{"id":17021,"date":"2014-09-10T23:32:53","date_gmt":"2014-09-11T03:32:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.oafe.net\/blog\/?p=17021"},"modified":"2014-09-10T23:52:21","modified_gmt":"2014-09-11T03:52:21","slug":"we-support-net-neutrality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.oafe.net\/blog\/2014\/09\/we-support-net-neutrality\/","title":{"rendered":"We support Net Neutrality"},"content":{"rendered":"

All day today, you'll see this header on every page of our site:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Why?<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

You'll notice that the banner links to BattleForTheNet.com<\/a>, a site calling on you to get in touch with your local lawmakers and tell them you support Net Neutrality. The site makes it incredibly easy to make your voice heard, so you'd have to be the laziest sack ever to not take action.<\/p>\n

If you find Net Neutrality is confusing, here's the simple version: if it doesn't exist, your internet provider will be able to slow down your connection unless you're willing to pay more.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

At this point, the cost is being foisted on the websites, rather than the consumer - Comcast can make Netflix pay a fee to keep the movies streaming quickly, but they're not charging you<\/b> extra money for the same benefit. Yet. But do you think they wouldn't? Do you think companies like Netflix would just eat the cost, rather than passing it on to its customers?<\/p>\n

Net Neutrality doesn't just mean ISPs wouldn't be allowed to gouge websites, it also means they wouldn't be able to gouge you. Here's a graphic someone on Reddit made to show what the internet could look like if Net Neutrality is defeated:<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

What does that look like to you? If you said \"the kind of packages cable companies offer,\" you're dead right. Do you like<\/b> having to pay for Lifetime in order to get The Discovery Channel? Probably not. Then consider how much you'll like paying for MySpace in order to get Facebook.<\/p>\n