Net Neutrality Champion Wheeler to Leave Jan. 20 as FCC Chairman

Why would he do this? He could have held on until 2018 and used his position to continue fighting for net neutrality.

As it stands, the FCC's regulations and the FCC itself stand to be gutted by both incoming and incumbent Republican commissioners. That, and if any net neutrality laws actually manage to pass Congress, they'll likely be toothless and unenforceable. Title II made sense because the Internet truly is a utility now. But telecoms and their friends in various think tanks as well as the Capitol still want people to think of it as something just for entertainment, rather than the thing you use every day for stuff like taxes, work, paying bills, or college.

Maybe if all the right factors combine, the public could get riled up again in the same way that they got riled up over SOPA. But with how telecoms are promising "free" data so they can watch their Netflix on the go without caps, I don't think it's likely.

Net neutrality was government overreach into free markets.

>>92299
The internet was never intended to function as a free market and shouldn't be fundamentally changed just to accommodate commercialization.

>>92299
How fucking stupid do you have to be to not want net neutrality? Have fun when Comcast make's all attempts to watch Netflix redirect to Hulu and throttles your connection until you upgrade to Xfinity+™, that's just the same old internet you had but with a 70% price markup.

>>92292
I don't have any evidence of this, but I'd bet it has to do with that one anti-lobbyist bill that was going through Congress with bipartisan support that would mean he would have to wait at least a year before joining the private sector.

>>92299
Net neutrality isn't really about bandwidth, netflix or torrents.
It's about the control of information.
It wasn't even an issue until the media lost control of the narratives.
A loss of net neutrality would be a loss of dissenting voices.

Control the information and you control the people.

>>92328
>FREE BUTTFUCKING BY CORPORATIONS YALL

Fixed that for you, you brainless bootlicker.

>>92385

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic based on how terrible sounding his entire scenario sounded.

>>92319
So is James Clapper.

>>92418
You can never be too sure with all the retarded ancap NEETs and teenagers on /pol/

>>92579
no he was being sarcastic, you should've paid more attention in english class

So they're going to repeal net neutrality:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/fcc-republicans-vow-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-as-soon-as-possible/

Is this going to kill 4chan and Youtube?

>>93420
You're about to get BTFO by the president and congress in every way conceivable. Hopefully most of you will emigrate once Trump is crowned emperor. Keep crying those liberal tears though, because they are very delicious.

>>93424
we'll leave and let you rot in this shithole lolllll

>>93420
>Is this going to kill 4chan and Youtube?
It won't kill youtube but it will definately kill 4chan. There isn't an ISP on the planet that is going to want to include 4chan as part of a good bandwidth tier.

>>93424
>You're about to get BTFO by the every American ISP and Big Media Company in every way conceivable.*
*ftfy

Once again, thanks /pol/

>>93424
You'll be enjoying your own tears soon enough if you think the social degenerates that permeate 4chan aren't going to get buttfucked just as hard.

>>93477
>>93480
Just so long as you're butthurt, it's worth it. If you had cancer and we had the cure, we'd slit our own throats for the lulz.

Besides, I have confidence in Trump. He wouldn't let them shut down his own subreddit, would he; so they'll always be a place for me.

>>93483
>Burn it all down as long as Trump strikes the match!
I genuinely don't understand your fanboyishness.

>>93483
>Trump is shitting in my mouth
>I don't care because liberals don't like the fumes
Good for you, I guess.

I have some faith in Trump because he seems open to listening to new ideas and may be persuaded to keep Net Neutrality. He had that big meeting with all the tech figureheads, for example. The cuckservatives want to gut NN but keep in mind that Trump is not part of the cuckservatives.

>>93484
>>93485
Well, this is what /pol/ thinks about Net Neutrality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctrh74EPI5Y&ab_channel=RWWBlog

Basically, because the libruls support it, means that it's bad. Or they're just supporting it because it's hilarious and contrarian.

Are your assholes ready for that big, fat, unlubed telecom dick?

http://i.imgur.com/A7mFHDL.jpg

>>92292
>why would he do this
The man is fucking seventy

The writing is on the wall, he's better off getting out and probably retiring instead of spending a couple of years being a part of something that is destroying what he believes in

>>93483
Is this really the level of discourse that trumplets aspire to

>>93493
The ones on 4chan voted for Trump to troll the world.

What do you think?

>>92328
>"and then I told them monopolies are the same thing as the free market!"
rich_old_men_laughing.jpg

With the rise of the internet, corporations have lost control of the narratives.
They want it back.
>attsucks.com
>error 451

Until the pseudo-libertarians in Congress and Senate like Rand Paul start to care about this issue and raise a stink about it then many on both the right are going to succumb to the corporate PR about net neutrality being Obamacare for the internet. That seems to be what happened with Trump.

Man, if they succesfully hamstring net neutrality, that's the end of the internet as we know it. Torrents would be gone, fringe websites, hell, web.archive will be pointless. It'll just be media conglomerates using social media products as sockpuppets to sedate the masses

I'm gonna stock up on all the loli I can while the gettin's good

>>93514
Libertarians oppose NN because they see it as the government putting its boot down on business. They believe that if you don't like your internet, then either move and find a better service, start up your own internet service, or suck it up.

>>93517
The government is just enforcing the original rules of the network which was created without free market interference.

>>93518
Libertarians don't really care. In a fight between the state or people vs business, they'll always come down on the side of business. They're ideology demands it.

For me this is a fuzzy issue, as a Libertarian I emphasize that it's not the GOVERNMENT'S role to favor or inhibit any content. Certain content providers can certainly pay more for preferred access though.

As far as people vs. business, we don't favor one over the other. We will favor BOTH over government regulation.

>>93527
I'm an Ancap, so I say burn down the governments and let the free market rule. As for net neutrality, if internet providers want to restrict users, even arbitrarily, then it is their right because they are the ones who built and maintain the internet's information highways. The internet does not belong to me or you, it belongs to those ISPs, and they can do what they wish with it; we merely pay for access.

>>93515
Honest to god as much as I love the internet amd many things out of it its also brought a lot of bullshit. Like sensationalism and stupid feelIng shit spreading. the Internet peeked already, people can be waTched and braInwashed and their lives can be ruined with archived information and sharing. Clickbait has overtaken everything and people fall for ridiculous ideologies. Yes there are good things too but the internet has already chnged a lot since the 90s.

Maybe we can shy away for a bit.

Maybe the internet isnt our end all be all of Information. Maybe this will push someone to make something new?

What do you think?

>>93527
>Certain content providers can certainly pay more for preferred access though.
The entire premise of this argument is that it's big American ISP's network and they can do what they want with it, but it fundamentally isn't... it's a global network made up of government, educational, and corporate interests that only works when all the rules are the same everywhere.

Packets of data can't be prioritized simply because some backwater ISP lets its users pay $20 extra per month to make their packets more important than everyone elses. The internet is built around each packet of data being exactly as important as every other packet of data. You're talking about destroying the current internet and creating an entirely separate corporate owned one where they make the rules.

It's one thing for Joe Sixpack who only uses the internet for porn and snapchat to not know the difference, but it's another thing when some Congressman is convinced that some jackal company like AT&T or Comcast should be allowed to prioritize their datapipes based on corporate priorities. It will start a bandwidth war with companies like Netflix, just for one thing, and that doesn't even get into the implications for adsense and e-celebs.

>>93530
>>93528
>>93527
It's kind of like phone companies. The government had to step in and pass regulations to prevent things like one carrier banning calls to other carriers. Laissez Faire doesn't really play well with Internet to begin with considering it piggybacks off of government infrastructure and has very high startup costs; it's a lot like a utility in that respect. Furthermore, the internet provides the basis for other lucrative businesses. It's not exactly a product like a pizza that's delivered to your door, but more like the roads that the pizza delivery man uses to reach your door. If ISPs were to cut Ebay, Amazon, and other business sites for whatever reason, then the damage to the economy would be greater then the benefits. Ergo, the ISPs not only impact themselves with their policies, but many other businesses. This isn't to mention the dampener that this would put on creativity and the potential GDP lost there. But the people who get fucked the most in the whole ordeal is the small guy. I mean, I like some aspects of libertarianism, but they sometimes let their ideology get in the way of results.

>>93532
The issue with a lot of liberal economics is that it forgets that the economy is ideally supposed to work for the people, not the other way around. Economies, whether capitalist or socialist, are nothing more then resource distribution systems. They answer the social question of "Who gets what, and how do they get it."

When people forget all of this, then you can end up with economic systems that oppress more then liberate or uplift, and work against the common good.

>>93529
I disagree. The internet is filled with promise, and it's only "peaked" if this is truly the end of it in the US.

Many other nations enforce net neutrality-like regulations on ISPs because the government recognizes that it's a public utility. You can't leave something like that to the "free market". And what we have in the US isn't a free market. Like nearly every consumer good in this country, it's under the control of an oligarchy. US telecom companies have already agreed upon which part of the cow is theirs, and they all agree to charge equally insane prices for equally bullshit bandwidth. If the meagre protections net neutrality offer atm are stripped away, telecom businesses are effectively keeping the US decades behind in tech to make a buck.

And really, this is where a lot of the US' economic problems stem from. Our corporate culture is out of control. The "free market" would allow businesses to collapse, compete, and make them focus on delivering the best product they can. Instead, powerful corporations and their lobbying power have effectively bent the federal government to their will to offer protections and loopholes that allow for oligarchies and even monopolies of a kind that wouldn't exist if we actually practiced free-market capitalism in the US. You see this in the auto/petrol industry, as well as firearms, food, appliances, and most relevant to this discussion, the entertainment industry.

The internet in the US seemed like a fertile and untouched meadow that might be free of corporate drilling, but it was killing the entertainment industry's century-old profit models. Rather than adapt or create new models, they want to contort the internet with federal legislation to fit the old one. I'd rather save what we know has worked than hope we're free of corporate fuckery when the next cornerstone of technology is discovered.

Sorry for the long post

>>93537
>And really, this is where a lot of the US' economic problems stem from. Our corporate culture is out of control. The "free market" would allow businesses to collapse, compete, and make them focus on delivering the best product they can. Instead, powerful corporations and their lobbying power have effectively bent the federal government to their will to offer protections and loopholes that allow for oligarchies and even monopolies of a kind that wouldn't exist if we actually practiced free-market capitalism in the US. You see this in the auto/petrol industry, as well as firearms, food, appliances, and most relevant to this discussion, the entertainment industry.

The paradox of capitalism is that what is profitable for one company is destructive for the system as a whole. Like let's say three companies are all trustworthy and run by decent people. One of the companies ends up replacing it's president with someone who's a real shitter. He covertly makes cuts to drive up profit and starts selling a subpar product that hurts and even kills some of the customers. By the time people get the pitchforks ready, he's already jumped shipped and ran away with his money. Now, that leaves the other two companies, who are still upright and moral, but due to the shitter, they have to deal with the fallout of public mistrust towards their industry as a whole and the lost revenues that follow.

This is where regulation comes in, so that shitters don't crap up the money pool for everyone else.

>>93541
Oh I know that, and I fully support reasonable regulation on businesses. I'm just pointing out the fallacy that the US practices free-market capitalism, when it hasn't been that way for 100 years. And with good reason.

It's just twisted that when the US government does pass regulation, it's often only done with involvement and approval from the very businesses they wish to regulate

>>93483
>we
stop pretending you speak for the entire right wing you immature faggot

>>93544
>It's just twisted

But also necessary so that the regulation isn't overtly shitty and gets things completely wrong, like early attempts (Jefferson's Ograbme, for example). Like with everything in government and politics, there has to be a balance -- an established field of trust (which takes a while to build and gets lost with shit like the blatant cheating in the financial collapse), with both a carrot and stick in the far background just in case there's the temptation to cheat a bit again.

Trust is by far the most useful asset in game theory, and a big part of said theory's social application is a model and strategy for building and rebuilding trust while still making strategic decisions. It's an interesting and severely underdeveloped field.

>>93676
>passing up an opportunity to silence the left once and for all

This is why you traditional conservative are losing. You don't go for the neck when given the chance, you just twiddle your thumbs and cry about "muh freedums" or "muh compromise."

We've moved the Overton Window to the hard right, we got Donald elected, we're making America great, and we're winning hard. What has traditional conservatives done then hand us the "Moral Majority" and Bush Jr, then set things up for 8 years of Obongo?

>>92299
give the disinfo troll it's "You"s, it gets paid per reply

>>93527
>it's not the GOVERNMENT'S role to favor or inhibit any content
Net Neutrality is the PREVENTION of content being favored or inhibited

>>93737
And I'm telling you it doesn't matter. The government should not be telling others who to inhibit or not inhibit. It's up to companies to decide how free they want their internet to be.

>>93738
prehaps start over, this time with a working definition of what 'government' should mean, versus the current 'normal' of it being to everyone else's detriment

>>93740
I think things like the First Amendment Defense Act are a step in the right direction. Ideally though, the government wouldn't get in the way of what we the people want to do with our property.

>>93741
Sure, but what about thing like the intertubes? Should private corporations be responsible for maintaining these networks? Of which, none are sharing the relevant information to properly do so? Just imagining private ownership of 'information highways' reveals itself to be a really bad idea.

This is why we have global government already, to facilitate what "free markets" cannot

>>93748
Private companies should be able to do whatever they want with their internet. They invested in it, they own it, they make the rules, and they make the profit.

>>93738
>It's up to companies to decide how free they want their internet to be.
>their internet
It was never "their" internet. It was invented by DARPA for the US military and debuted to the public hosted by educational institutions. The corporate ISPs are the gatekeepers, not the content providers.

>>93751
Serious question, not trying to troll you: What makes you think the internet belongs to companies like AT&T? Who told you that?

>>93753
he wants your reply, not to debate 'thoughts', which are just a bunch of limp-wristed communist talk if you ask his agency

>>93754
I'm not a communist.

>>93753
Because they are the ones who maintain it and develop it. It's there's by right.

>>93752
So? The government sells lands to people and then the people build stuff. The land and the stuff they build now belongs to them.

>>93757
>complain rightfully that Hillary is a corporate shill
>turn around and shill out corporations themselves

I don't get you libertarians/conservatives. It's even more pathetic because unlike her, you're doing it for free.

>>93757
>they are the ones who maintain it and develop it.

ICANN and various US and international science and defense agencies handles the development and maintenance of the entire software and infrastructure backbone.

ISPs play an important role, yes, but it's like if your car manufacturer included a regulator that only allowed certain maximum speeds on different roads, even though the roads are built and maintained by the government as is each municipality's road system. The car manufacturer has nothing to do with the roads and townships, but extracts payments from them to get their speed regulation lifted.

I mean really it's just a fancy type of extortion that's otherwise allowed in a very laissez-faire system.

>>93771
>As you know, we dissented from the Commission’s February 2015 Net Neutrality decision, including the Order’s imposition of unnecessary and unjustified burdens on providers … we will seek to revisit those particular requirements, and the Title II Net Neutrality proceeding more broadly, as soon as possible.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db1219/DOC-342677A1.pdf

Too bad. They'll be throwing out absolutely everything that Obama did.

>>93776
Wow, they're harping on ISPs having to be "transparent." What the fuck is wrong with these people?

>stupid Americans think the internet is American
What happens when the rest of the world follows the old net neutral rules while American ISPs adjust their pipes according to their bottom lines? Find out this January! Stay tuned!

>>93778
America ends up with a less functional, corporate version of China's internet. Think Baidu or something. Internet rights become a partisan issue, with liberals throwing a shitfit about it while Republicans begin defending it shortly afterwards. Of course, without the means to really organize well, the libs get no where (tumblr, twitter, and facebook might get nuked for a lot of people). You start seeing ISP set up knockoffs of popular social media sites, but the communities are much smaller due to not being able to connect to others using different services. Any complaints are of course, moderated out by the ISPs. Prices skyrocket, service gets even shittier, and you begin to see people drop off of private internet and begin using public spaces with free internet more often (like libraries).

Euros and the rest of the world try to carry on as normal, just with way less American input (which would be a net bad thing as Americans do support many global sites).

>>93779
>people drop off of private internet and begin using public spaces with free internet more often (like libraries).

people drop off of home internet

I'm actually a little upset because it's become clear to me that having a functional internet is now a political issue than a technical one.

That pisses me off.

It pisses me off more that the shitstains in /pol/ genuinely believe that the internet should be segregated based on state or network and they have the gall to post that on 4chan. A site that exists because of the freedom of movement between networks.

Yes, /pol/ is that stupid: >>>/pol/103948061

>>93778
The rest of the world would get the internet while we get the "Internet™"

>>93751
>Private companies should be able to do whatever they want with their internet.
It's not 'Their' internet, you idiot jackoff. The internet is standardized communication between networks of computers. These ISPs want to violate those standards to make an extra buck. If you think this is a good thing, then please feel free to quit using 4chan; which is a site that only exists because of free information flow between networks.

>>93779
I don't think this will happen mostly because if it ever came down to it: we would start to see American companies like netflix start to use decentralized content delivery methods to fool the ISPs attempts at charging them for peering.

Think bittorrent, but for Netflix.

>>93791
In this area, /pol/ is just a symptom of a larger sickness, Anon.

https://twitter.com/sentedcruz/status/531834493922189313?lang=en

>>93483
I cringed

>>93794
Throttling torrents is what started the net neutrality debate IIRC

>>93688
>shitting on Dubya while praising Greatest Goy Trump

I really hope you're just shitposting.

>>93808
Throttling can only be done with unencrypted headers. I think every modern bittorrent client forces header encryption by default.

>>93420
>So they're going to repeal net neutrality:

Thank God. The less the Government has its hands on the internet the better. I will enjoy the progressive tears though when it actually happens. The fear mongering on the left has been hilarious while it has lasted.

>>92300
>The internet was never intended to function as a free market

The internet was also never intended to see mass widespread use by the average person. Using your logic we should all voluntarily give up our access to the internet then.

>>93779
>muh ebil corporations

Hate to break it to you kiddo but all the advances we have enjoyed since the 1970s have come from the private sector, not the government.

>>93688
>George W. Bush
>traditional conservative

He was a moderate progressive you moron.

>>93832
>The fear mongering on the left has been hilarious while it has lasted.
We'll give them a real reason to fear us soon.

>>93832
>Hate to break it to you kiddo but all the advances we have enjoyed since the 1970s have come from the private sector, not the government.
This isn't even close to being true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane_principle

>>93791 So glad I am not the only one to see it.

This whole thing was concocted so the Fed would have more monitoring control via the FCC. Now you see the push for censorship (which was the goal) via the talking point of fake news. Has anyone read all the sneaky little details this mess contains? It doesn't sound like it.

>>94113
How in the fuck you got that conspiracy from what's really happening with ISP's bandwidth throttling is a mystery to me. The internet is a utility and The FCC is (was until Trump) just enforcing the rules of the network which private industry wants to change in order to give them more control over what you do on the internet and how you do it.

>>93838
>yfw autistic wiki man strikes again

"Extrapolation is for normiesss, woooooooo"

>>94139
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism

>>93795
>https://twitter.com/sentedcruz/status/531834493922189313?lang=en
And he's right.

If government took over the internet as it came up, we'd all still being using dial up while people constantly told other people who wanted to make changes to fuck off because "without the government we'd have no internet at all."

>>94140
>tries to prove hes not a wiki autist
>by posting a wiki page about Autism
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew

>>94141
Please read the wiki page and learn what autism actually is so you stop making yourself look like a giant jackass by using the word incorrectly.

Also, this should be helpful to you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

>>94143
>Please read the wiki page and learn what autism actually is so you stop making yourself look like a giant jackass by using the word incorrectly.
Yeah, this really isn't helping your claim that you're not autistic buddy.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
My favorite one is the fallacy fallacy.

>>94113
No, ths started with ISP's doing deep packet inspections to throttle torrents. (while grandma that only checks email still has to pay full price)
-FCC said "you can't do that"
-ISP's said "you dont have the authority to stop us"
-ISP's sued and won
-FCC got the authority to prevent censorship with Title 2
-ISP's butthurt

This is one of the very few things that the government has done that truly served the people.
The ISP's want the power to control content. We can't let that happen or the internet as we know it will be dead.
Free speech on the internet will be dead
Opposing ideas will be blocked.
We'd only have access to their "fake news"
With the loss of trust in MSM, this issue is more important than ever.

The government can't openly block content because of "freedom of speech", ISP's could though. Just look at reddit and facebook. The whole internet could become that censored because ISP's are private corporations and they wouldn't be prevented.

>>94146
>The ISP's want the power to control content. We can't let that happen or the internet as we know it will be dead.
Surely with the government holding the power to control content, the internet will be saved and not censored at all.

>Free speech on the internet will be dead
>Opposing ideas will be blocked.
>We'd only have access to their "fake news"
>With the loss of trust in MSM, this issue is more important than ever.
I know right? Someone has to ensure the masses only receive the right propaganda from approved MSM networks only.
Gotta keep control of all communication in the hand of a few companies who love reinforcing their monopolistic control with more government.

>Just look at reddit and facebook.
You mean those companies operating on what they think the government wants them to do and censor, like ban and silence all right-wing pages and news sites, and explicitly editing the comments of right-wingers and Trump supporters as a form of censorship?

>>94148
>You mean those companies operating on what they think the government wants them to do and censor, like ban and silence all right-wing pages and news sites, and explicitly editing the comments of right-wingers and Trump supporters as a form of censorship?
Where are you getting this censoring crap from? Net Neutrality has nothing to do with censoring and your view about the media border on AlexJones-tier.

>>94149
>Where are you getting this censoring crap from?
Facebook:
http://heatst.com/tech/internal-documents-reveal-bizarre-facebook-rules-for-censorship-of-hate-speech/
https://www.cnet.com/news/how-zuckerberg-facebook-censors-korryn-gaines-philando-castile-dallas-police-your-posts-faq/
http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006
http://nlpc.org/2016/06/16/facebook-suppresses-story-critical-black-lives-matter-censorship-alive-and-well-d/

Twitter:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/twitter-censorship-will-only-empower-the-alt-right/507929/
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/11/18/actor-james-woods-leaves-twitter-over-alt-right-censorship.html
http://fortune.com/2016/11/16/twitter-ban-alt-right/
http://nlpc.org/2016/11/22/trump-success-doesnt-alleviate-twitter-censorship-allegations/

>Net Neutrality has nothing to do with censoring
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436807/net-neutrality-government-control-your-internet-service
https://www.cnet.com/news/why-net-neutrality-is-incompatible-with-internet-freedom/
http://www.redstate.com/setonmotley/2016/05/24/venezuela-net-neutrality-fact-mean-internet-censorship/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2016/07/22/courts-net-neutrality-opinion-wrong-about-first-amendment/#262e0f266f10
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/06/thierer.net.neutrality/
http://www.themanitoban.com/2010/10/net-neutrality-and-internet-censorship/1428/

Now please, dissmiss them all as fake news. I dare you.

>>94151
>Jewbook and Twatter links
Looks like you're mad at corporate policies and not the government.

>http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436807/net-neutrality-government-control-your-internet-service
William F. Buckley would roll over in his grave. Bi surprise that the author, Brent Skorup, is a telcom lobbyist
https://www.google.com/search?q=Brent+Skorup&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

>https://www.cnet.com/news/why-net-neutrality-is-incompatible-with-internet-freedom/
>The FCC's Net neutrality rules violate the First Amendment, argues a free-market proponent, and are thus antithetical to "Internet freedom."
Hahahahaha yeah right.

http://www.redstate.com/setonmotley/2016/05/24/venezuela-net-neutrality-fact-mean-internet-censorship/
>redstate
You've got to be fucking kidding me. you might as well have posted a freeper link.

>http://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2016/07/22/courts-net-neutrality-opinion-wrong-about-first-amendment/#262e0f266f10

>Contributor
>Fred Campbell

>I am the director of Tech Knowledge, a Senior Policy Advisor with Wireless 20/20, and an adjunct professor in the Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law program at the Nebraska College of Law. I headed the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission in 2007-2008, and served as Wireless Legal Advisor to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin in 2005-2006. I have also been a Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, President and CEO of the Wireless Communications Association International, and an Arabic linguist in the 101st Airborne. I received a J.D. with high distinction from the Nebraska College of Law, a B.S. from Excelsior College, and a Diploma in Modern Standard Arabic from the Defense Language Institute.
So he's ANOTHER telcom lobbyist. Nice try.

....

>>94155
>http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/06/thierer.net.neutrality/
>Editor's note: Adam Thierer is president of The Progress & Freedom Foundation, a think tank on digital issues primarily funded by major media and technology companies, including Comcast, NBC Universal and Time Warner, parent of CNN, and by trade associations. Mike Wendy is vice president of press and external affairs at PFF.
ANOTHER telcom lobbyist.

>http://www.themanitoban.com/2010/10/net-neutrality-and-internet-censorship/1428/
Well it's good to know what the student editorial of The University of Manitoba thinks.

The gist of the arguments all of these articles are making is that it somehow violates the first amendment rights of the big ISPs to control their own networks, but the fatal flaw in this argument is that it assumes it was their network to begin with when in reality they have merely contributed a small portion to the global worldwide network. It is the height of folly to think you can change how the network route traffic in one specific country without having the rest of the network all over the world not make the same changes.

tl;dr I will look forward to investing in net neutral Mexican server farms and so should Hiro with 4chan.

>>94149
>Net Neutrality has nothing to do with censoring

Then what do ISP's want that they don't have now?
Why is it even an issue?

>>94157
Because they're going to charge you more money to go to anything but their approved TimeWarner/AT&T/Comcast/Disney/Amazon/Google brand websites. Get ready for tiered internet... Nothing will be censored but the truth will be very expensive. (and so will any streaming service for anything, including porn, among other things)

>>94158

I imagine you could kiss 4chan goodbye, too

>>94155
>>94156
>14 different links
>picks 6
>skims and looks for possible red flags instead of actually reading anything
>So he's ANOTHER telcom lobbyist. Nice try.
>ANOTHER telcom lobbyist.
Just like Tom Wheeler.
Oh, right, it's okay when they're doing things you like.

This isn't academia, you're going to be exposed to thought that doesn't fit your mainstream center-left mold. Intentionally being hypocritically and intellectually dishonest will not hide the fact that you're a left-wing crackpot desperately trying to peddle narrative on a containment board for Facebook-esque news.

>>94161
Do you work for Comcast or something? Because that's literally the only way you could possibly justify your defense of getting rid of net neutrality. Cry me a river for the poor big Telcom companies "First amendment rights" (corporation are people amiright?). Like I said, it was never their network in the first place so it's going to be hilarious to see how the rest of the world reroutes around backwards America when Trump's FCC flips the switch.

>>94157
>Then what do ISP's want that they don't have now?
A government granted monopoly thanks to "New Neutrality" regulations, thanks to former telecom lobbyist Tom Wheeler, who our spurgo-leftist friend here has no issue with because... it's somehow different to him.

>Why is it even an issue?
Because the government overstepped it's bounds, and Netflix, who originally wanted the FCC to "do something" about ISP's throwttling their content... admitted they were the ones throttling their own content.
https://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-admits-throttling-video-speeds-on-at-t-verizon/

They also didn't like the Title II regulation answer.
http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-cfo-pleased-with-fcc-title-ii-ruling-although-its-preference-would-have-been-no-broadband-regulation-1201446282/
>At the same time, Wells said that the FCC’s order reclassifying broadband as a telecom service under Title II of the Communications Act was not, in fact, Netflix’s preferred outcome. While the streaming-video company wanted to see “strong” net neutrality measures to ensure content providers would be protected against ISPs charging arbitrary interconnection fees, Netflix ultimately wanted the situation resolved without government intervention.

>“Were we pleased it pushed to Title II? Probably not,” Wells said at the conference. “We were hoping there might be a non-regulated solution.”

>>94162
>Do you work for Comcast or something?
Do you reguarly accuse people who disagree with you of working for some big bad shadow entity who think would be aligned against your views?

>Because that's literally the only way you could possibly justify your defense of getting rid of net neutrality.
More government= more problems.

>Like I said, it was never their network in the first place so it's going to be hilarious to see how the rest of the world reroutes around backwards America when Trump's FCC flips the switch.
Yeah, it's all just one big network controlled by the FCC now, smaller private ISPs and mesh networking are just a fantasy.

I'm surprised you haven't referred to the internet as a series of tubes yet.

>>94163
lol what a bunch of bullshit. Here's what really happened:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/fcc-republicans-vow-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-as-soon-as-possible/
>To make things more complicated, the enhanced transparency rules haven't yet taken effect for ISPs of any size because that portion of the net neutrality order required an additional review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The OMB finally approved the new requirements last week, and they are now set to take effect on January 17.

>"We want to assure you and your members that we would not support any adverse actions against small business providers for supposed non-compliance with the 'enhanced transparency' rules after that date [January 17]," Pai and O'Rielly wrote. That means small ISPs won't have to worry about complying even when the rules are technically in effect.

>More broadly, the Title II net neutrality order prohibits ISPs from blocking or throttling traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment. The order also set up a complaint process to prevent "unjust" or "unreasonable" pricing and practices. The threat of complaints to the FCC helped put an end to several disputes between ISPs and other network operators over network interconnection payments; this in turn improved Internet service quality for many subscribers.

>All of that is in jeopardy with the Pai/O'Rielly promise to undo the entire Title II net neutrality order. The process could take months, even if they get started right away, because of requirements to seek public comment. The Republican-controlled Congress could act more quickly, since Trump has opposed net neutrality rules and isn't likely to veto a bill overturning the Title II order. When either the FCC or Congress do act, the biggest question will be whether the net neutrality regime is replaced with a weaker set of rules or scrapped entirely.

>>94164
>Do you reguarly accuse people who disagree with you of working for some big bad shadow entity who think would be aligned against your views?
No I accuse people who are in support of policy proposals that will destroy the way the internet was intended to function so that greedy ISPs can insert themselves as middlemen in every internet transaction and who steer internet traffic depending on how the last fiscal quarter went for them instead of being just a gatekeeper.

>More government= more problems.
Great libertarian kneejerking there. Good thing you're missing the part about how that's not how networks function naturally.

>Yeah, it's all just one big network controlled by the FCC now,
The FCC doesn't control shit, Anon, there you go again conflating your censoring conspiracies with this when it has nothing to do with that. Go yell at Facebook and Twitter for censoring you, not the government.
>smaller private ISPs and mesh networking are just a fantasy.
I don't know what Weekly Standard article told you that but you clearly weren't alive in the 90s when small private ISPs dominated the landscape.