Roundup: Our thoughts on net neutrality

| 26 Feb, 2015

Big news as the FCC voted to pass the Open Internet Order.

Š—“The Open Internet Order helps to decide an essential question about how the Internet works, requiring service providers to be a neutral gateway instead of handling different types of Internet traffic in different ways Š—” and at different costs.Click here forξarticle.

net neutrality

YouŠ—Ève heard this debate roaring for the better half of 2014. Well, the conversation isnŠ—Èt over! HereŠ—Ès a quick roundup from the folks at Jellyfish:

John Mohr

This is a huge win for equality in our country. It allows most Americans continued use of one of the most innovative mediums of mass communication and free speech ever created. Allowing service providers to charge greater fees for usage would have only increased the already large inequalities of availability that exist today.

Ameet Luhar

The fact that this issue was even on the table is scary to think about. A world without net neutrality is a world where innovators, activists, marketers and everyday people are limited in their reach online. The most inspiring thing about an open internet is that the possibilities are endless.

We can continue to communicate with and relate to people all around the world, rather than having ISPŠ—'s dictate the future of our increasingly digital world. Net Neutrality is much, much bigger than just Netflix vs Comcast, and IŠ—'m glad to know the FCC got it right.

Sharon Hogue

This is definitely a win for the content providers, a loss for the service provider and as I (and most everyone else) see it, a win for me, the consumer. IŠ'm very excited this was finally approved.

Š—“This is no more a plan to regulate the internet than the first amendment is a plan to regulate free speechŠ— Š—– FCC Chair, Tom Wheeler

Jai Amin

This is a great victory over ISPs who believed that because they provide access to the internet, they can control the internet. Without Net Neutrality, companies such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon would have been ableto charge content providers for quicker delivery through Š—…fast lanesŠ—' or intentionally slow down or block the provision of content from their competitors. It will be interesting to see how heavy handed the FCC will be in their regulatory approach towards the broadband companies.

Robby Douglas

What if the Internet was so slow it loaded one word at a time? Don't let Comcast win.

Š—” Netflix US (@netflix)February 25, 2015twitter status.

Michael Verni

Š—“Open internetŠ— regulations will apply to mobile devices Š—– the future of the internet. When it comes to paid advertising, this is the year mobile search volume takes over desktop search volume.The fact that mobile accessibly for our audience will not be a product of ISPs or the like is a big win for us as digital marketers.

HereŠ—'s the quote: Š—“Speaking at a news conference after the vote, Wheeler says the new policy will "ban blocking, ban throttling, and ban paid-prioritization fast lanes," adding that "for the first time, open Internet rules will be fully applicable to mobile."

Hannah Cranville

Freedom of speech may be at the forefront of this conversation but letŠ—'s consider the prioritization of freedom to knowledge. With quicker connection and eliminating paying-to-play, network users will have easier access to information. Banning paid prioritization, including mobile broadband, is a movement that is finally protecting the consumer rather than the large companies. It encourages that Š—…we, the people,Š—È learn what we want to learn when we want to learn it. From a marketerŠ—Ès perspective, it allows us to be innovative in new ways and reach the consumers who were unreachable, until today! Faster connection equals vaster knowledge.

Brian Jacobs

The FCCŠ—'s approval of an Š—“open internetŠ— is huge for users, consumers, and businesses alike on the basis of information and services to be unrestricted and free flowing. From a user standpoint, having unrestricted access to continuously updated and free information not only spurs innovation and entrepreneurship but also promotes the idea of free speech without reputational bias. From a business and consumer standpoint, the win is equally significant because this allows a level playing field regardless of size while not allowing ISPŠ—'s to selectively promote companies of their choice (aka, whoever has the most money to spend).

Shaun Lanza

Just gotta quote Bassnectar:

Š—“What you donŠ—'t want is to have so few owners in a community that they can dominate the dialogue and move it in whatever direction they might want to move it in without having the alternative of having competing ideas to ensure that there are diverse owners of media.

The founders of this country figured out thereŠ—'s only one way to have fairness in media Š—_ make it possible for ordinary people to create media. And that means that it isnŠ—'t in the hands of a handful of very large corporations.Š—

Chris Williams

This will help prevent unfair practices from stifling competition, but another important outcome from this is the restrictions enacted on a state level will now be removed, paving the way for municipal broadband and Google Fiber to be allowed into communities that previously were subjected to bigger telecom companies paying off local officials to block competitors from entering. I think we will start to see more and more choices when it comes to service providers Š—– and choices. When it comes to services like the internet, choices are always good as they ensure competition and innovation, which you obviously donŠ—'t get with a monopoly (looking at you, VerizonŠ—_). Now we can look forward to Google Fiber being introduced in Baltimore (soon, please!)

Allie Vadas

Just call me devilŠ—Ès advocate...but isnŠ—Èt this just another way for the government to tighten control by way of the internet?

Yes, I agree everyone should have internet access (more eyes on our ads!) but, if you are able to afford better quality service, you should be allowed to that luxury.

Just like clothes, cars, homes. Everyone deserves to have those things.

But if you can afford name-brand clothing, a high-end car, and a mansion, should that be regulated too? Just because we want everyone to have the Š—“same thingŠ—?!

Seems like a stretch from the theory of capitalism, which this country was founded on. Essentially, the market should balance itself out, right? If Comcast sucks, people arenŠ—'t going to pay for their service. The cream will rise to the top. There will always be something better and less expensive introduced to the market.

ThatŠ—Ès how weŠ—'ve come from:

phone tech

Please enter a valid Name.
Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid Phone.
Please enter a valid Company Name.
  • Select Service
  • Analytics
  • Brand
  • Consultancy
  • Conversion Rate Optimization
  • Display
  • DoubleClick Partnership
  • Email
  • PPC
  • SEO
  • Social
  • UX
  • Video
  • Websites
  • All Services
By providing your email address you are allowing Jellyfish to send you email communications in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions