a dime and dollar off of everyone while fragmenting the landscape.

      • Alistair

        So it basically a double edge sword you saying I hate google what YouTube is doing censorship on its users and viewers of YouTube.

        But to throttle speed is very bad as especially here in the U.K. You pay more for super fast broadband so why do people what to be throttle.

        • But to throttle speed is very bad as especially here in the U.K. You pay more for super fast broadband so why do people what to be throttle.

          People don’t, but telecom/broadband corps would love that. Forcing people to pay more to access popular services? It’s exactly how cable TV services are operated here in the States. That’s essentially how they want to monetize the internet… exactly like cable TV.

      • tajlund

        Thank you. That’s a good explanation. I guess I’m just jumpy because every time I’ve supported something”good” that had radical leftist jagoffs supporting it I’ve gotten bit in the ass. I’m about the most free market guy you can ever find, but both sides seem full of bad people. I’ve also been worried that net neutrality might contain a backdoor for government censorship and control.

    • Phasmatis75

      This is just conjecture, but I’d wager some of them are for net neutrality because the left screwed them. Google played the diversity card like they were told, they censored searches for of migrant issues, they pulled wrong think channels funding from youtube, and what happened?

      They got fined in Europe for doing just what they were doing, they are about to lose all their government contracts because of the very wage gap myth they are peddling, and at this point they don’t the other big companies to be able to control the internet.

      Facebook is in the same boat. Really though aside from ideological reasons, it’s financial. Say Verizon launches it’s own facebook, and decides to strangle Facebook’s broadband. Or say Google plays Verizon to have Google plus be the social media site that is dominate. Say twitter pays Comcast and Google Plus and Facebook are throttled.

      It’s purely to save their own neck as well as revenge.

      • Facebook is in the same boat. Really though aside from ideological reasons, it’s financial. Say Verizon launches it’s own facebook, and decides to strangle Facebook’s broadband. Or say Google plays Verizon to have Google plus be the social media site that is dominate. Say twitter pays Comcast and Google Plus and Facebook are throttled.

        Exactly this.

        • Phasmatis75

          That and then these providers can extort money from these companies. Each already hurting badly because of virtue signally bs and a lack of innovation.

      • tajlund

        That would be a good conjecture if the leftist blogs weren’t so massively united in love with Net neutrality. The KOSmik Kommies, DUmmies, and Paint HUFFers are all unanimous that this is a big pro-government, anti-corporate dream.

        • Phasmatis75

          Trump and right wingers are in power now. They don’t want the government to have the power to censor the internet like they did when Obama was in power.

    • giygas

      Current net neutrality rules are flawed, but it’s a really shit idea to change them without a suitable replacement at the ready. The Americans really should make some sort of constitutional amendment that protects the internet from slimy companies and authoritarian foreign govenments like the EU.

  • Mr.Towel

    I don’t know about you guys, but I find Google, Facebook and Twitter gunning for Net Neutrality more suspicious than greedy corporate bastards. I’ve lived through a major part of the internet without net neutrality and never really suffered from throttle down issues. And I live in a freaking third world country. I don’t pay for premium internet here either.

    • Bitterbear

      It’s never out of the kindness of their hearts. Moar broadband, more internet use, thus moar chances to push ads.

      • Michael P

        That and all 3 of those companies want to control large swaths of the net themselves.

        I don’t trust any of the fuckers tbh.

        • Mr.Towel


          I live in a tax/regulation hell and I know a lot of corruption and bullshit can be done by seemly innocuous or good natured regulations. Don’t take me wrong, anarcho-capitalists drive me mad but I don’t see net neutrality as a good solution to the issue either.

          • Michael P

            Yeah both sides are licking their lips for different reasons, one out of raw greed, the other out of greed/ideology.

            I know it’ll never happen but if it were up to me, I’d socialize the internet. Taxes would pay purely for the infrastructure and a small committee of eunuchs or nihilists would govern it, to ensure it’s continued independence/openness.

          • tajlund

            I dnt see that working either. People in control decide to control rather than allow freedom. Happens every time.

    • Disqusted

      That’s my immediate impression too. Same with this Macron shit that’s suddenly blowing up. Is he trying to look like Trump, and then do something terrible on purpose, so the media can blame Trump for it?

      Maybe the assholes are backing net neutrality as a reverse psyche to make people want to back it. Hah.

    • Phasmatis75

      Companies here in America are way worse than what you have. They legitimately have throttled traffic before, famously with Netflix when Netflix didn’t pony up.

      • Mr.Towel

        I haven’t thought about this. American corporate culture is different from the rest of the world. Might also explain why americans are so cynical to capitalism and companies in general. Now it makes more sense.

        • Phasmatis75

          Most people don’t understand basic economics over here and our education systems only print out the marxist definition of capitalism. Not the linguistic or accurate definition of capitalism.

          Yes though, our corporations are heavily tied to the government and get away with practically everything while growing an increased monopoly. They’re not regulated as intelligently as they are in Europe.

  • I would perhaps somewhat agree with people to let the free market decide who lives and dies on the Internet, if the major players advocating for the removal of net neutrality weren’t corporatist scum. I honestly expected better from Trump’s administration.

    • snooze321

      If you had paid attention you would know that Trump was against net neutrality since the start of the presidential race. He also called for a boycott of Apple when they refused to decrypt a phone for the FBI, the man is against digital privacy and freedoms.

      He was better than the alternative but we still got fucked.

      • I’ve known for a while that Trump was against net neutrality, and we saw the result fairly soon after he was sworn into office. It really does disappoint me when he and his team does stupid shit.

        • Disqusted

          Maybe he’ll listen if enough people tell him how stupid he’s being.

          • Americans have to do this. They need to understand that just because their party won the election, they shouldn’t become complacent and not disagree with the government when it’s failing.

    • I think everyone agrees with you about a capitalist market deciding who lives and who dies based on the merit and execution of those ideas and the products that spawn from them.

      However, we aren’t living in that society and we don’t have that market. Instead, we have two major players (Time-Warner and Comcast) controlling the vast majority of the internet for everyone Stateside. It is a corporatocracy. No matter who wins, we lose.