There has long been talk of creating a free Internet service that people all over the country could use. This service would be very similar to public radio and non-cable TV channels. Everyone would have access to it and no one would be
(prHWY.com) October 16, 2012 - Seattle, WA -- There has long been talk of creating a free Internet service that people all over the country could use. This service would be very similar to public radio and non-cable TV channels. Everyone would have access to it and no one would be left not able to surf the Internet.
While this might sound like a great idea, there are several unique laws in the state of California that could be holding back this very idea. It is the idea of reversing those laws that block free Internet that could be the deciding factor for the next presidential election.
"There are so many people wondering what will happen to Big Bird or what will happen to a park in the middle of nowhere", said Tommy Sleeper, a political analyst. "While those are important issues for some people, the people of California care about the Internet issue."
The two front runners in the presidential election have remained tight lipped about what they would do to help change laws like the ones that block free
Internet in California. This tight lipped nature makes it extremely hard for individuals to know who to vote for and who not to vote for.
"I really think that free San Francisco Internet would be a great idea", said Sheila Sanders, an independent voter. "I would vote for whoever was for helping our state achieve the free Internet status. The problem is that none of the candidates wishes to comment on this issue. So I am unable to know who to vote for."
The reason for remaining tight lipped might not be as complex as some people think. Some people have speculated that the candidates are afraid of losing corporate support, while others say it is some grand conspiracy theory, but the answer might be even simpler than all that.
"The reason the candidates are not talking about this issue might be because there might not be a lot on the national level they can do", said Sleeper. "The laws that block this from becoming a reality are on the state level, not the national level. This means that the state leaders are the ones that can make the change. Yes, the president can influence change, but in this situation they can only influence, not do anything about it. That could be why no one is saying anything about the issue at hand."
###