Trump will end net neutrality and his minions will defend him

FCC Republicans Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly sent a letter to five lobby groups representing wireless carriers and small ISPs; while the letter is mostly about plans to extend an exemption for small providers from certain disclosure requirements, the commissioners also said they will tackle the entire net neutrality order shortly after President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20.

>"[W]e will seek to revisit [the disclosure] requirements, and the Title II Net Neutrality proceeding more broadly, as soon as possible," they wrote, referring to the order that imposed net neutrality rules and reclassified ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. Pai and O'Rielly noted that they "dissented from the Commission's February 2015 Net Neutrality decision, including the Order's imposition of unnecessary and unjustified burdens on providers."

>Pai and O'Rielly will have a 2-1 Republican majority on the FCC after the departure of Democratic Chairman Tom Wheeler on January 20. Pai previously said that the Title II net neutrality order's "days are numbered" under Trump, while O'Rielly said he intends to "undo harmful policies" such as the Title II reclassification.

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/fcc-republicans-vow-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-as-soon-as-possible/?comments=1

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=IwJSnSOQWOg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>an elite group of rich people holds ownership of the world's key resources and this is a bad thing
>we should solve this by legally enforcing their monopoly

Spam is bannable. You know what to do, folks.

i wonder if pol really thought this one through.

Let me ask you something OP.

Have you taken into consideration why they want to end net neutrality?


I personally think it wouldn't be such a bad thing if there were more ISP providers that had to compete with each other.

That said, even in the current situation I'm not worried in the slightest.
If there was an actual serious threat to how the internet functioned you can expect important people to start yelling about it.

>implying Sup Forums can be taken seriously

>Sup Forums
>thinking
pick one and only one

internet did fine before it, it will do fine without it again

the only people who will be fucked over are those in areas with only one internet provider, and they're already screwed anyway

This is literally the OP.

Nigger r u srs
Net Neutrality was a reaction to flagrant abuses by ISPs in the early days of the internet. Things were not "fine" without NN, things were terrible, with competitive companies being forced out of business by megacorporations looking to make the most money possible.

>competitive
>get forced out by competition
>socialist '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''economics''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

>competitive companies being forced out of business
if they were competitive they'd still be in business
>megacorporations looking to make the most money possible.
making the most money possible is what all businesses do user

:^)

>her
did you just assume their gender?

They didn't get forced out by competition, they got forced out by practices now illegal because they were uncompetitive.

There was a company offering 5MBps internet service in 1992. They were bought out by Bell South because Bell South owned the lines and forced them to pay massive amounts of money to move their data along the lines, to the point they couldn't make a profit.
Bell South then ceased their high speed service in favor of more Dial Up.

This is now illegal, because of Net Neutrality, because megacorporations don't have to be competitive when they can just throw money a at a problem until it goes away.

>charging for use of the infrastructure you own
>amoral and should be illegal

o im laffin

That's illegal because of antitrust laws championed by fucking Teddy Roosevelt. Open a history book for once in your life.

You're retarded, I bet you think Time Warner Cable making Netflix pay them a fee to stop throttling their streaming service was fine and dandy.
Same shit happened there, they were charging exorbitant prices to use the lines specifically designed to make it unprofitable, and it worked. It's now illegal to do specifically that, you can't show bias against specific data, all data has to be treated equally. Bell South was being biased, they were part of the reason Net Neutrality even came into being.

Except it happened and still happens. Netflix three years ago. A lot of shit is technically illegal but corporations get away with it. Like Comcast making it illegal for new ISPs to open up in many cities they are present in.
Your history books are irrelevant if you don't learn from them, laws aren't worth the paper they're printed on if you don't enforce them.

American ISPs do not obey the laws Teddy, my favorite president, put forth. They've successfully lobbied the US into a position where they have us by the balls. Net Neutrality is the only thing keeping AT&T from making me pay an extra 40 a month to access Sup Forums.

I'd love a world where the US doesn't need net neutrality. But we do, desperately. We're not Poland, we're the US.
I can choose from AT&T and Charter. Those are literally my only two providers, and I'm lucky enough to be able to choose two. Most of the neighboring cities can only choose between AT&T or Charter, not both. Or you know, DSL, but who the fuck still wants DSL?

For the umpteenth time
We never had net neutrality to begin with

>laws aren't worth the paper they're printed on if you don't enforce them
Absolutely. And whose job was it to enforce the laws for the last 8 years?
Hint: not Paul Ryan.

Yes, I imagine hillary would have been way better right

sure shit did, dyke.

I don't know how you can spend time arguing with retards but I guess someone has to do it. It's amazing how people are willing to defend everything someone does when they are in the delusion that they were backed in a corner and that someone is their preceived messiah.

What are you implying here?

If it's a cheap shot at Obama, okay, fine, but I never liked Obama. And either way it's beside the point. Net Neutrality is one of the only things we as a consumer have left. I'd like to believe that we will maintain the status quo at least but Republicans now control Congress and the Presidency and it's Republicans that want to get rid of Net Neutrality.
I am thrilled Republicans are in control instead of Democrats, but that doesn't mean I want consumer rights to be repealed for no benefit to myself.
That's really what it comes down to for me, what do I gain from repealing Net Neutrality? I can think of a lot of things I lose but nothing I gain, and the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Now more than ever is it worth contacting your representative. Net Neutrality is not a concrete thing at all, but we could make it so. Trump says he's ant establishment, I supported him because of it, now I want to see him do anti establishment things.
Like concrete internet rights.

Maybe he just ignores NN entirely, well that would leave us now in the same state, which isn't a bad state per say, but it's not a safeguard against the future, and I don't think Comcast is going to stop lobbying for the right to charge people whatever they want for 2mbps anytime soon.

You give an inch they take a mile, they've done it to the internet, they've done it for guns, they've done it for copyright. I say now's the best time we've had in 30 years to fight back, to make them give an inch and us take a mile. Trump's already pledged to kill TPP, let's kill the AWB and Throttling while we're at it.

It's not about arguing, it's about making people think. It's about educating people.
You can't change someone's opinion, on you can change your own opinion and people rarely leave their bubble.
I get that leftists are using this net neutrality scare to rile up anti Trump sentiment but the more people they educate about net neutrality the better. It's nothing but good for us as consumers, and the fact anyone is willing to get rid of it means they're either simply uneducated on the subject or a paid advocate. The only people getting rid of net neutrality is good for is the ISP CEOs and their shareholders. It's a net loss for everyone else.

We've got a real chance assuming Trump isn't full of shit to actually get back consumer rights in this country. They've been on a slow slide for decades now, and that anyone would want to continue to see them degrade for ANY reason is inexcusable.

>Have you taken into consideration why they want to end net neutrality?
>I personally think it wouldn't be such a bad thing if there were more ISP providers that had to compete with each other.

That has nothing to do with net neutrality. What you will see is less online services able to compete with each other.

I see this confusion again and again. Nobody who actually understands net neutrality is against it, except for those who will profit from it.

You have to think in the first place, why is net neutrality necessary to stop the things you perceive to be wrong with the current ISP market? What would regulating the industry do but raise the barrier for entry for potential competitors? You need to be thinking of reducing regulations that harm business, not creating more.

NET NEUTRALITY DOES NOT HARM NEW COMPANIES

It's the only thing keeping big ISPs from forcing them out in the first place! You just don't understand what net neutrality is do you? Please, explain to me what net neutrality does to harm ISPs in any way except to prevent them from gouging you from every spare cent in your wallet??/?

Jesus fucking CHRIST, you are the EXACT kind of sucker they've sold this to. Net Neutrality ISN'T REGULATIONS. It's restrictions that keep companies from being able to throttle bandwidth to sites they don't want you to access. You've swallowed their spiel hook line and sinker. They're LYING to you. Net Neutrality "hurts" their business because it keeps them from snuffing out their competitors in the crib. Consider why you have to pay five times as much money a month for internet speeds ten times slower than in Poland.

There's absolutely nothing bad about Net Neutrality for you as a consumer. Literally nothing, and getting rid of it would not encourage new ISPs in the slightest. It would only further the monopolies of the big 5.

>restrictions
LITERALLY REGULATIONS you douchebag

At least we can agree on that.

Regulations that protect both you and new ISPs, you're implying they're harmful, restrictive things. They're anything but.
They are rules that came into being because of how big companies monopolized the FUCK out of the US, and got us into this situation in the first place. They are the only reason you have access to two shitty providers instead of one, although I say that as a guess, because the vast majority of America only has access to one high speed provider.
I cannot stress enough how important net neutrality is. If we lose it, we fucking lose. If you had the choice between 5-6 different ISPs like in Poland or South Korea or Norway we wouldn't need Net Neutrality, but hit is the USA. Big companies already killed most of the competition, unless you want the government to forcibly break up companies like Comcast (a wet dream of mine, ohhhh such a beautiful dream) into a bunch of smaller companies then we absolutely NEED net neutrality.

Good

>The government directly inferring with the internet is a good thing goyim!
>There is nothing suspicious at all about all the botnets like Google, M$, Apple, facebook, etc all supporting more government intervention in the internet!

I want the retarded shills to drown on their own drool already.

I wonder if you have ever thought something through in your entire life.

It's just like the retards who think without Obongocare millions will die in the streets even though we did just fine without it and Obongocare has only existed for four years.

I'm sorry but you obviously don't understand the first thing about economics. For one you don't "have ISPs", and for another it's regulations on infrastructure that cause there to only be one or two active in an area. Change that and competition will go up by itself.

Yes, actually. She didn't want to destroy net neutrality

who cares

Oh my god you're serious.

Do you even, I don't. What. What.
Competition can only arise in competitive environments. Net Neutrality is the last thing making ISPs competitive.
>you don't "have ISPs"

What in the fuck man. Do you even know what you're talking about? Please, stop quoting Economics 101 here, this is the real world, not your college class room. WE DON'T HAVE COMPETITION!
COMCAST HAS LITERALLY MADE COMPETITION ILLEGAL IN SEVERAL CITIES.

EXPLAIN TO ME HOW, HOW, GETTING RID OF NET NEUTRALITY WILL MAKE COMPETITION GO UP BY ITSELF??:??

PLEASE
You're just spouting the same fucking talking points they tried to sell us on. But it's a fucking lie, how does getting rid of NN encourage competition? Regulation can be pretty damn good sometimes, like that regulation that keeps companies from hiring thugs to beat up protesting workers, or those regulations that make it illegal for Charter to cut off my internet if I browse AT&T Internet Packages.

I cannot stress this enough, you do not know what net neutrality is. You've drank their koolaid.
Prove to me you know what you're talking about, stop spouting the same shit their lobbyist do to Congress, explain to me how removing consumer protection laws benefits the consumer?

>COMCAST HAS LITERALLY MADE COMPETITION ILLEGAL IN SEVERAL CITIES.
TAKE IT TO AN APPEALS COURT YOU NON-AMERICAN
Also learn economics as well as basic law

>I personally think it wouldn't be such a bad thing if there were more ISP providers that had to compete with each other.


Yes that would be a good thing but where will those other ISPs magically come from?

Reminder that Ajit Pai has ties to Verizon. He has a conflict of interest and may not possibly be in charge of the FCC.

>because one bad disagreable thing happened once all humans should be doomed for all eternity

>>/bible/

Anyone who ironically supports getting rid of net neutrality on Sup Forums needs to be reminded of pic related with a good ban. Anyone who unironically supports getting rid of net neutrality deserves to be sounded with a steak knife.

I can't fucking sue Comcast, I don't even live in any of these cities. Thankfully.
>non-American
Buddy if you didn't have an actual argument you could have stopped here. I fucking love my country, that's why I don't want to give corporations more power than they've already had.

Actually look into this stuff, it's not capitalism what they're doing. I'm a rabid capitalist, but I cannot fucking support the corporate greed going on right now. I promise you, this isn't some government boogeyman, this is corporations trying to take your rights away. They've already succeeded in a ton of areas, and they will continue to as long as people like you put their fingers in your ears and shout la la la.

Corporations literally cannot take rights away. Only government can do that. If a corporation has a monopoly somewhere, it means that a government is backing it up. It's called corruption. Literally take it to an appeals court. The EFF probably has lawyers that will do it pro-bono if you ask them.

>Innovation stifled because companies don't want to invest in better technologies that they can't charge for preferred access fees
>Ajit argues that due to regulation laws, internet broadband could become taxed in a similar way to telephoney, requiring the people to pay 4-11 billion more
>Net neutrality will kill small businesses due to state property and general receipts tax
>Net neutrality can't exist. There's a reason why companies pay mega bucks for better servers to gain an advantage over competitors. Is the solution to this to start socialising server access?
But my favourite argument is that it's not fucking necessary. This is the same thing Gary Becker said. ISPs are doing fine and growth is occuring. You can't fucking jump to regulation with this huge lack of compelling examples of requiring net neutrality. Comcast throttled P2P this time... Okay? Let's fuck up everything now with regulation?

Here in the Netherlands we have strict NN rules. Also the xDSL and fibre networks are open for all competitors for a fair price, even though the network was mostly build by one of the biggest providers.
End result: The Netherlands has one the best internet speeds and infrastructure in the world

You're right, it's corruption, and corruption runs rampant.
>pro bono
You have a hilarious view of the world man. I bet you think you could sue Disney, yeah I bet you've just got lawyers lining up to sue Disney right?

This is the real world, and suing Comcast is a one way ticket to 10 years of court and legal fees you'll never be able to pay in 5 lifetimes.

Instead she would want war with Russia, great alternative

That's called confirmation bias.

>Nobody who disagrees with me actually understands what they're arguing
Fucking epic bro, I can see you have an open mind.

Once the invisible hand is done jerking itself off it'll magic up some competition you'll see.

>
I'm just saying that that government infringement doesn't mean the whole market will go to shit as people seem to be implying here

Nobody's saying we need more regulations, the whole point of keeping net neutrality is to just do that. Keep it. Growth is occuring, ISPs are some of the most profitable companies out there, why do we need to enable them even more, much less in a way that will shit on the consumer.

It all sounds good, oh if we deregulate that'll just encourage more businesses! Well, you'll be hard pressed to find an American example where deregulation led to increased competition. All it's done historically is led to increased corporate profits.

Oh and there's zero reason why you can't have a law that's about regulating ISPs from interfering with their customers data transfers without all the other shit.

It's odd how proponents of the regulation never mention the other half of it.

Because opponents of the regulation want that part removed specifically.

Her stance on Russia was going to end up with us all dying in nuclear hellfire. At least this way we'll probably live long enough to see it get reinstated with the next president probably.

I know what you're saying, but you're living in a completely different economic system to America. When the government de-facto owns every company, they can do whatever they want with anything they want, and as long as the GDP is high enough, it works. The problem is America has a lot of niggers and rednecks.

How in the fuck does that justify allowing corporate throttling, exactly?
Like, this isn't an argument about police brutality or gun argument, it's about respecting data rights, and you bring up nogs and Cletus?

>being surprised the party of free market capitalism wants an end to regulation on something
dont get me wrong, im not one of the folks that percieve the hand of the market as some kind of magical entity, but if you genuinely believe the free market conquers all then this is the obvious thing to do.

>Nobody's saying we need more regulations
>you'll be hard pressed to find an American example where deregulation led to increased competition

I'm saying we can't have the government run everything; there are too many drains on the system for that work. As for network throttling, you repeal any laws that are preventing more ISPs to be in the area, and the company will die as its customers migrate to someone who doesn't do that.

Those two aren't even close to mutually exclusive, can you not read?
Here, I'll spell it out for you.

>nobody says we need more regulation (in regards to the internet)
>getting rid of regulation has not benefited us much if at all

Like, those are two completely different arguments, talking about two completely different things.

This is Fascism

Trump owns shares in Telcomms

He seeks to profit from the presidency

Yes but nobody here is advocating for the government to control the internet, so I again fail to understand your argument.
And either way, it's not like the US hasn't done the exact same thing in the past on an even larger scale. In the early 2000s the US Government wrote a check totaling billions of dollars to major ISPs to improve the internet infrastructure.

Unsurprisingly, they didn't actually use most of it to modernize and the infrastructure remained equally poor, which is why the US went from offering similar internet speeds to the rest of the world to falling behind compared to pretty much all of Europe except Ukraine and Russia.

>all the idiots arguing against net neutrality in this thread
Sup Forums needs biblical levels of chemo at this point.

youtube.com/watch?v=IwJSnSOQWOg

Its far too late for that now.

Who though it was a good idea to give money to monopoly people and tell them to do something good with it?

You fucking retard. You poor little fucking retard..

You can't just say "we're not pushing more regulation" while literally proposing a regulation.

You're also trying to argue net neutrality without having a fucking clue about the antitrust and AT&T. No wonder why you keep making the most retarded mistakes about how net neutrality will apparently fix things they don't change but are covered by antitrust laws already.

Get a brain, you euroshitter.

The same people who wrote the check after lobbyist told them to write the check.

Who coincidentally is the same person who signed the bill saying nobody but AT&T can use those phone poles.

Notice how the mobile users start pushing off desktop users

god you people are so fucking retarded. any time Trump does something bad you just fall back on 'B-BUT HILLARY.. RUSSIA WAR :((". fucking idiots

It was the early 2000's who do you think was behind it?

You are the only one failing to understand, and you seem to have completely failed to understand what I'm arguing.
I'm arguing we KEEP net neutrality. That's all I've argued for, for cementing it into one big law instead of a bunch of little laws as it currently is.
That's not adding regulation, that's not proposing anything that doesn't already exist.
You're a dumbass not listening to me. Re read my posts because you've utterly failed on a first attempt apparently.

>This is Fascism
no, its not
stop making asinine assertions about your political opponents and go read a book

What was passed was not real net neutrality to be honest. It was called that but in reality it was a package written by Google to protect Google's business model. Plain and simple. The idiots on the internet (you people) were stupid enough to think it was neutral because some lawyer at Google decided to call it net neutrality. And now you know why Google spent more time with the president than any other person or entity other than the vice president.

And Google wrote the current 'net neutrality' regulations. Pro tip, just because some government agency calls something a name does not mean it is that. Please read the regulation, it is pretty much a protect the Google business model scheme. They didn't spend billions lobbying for nothing.

The Netherlands is dense and the size of New Jersey.

You dont gave to imagine, she posted all of her policy proposals. She was for NN. She definitely would not be lubing herself up to skullfuck the free Internet right now like Comrade Trump is doing.

>no actual arguments about how it's bad
>seriously opposing something just because a group you don't like supports it
Are you a fucking child?

A puppet of the International Corporations is running USA

That is fascism,

Trump says he is not a globalist but he is a liar. He owns stock in companies which will benefit for the end of net neutrality so they can wall off bits of the internet

...

I'm hardly a fan of Google, and it's definitely worrying that any one group has a bunch of power over the internet, but what exactly is "a protect the Google business model scheme" and why is that a bad thing?

Google gets its money by people browsing the world wide web. Among other things, but that's one of their chief sources of revenue. It's why they, alone with basically all other internet search services, are pro net neutrality as throttling is potential lost money for them.
So yes, Goggle did it for their benefit, but benefit to them is a free internet anyone can use to access whatever they want. What about that is bad for me?

who cares. stop greentexting and posting pajeet technica. how do you think this will afect you. what did you expect to happen. what would you like to see?

nonconstructive sissy retard degenerate post

>australia
Not helping your case here.

>australian
Of fucking course

>A puppet of the International Corporations is running USA
>That is fascism,
no its not. instead of talking nonsense about things you dont understand on the internet, go read a book on actual fascism, ideally written by actual fascists, and then go read their political opponents writings on them.

nobody is going to listen to what you say if you cant properly articulate the things you say.

>Sup Forumsish intellectuals

See , more than half the posters on this site at this time came here because of the election. There's no hope for Sup Forums at this point. Hiroyuki is a piece of human trash.

New Jersey is actually half the size of Holland and has about 15% more density, and yet has shittier, slower, and more expensive internet.

Gamergate was the Reddit's Eternal Summer
>oldfags
>newfags
>chanologyfags
>eternal summer
>reddit diaspora
>gamergate
What do we label this latest flood?

thats part of the reason at least. took me a while to come around to the idea of chanboards someday no longer being a part of my life, ive been on them for 8 years now, but to be honest its probably for the best.

you dont, because its a waste of time. this is the userbase now, nothing you do or say will change that, this is how its always been.

Actually wasn't the late bump in 2014 because of the celebrity nude leaks?

Trumpfags? I want to go back to old naming conventions.

according to moot, problem is they kinda occurred at the same time

wouldnt surprise me if both were true though, and thats coming from someone who was pro-GG

it aint just trump senpai, the reputation of this place drives every edgy 15 year old here regardless of their politics, and the election was yet more advertisement to them that this place exists. ive got a 16 year old brother, and half of his friends are at least aware of this place.

Sentient shit, and it isn't just Sup Forums that's been affected, post quality everywhere has been dive bombing. If you think Sup Forums is bad, you should look at some of the mainstream subreddits on reddit. Despite all the shit they got for being a circlejerk, post quality there a couple years ago was pretty decent and was higher than it is here currently. Now post quality there is significantly worse than here and is approaching youtube comments tier.

we get dumber and dumber each population explosion tho

>actually knowing what goes on in reddit
As late as five years ago people actively try to hide the fact that they are from reddit

naturally, post quality always trends downwards with increases in userbase. thats why smaller boards tend to be of a much higher quality than faster boards.

First post best fucking post