We Have 4 Days To Save The Internet

We Have 4 Days To Save The Internet

Net Neutrality is on the line. Here's what you can do.

At the time of this writing, we have four days to save the internet. On December 14, the FCC will vote to repeal Net Neutrality, effectively destroying the internet as we know it. Here’s what that means for you and here’s how you can make your voice heard to prevent it.

What is Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.”

Under current legislation, you pay X dollars a month to have complete freedom to roam the web. Think about all the websites you visit in a day. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, your various email accounts (I personally have four, through two different email providers), different news sites, Dictionary.com. You visit sites to shop online, even if it’s just to add a bunch of items to your cart and then close out of the window. How do you entertain yourself? Through Netflix, Spotify, Hulu, Pandora, YouTube.Think about all the apps you have on your phone and all of the ones you use on a daily basis that require an internet connection. Currently, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, among others, only charge you one fee to access the entirety of the internet. Sure, you might have to pay for some of your subscriptions, like Netflix, Spotify, and it costs money to view more than 4 New York Times articles in a month, but those fees are charged by each individual company.

What happens if Net Neutrality is repealed?

Glad you asked. So now that you’ve had some time to think about all the various things you use your internet for, here’s what will happen if we lose Net Neutrality.

Take Netflix for example. Currently, you pay about $55 per month for your internet. You also pay about $10 a month for Netflix. If Net Neutrality is repealed, you will not only pay the base fee of $55/month, PLUS $10/month for Netflix, but you will ALSO pay an additional $10/month to be allowed access to Netflix through your ISP.

And that will happen with every single website you visit on a daily basis. So now instead of paying $55/month plus your subscription costs, you’re now paying hundreds of dollars a month for internet access, access to certain sites through your ISP, and the cost of the subscription itself. Fun, right?

Another implication this could have is your internet speed. There are already tiered internet packages through ISPs. This means that you pay $55/month for medium speed internet. If Net Neutrality is repealed, you’ll have slow internet, and even if you pay for access to certain websites, your ISP could slow down that website even further, which would then prompt you to purchase a “boost” in order to actually access the website.

For example, let’s say your current ISP is Verizon, but you want to switch to AT&T. Without Net Neutrality, Verizon will not only be able to force you to pay a fee to access AT&T’s website but could also charge you an additional fee to speed up the internet speed when accessing AT&T so you’re not experiencing dial-up era internet speeds.

Why should I care?

Most importantly, the repeal of Net Neutrality is a direct violation of your first amendment rights. In case you enshrine the Constitution only as an intangible ideal, let’s review what the first amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The repeal of Net Neutrality is censorship. It will hinder your ability to speak freely. Whichever side of the aisle you’re on, think about the content you share on Facebook about this politician or that bill or those issues. Repealing Net Neutrality would make that discussion significantly harder. Think about the press: everything is digital. What would the repeal of Net Neutrality mean for the Odyssey? Probably not good things. How do people plan and organize peaceful assemblies? Through the internet. How am I petition the Government right now? That’s right: through the internet.

This isn’t a partisan issue. I don’t care if you’re a Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal. Progressive, Libertarian, Socialist: THIS DIRECTLY AFFECTS YOU. If you use the internet, this is your problem.

What can I do?

I’m glad that you’re inspired to take action. Here are some simple things you can do to make your voice heard.

Sign these petitions.



Visit these websites.



Go here:


And follow these steps:

1. Click on the 17-108 link (Restoring Internet Freedom)

2. Click on “express”

3. Be sure to hit “ENTER” after you put in your name & info so it registers.

4. In the comment section write, “I strongly support net neutrality backed by Title 2 oversight of ISPs.”

5. Click to submit, done. - Make sure you hit submit at the end!

Contact your Congresspeople.

Text RESIST to 50409 and resistbot will guide you through the process.

Call, email, even tweet them.

In Montana, we have Senator Jon Tester (D), Senator Steve Daines (R) , and Representative Greg Gianforte (R) .

Email the FCC.

Ajit Pai, Chairman

Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner

Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner

Brendan Carr, Commissioner

Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner

This is our last chance. Even just one of these actions could have the long term effect of saving Net Neutrality. Now is the time to do something before we lose the internet as we know it forever.

Cover Image Credit: Vimeo

Popular Right Now

An Open Letter to the Person Who Still Uses the "R Word"

Your negative associations are slowly poisoning the true meaning of an incredibly beautiful, exclusive word.

What do you mean you didn't “mean it like that?" You said it.

People don't say things just for the hell of it. It has one definition. Merriam-Webster defines it as, "To be less advanced in mental, physical or social development than is usual for one's age."

So, when you were “retarded drunk" this past weekend, as you claim, were you diagnosed with a physical or mental disability?

When you called your friend “retarded," did you realize that you were actually falsely labeling them as handicapped?

Don't correct yourself with words like “stupid," “dumb," or “ignorant." when I call you out. Sharpen your vocabulary a little more and broaden your horizons, because I promise you that if people with disabilities could banish that word forever, they would.

Especially when people associate it with drunks, bad decisions, idiotic statements, their enemies and other meaningless issues. Oh trust me, they are way more than that.

I'm not quite sure if you have had your eyes opened as to what a disabled person is capable of, but let me go ahead and lay it out there for you. My best friend has Down Syndrome, and when I tell people that their initial reaction is, “Oh that is so nice of you! You are so selfless to hang out with her."

Well, thanks for the compliment, but she is a person. A living, breathing, normal girl who has feelings, friends, thousands of abilities, knowledge, and compassion out the wazoo.

She listens better than anyone I know, she gets more excited to see me than anyone I know, and she works harder at her hobbies, school, work, and sports than anyone I know. She attends a private school, is a member of the swim team, has won multiple events in the Special Olympics, is in the school choir, and could quite possibly be the most popular girl at her school!

So yes, I would love to take your compliment, but please realize that most people who are labeled as “disabled" are actually more “able" than normal people. I hang out with her because she is one of the people who has so effortlessly taught me simplicity, gratitude, strength, faith, passion, love, genuine happiness and so much more.

Speaking for the people who cannot defend themselves: choose a new word.

The trend has gone out of style, just like smoking cigarettes or not wearing your seat belt. It is poisonous, it is ignorant, and it is low class.

As I explained above, most people with disabilities are actually more capable than a normal human because of their advantageous ways of making peoples' days and unknowingly changing lives. Hang out with a handicapped person, even if it is just for a day. I can one hundred percent guarantee you will bite your tongue next time you go to use the term out of context.

Hopefully you at least think of my friend, who in my book is a hero, a champion and an overcomer. Don't use the “R Word". You are way too good for that. Stand up and correct someone today.

Cover Image Credit: Kaitlin Murray

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

My First Political Debate Experience Only Revealed The Messed-Up Reality Of American Partisan Pandering

More sinister than fake news, more timeless than Trump and Kavanaugh, the deceit and radicalization of modern politics is poisoning America.


Given my age (almost 16 and a half!) and my nonpartisan perspective on most issues, it's rare that I attend any politically motivated function (much less in person). Unfortunately, my first taste of official political discourse only encapsulated everything I dislike about American politics.

Upon learning that my high school was hosting a debate between two candidates for the district's representative position, I was immediately intrigued. Admittedly, I had my expectations set high. I had jotted down "House Rep. Debate" on my calendar a week in advance and marked off the days the event neared. I would finally get to learn firsthand about the issues affecting my community and about the people with plans to fix them.

To a certain extent I got what I had hoped for, but certainly not in the environment I had anticipated.

When the student moderators introduced the candidates, Democrat Angelika Kausche and Republican Kelly Stewart, to the stage, it was already abundantly clear how ideologically distinct the two opponents would be.

The first question, which asked each candidate to describe how their views aligned with their party's platform, revealed just how cut-and-dry the candidates were at representing their respective factions. On the left, an unwavering conservative with a keen avoidance of overspending and socialist policies. On the right, an equally grounded liberal with a passion for tackling humanitarian injustices and enforcing moral correctness.

This circumstance certainly isn't unprecedented, but the rest of the night only proved how their narrow-minded partisan loyalty served as barriers to productive discourse.

Right off the bat, Kausche avoided the clearly stated question by taking the time to thank the John's Creek Community Association for hosting the event.

Stewart, however, dove right into her response, which turned out to be a fine-tuned diatribe about Georgia's budgetary deficit and Kausche's supposed lack of budgetary experience and the budgetary concerns and the budget. Finally, Stewart concluded that perhaps the most important thing to consider is, you guessed it, the budget. She even printed out budget sheets for attendees, which I found extraordinarily useful as a handy notepad.

My head perked up when I heard a question regarding Georgia's healthcare policies. Admittedly, I know less than I should about the subject and was curious to know what each candidate thought.

Shockingly, Republican Kelly Stewart opposed the expansion of Medicaid while Democrat Angelika Kausche vehemently supported it. I start to wonder what the point of having candidates' names on the ballot is when their political stances just as much could be conveyed with the letters "D" and "R" to the tee.

Neither candidate veered from their party platform for the rest of the night, with only a few moments of forced agreement (always around the fact that an issue exists, never about how to solve it). On a few occasions, a candidate would utter an especially radical idea (i.e. Obamacare is at blame for the opioid crisis. Medicaid should be for all people. Teachers should be armed.) and was almost always met with either overwhelming applause or a sea of groans.

The room's reaction was so powerful in either candidate's favor that I was genuinely confused who was the more favored of the two.

To be abundantly clear, I wholeheartedly support voter efficacy and staying informed, and I understand that debates inform voters of their representative's ideals. I also don't mean to criticize Kausche or Stewart or even the policies they endorse. I only question the point of debate when it's anchored in stiff, unrelenting party platforms. This is symptomatic of the larger trend at work in American politics: the exploitation of party differences by politicians to entice a demographic of their constituents.

If you're wondering what that means or demand evidence, just take President Trump. Back in 2016, his presidential campaign threatened to run as independent when he felt he wasn't getting enough support from the GOP. Now, he champions radicalized views of the right and has emboldened members of the far-right (along with alt-right neo-Nazis and racists) with his entirely anti-PC attitude.

Similarly, it's rare to find a democratic politician that deviates from the extensive list of liberal ideas that are expected of them. Consider Trump's opponent Hilary Clinton, who originally made it clear in 2014 that she was against nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage. Isn't it suspicious that in 2015, without explaining why her stance changed, her presidential campaign later advocated for this right, thus garnering support from the LGBT community?

There's so much more wrong with the state of American politics than your opposed party controlling political office.

The effect of the American people allowing this pandering and doublespeak is political inaction among policymakers, who can preach a set of ideals independent of their actual intentions.

The other result is voter apathy among constituents, who therefore feel their vote holds little weight.

With such deceitful rhetorical tactics dominating the political sphere, it's easy to believe that we've all been given a voice. But when that voice only ever tells us what we want to hear, it's important that we stop to question whether we're really being heard.

Related Content

Facebook Comments