Age matters: Net Neutrality is inevitable thanks to our grandparents

    “Sorry! Monthly Bandwidth has exceeded! Please click here to upgrade.”


Reddit, Twitter, Google, Snapchat, Facebook, numerous different organizations and internet activist groups have been protesting the removal of Net Neutrality. The idea of the removal of Net Neutrality paints a scary portrait of the future of the internet without Net Neutrality.  Frequent users of the internet either don’t know or have a hard time wrapping their heads around how important Net Neutrality is. Due to this, a movement on Twitter has erupted to educate those who don’t understand the importance of Net Neutrality. This movement consists of tweets that show how your average internet-searching routine could be affected; for example, this tweet from @CollinJustin1:


“People..We have 2 weeks until Congress votes to keep the internet accessible for all. Otherwise internet as we know it in the U.S will forever change! The Internet will become a packaged plan, that’s monitored, and sold as seperate bundles like they do in Portugal #NetNeutrality.”


Here’s another example that explains Net Neutrality in a more humorous way:


“So we just gon act like #NetNeutrality isn’t at stake and will hang in the balance on Dec 15? Oh, so y’all want to pay to do stuff on the internet? Including gaming. Oh, alright then(@akatsuki_Tinkxo.)”


Net Neutrality is currently the largest conversation on Twitter.  In the majority, comments on the subject of removing Net Neutrality have shown that the general population is pro-Net Neutrality. However, there are still immense pushes to remove Net Neutrality. Through basic reasoning, also, since Twitter’s demographic is primarily 16-25, we can assume that almost all millennials oppose Net Neutrality. Finding a tweet that is anti-Net Neutrality is alike to finding a needle in a haystack, it’s impossible. However, it is still is being passed and lobbied for on Dec 15th; why?



To answer your question just look at Ajit Pai, the Head of the Federal Communication Commission and frequent testifier of Net Neutrality, to understand the demographics of those who impose Net Neutrality. Ajit Pai, a Right-wing Republican, 44-year-old ex-lawyer for Verizon, doesn’t paint the picture of a millennial in mind. In fact, he’s the opposite of a millennial. The average anti-Net Neutrality follower is older than 45, Republican and themselves- don’t understand what is Net Neutrality is. In cases, the FCC and lobbyers for Net Neutrality questions why change the internet when it works.


This brings about the ethics of what Net Neutrality is really about. It doesn’t make since when the largest companies in the world are against Net Neutrality like Google, Amazon, and Apple, yet it is still a thing. You would believe with the power and reach Google, Amazon, and Apple has they would be the deciding factor in rather Net Neutrality is passed. Sadly, even though these companies are giants, they don’t have as big as a voice we would assume. While they are powerful on the internet, they don’t own the internet. Also, you have to think about who keep these companies afloat, investors.


It is a common practice amongst older investors to invest in what they understand. A great example is Warren Buffet, who is considered the “creator” of this philosophy of investing in what one understands. However, contrary to popular belief, Warren Buffet didn’t create this philosophy. Since the first investors, investing in an idea or “pipe dream” was ludicrous. A majority of these investors back then only invested in a “guaranteed” product that fulfilled the markets need, proof-of-work, or common idea. Amongst these investors, back then, a small margin saw entrepreneurship as a philosophy, not career. The free-spirited, hippie movement wasn’t popular in investing, entrepreneurship, or CEO as it is now. Attitudes towards entrepreneurship were also vastly different. Most investors back then didn’t see entrepreneurship as a reliable career and if the business wasn’t going to make them billions of dollars, investors back then would sell the company and move on. Extremely different from today, where companies are considered your “second-relationship.” In result, thousands of entrepreneurs migrated into “actual professions,” like politics, law, and blue-collared work while investing on the side.


This notion explains why companies like Apple, Amazon, and Google don’t have as much political power as we believe. Sadly, the entrepreneurs of Amazon, Apple, and Google aren’t as tedious and safe thinking as entrepreneurs of the way back. The new waves of entrepreneurs from the 1970’s-2010 are more ambitious and shun the corporate world. Where most entrepreneurs from the 1940’s-1960 fell into Conservatism, the opposite can be said about the new wave of entrepreneurs. Business friendships of the “new wave,” entrepreneurs are more into art, pseudo-technology, and ambitious lifestyles. In contrast, to older entrepreneurs who connections are the law, politics, and sometimes the president of the U.S.A. With the philosophy of older entrepreneurs explained, it can be summarized as to why new tech companies don’t have a stand in politics. They don’t have the appropriate connection to have a voice in the FCC like Ajit Pai has. Older entrepreneurs will invest in “safer” companies like Comcast, Version Wireless, and Dish Network. Some explained past entrepreneurs investing techniques and newer entrepreneurs investing techniques as investing in front-end to back-end. Newer entrepreneurs invest in how revolutionary the company will be while older entrepreneurs invest in how useful the company will be.


The politically powerful investor’s that invest in companies like Comcast and AT&T are throughout the White House. It’s made evident throughout the FCC’s ruling in 2015 as less than 52%- not accurate by 2-4%- voted to keep Net Neutrality. Meaning over 48% voted to end Net Neutrality. As of Nov 21st, 2017, voting against the Open Internet Order was ruled 3-2. The upcoming Dec 15th deadline is the final steps to passing the anti-Open-Internet-Order. If the bill goes through we can confidently blame old money.  While the average FCC commissioner is between 30-48, these FCC commissioners have relationships with “old money.” For example, Jessica Rosenworcel- an FCC commissioner- has worked for a Rockefeller and has connections with the Rockefeller family. Also, a majority of FCC voters have connections or know of people who have invested in broadband companies in the past. It’s a scary thought that could eventually lead to the passing of the anti-Internet-Order. People speculate that “old money,” is behind these young FCC voters to be anti-Open-Internet while during the Obama administration they were for Net Neutrality. A full 360 from their past notions of Net Neutrality.


Old money is 100% to blame and underestimating the powers of Republicans with Donald Trump as president is foolish. Reporters have stated that the Republicans influences in the White House are the greatest it has ever been. With the recent -nearly autocratic- passing of the Trump’s administration tax law, general dislike towards a ruling doesn’t guarantee it won’t be passed, unlike back then. A new report shows that money has a greater influence on American laws rather than public opinion in comparison to any other time in history. Notions of money influencing laws that affect the general population instead of the general population influencing laws are continually falling. So far, with the Trump’s administration, over 10 laws that Trump has tried to pass goes against the general population’s satisfaction. In addition, with Trump’s constant firing, he can easily set up a cabinet of legislatures that share the same vision as he. This can lead to laws that the general population hates but are passed anyway. Just a quick-view of press conferences after the Trump’s administration tax law passing you will see a blatant profile. Bald, blue-eyed, old, white millionaires who believe they know what poor people want. Majority of these old white men is conservatives or past entrepreneurs that are simply protecting their investment. It’s scary to think that the law of the land is being run by these people, but they’re our grandparents.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.