Why don't people like him?

Why don't people like him?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Violations
youtube.com/watch?v=iBt84HNAGwU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>
kys faggot

No one pajeet should have that much power

>>>/pol
Fuck off with your edgy racism

Who is he?

He's a Verizon shill who only wants to line the pockets of the ISP companies

/thread

He believes ISP don't need the regulations that come with net neutrality. Rather less regulations would be a good thing for the people and ISP. But it's not good for the people. Prices will increase and websites/services will be needlessly throttled to indirectly promote other services ISP want you to use instead.

As opposed to a cable shill like his predecessor? Harvard trained lawyer who was employed by Verizon, does not mean he supports their idealogy. At least he worked a real job, as opposed to a jew lobbyist.

Regulations made in 1934 were great at creating a telephone monopoly, and your bill will go up under NN with all the taxes and fees.

He's actually a race-shifting Jewish politician in the UK.

because he is killing net neutrality. and being a shill for big ISPs

You have no idea what you are talking about.

It's been a decade and you reddit fucks still can't format a board name.

get a congressional law or go fuck yourself

kek

crypto jew

No, you don't. Sorry I shit on your Reddit tier circlejerk.

Net Neutrality is not a 1934 regulation nor does it promote monopolies.

Because people like their net neutrality.

Give me one reason why net neutrality should go, other than “more money” for ISPs.

Why do you want to cuck yourself?

Title II sure the fuck is. Stop embarrassing yourself.

>Give me one reason why net neutrality should go, other than “more money” for ISPs.

Muh blind Trump worship.

What are the arguments against a Title II classification?

I can think of one fucking reason

Net Neutrality is not Title II.

>Because people like their net neutrality.

No they don't. If they did, then there would be an outrage over 0 rating. Where is that outrage, and why are there a ton of web companies participating in 0 rating?

Just listen to him talk and his ideas for the role of the FCC.

Obviously he's a shill.

+[Toggle announcement]
He wants us all to end up banned from 4chin.

Holy fuck you are ignorant.
So you read that 500 page report where 400 pages were entirely devoted to the legal questions?

He's the sort of scum you're left with after you drain the swamp.

>t. owner of an ISP in america

Previous predecessor was a jew lobbyist.

back to

Even the EFF agrees absolutely no one knows the legal impact of a Title II classification.

This whole thread is Sup Forums

Why do you want something supposedly so important to be at the whim of whoever is in the Oval Office?

>M-Maybe if I bogg down the details people will be optimistic about ISPs having the legal ability to throttle websites over prefered services.

holy retardation batman

>pajeet gets power
>shits up the internet

really makes you think

>Sup Forums
Fuck off LARPing redditor

>Maybe if I obfuscate the the issue no one will question if an unelected, unaccountable beaurocracy can take all the power over the internet infrastructure.

Not an argument

Not an argument, 3D loving redditor.

He's a constant reminder of the GOP's irresistable impulses to sell out John Q. Public to the highest bidder.

I've provided plenty so far. The fact no one has responded to and people like are infesting the thread, makes me believe pro-Title II advocates have given little thought other than what they read in Huffington Post, to the issue. Which reports of Chairman Pai's have you read? Which arguments do you most strongly disagree with, and why?

Boi, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Violations

What an amazing non-answer.

...

Because Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party are in no way controlled by large international conglomerates

Should packets carrying email or emergency services, mission-critical, or life-saving applications, such as tele-medicine, get priority over spam packets?

>spam argument in 2017 literal botnet era

Another amazing non-answer

BECAUSE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

LETS GIVE UP ALL INFORMATION FREEDOM FOR OUR CHILDREN SO THEY LIVE IN A BETTER WORLD AND LIFE THREATENING DATA LOSS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PREVENTED BY INVESTING IN SAFETY D: D:

Just hand over all power to the government. What could possibly go wrong?

Nothing has so far.

at least they are pro-net neutrality.
also republicans are way more so inclined to being controlled by mass corporations.

He's the biggest nigger since Obama.

>this message brought to you by Jewgle

all packets are equal

you want your packets faster? pay more
I don't want to pay the 100$ I currently pay for shit, to get even more shit because none of the packets I want are tied to my isps parent companies.

not a single non fear mongering one as far as I can see.

>But it will make a monopoly
Shit already is
>Then it will make it worse
How much worse could it get?
>Your internet will be slow because guberment
I already get 1/4th the speed I pay for, at least title 2 would hold them accountable for the false advertising they currently skirt around by saying 'you get that speed for 5 seconds a day' apparently.
>How could you take the goberment over free market
Because shit isn't free and a monopoly, at this point literally fuck all isps, government intervention may actually be good because of their world wide dick waving over profit margin.

shitskins and jews do not belong in any government role.

or women

the bridge of his nose looks like a great place for a bullet.

t. no-guns faggot

FUCK OFF
PISS OFF FUCK OFF Get the FUCK off this board. NOW.

I was pro NN, but after looking into it, I believe it will do more harm than good. The constant shilling by the media and reddit-tier commentators has left me no alternative but to support the alternative. I don't trust the government, I don't want my cable bills to go up, I don't want the loss of competition in the marketplace the regulatory burden will bring small isps, I don't want another federal agency receiving billions of new dollars, I don't want the government to have control of where, when, and how a private industry expands or upgrades it's network, these are among my many concerns. It's way more complex an issue than the paid NN shills would have you believe. Its not just "treat every packet the same," that is an insult to anyone's intelligence, and disingenuous, at best.

You fuck off. Faggot.

>I don't want the loss of competition in the marketplace
What competition? You basically have the choice of Comcast or move to an area that's only Verizon, or move to an area that's only Charter.

You think this site will be around if he gets his way? Think about it. Try to load up Sup Forums and it's not working, poo is laughing at you in the distance. Will you complain to your isp when Sup Forums is throttled to death? I WANT MAH Sup Forums!!! OH sir, that site, it's no good sir, community standards and what not. I don't know what I'm talking about really, but just imagine.

Thanks Obama

Over 400 isp's last time I checked

and whose fault is that

No, because any system capable of implementing such prioritization will be either unethical, infeasible, or incapable of actually doing its job. Either it'll use deep packet inspection (invading user privacy and rendered useless by encryption), or it will simply filter based on IP (both source and destination, which invades privacy AND behaves unreliably in a world with proxies, VPN endpoints, and co-hosting).

Keep crying Sup Forums, lets see if something changes faggot

He's literally hitler wanting to kill the internet.
The funny part is that having ISPs as common carriers gives the FCC, and thus Pai, more control. If you want net neutrality so bad then call your senators/representatives and get some real legislation. Call your state level congressmen and ask them. Don't give power to a regulatory body whose position will change depending on which party won the presidency.

Just look at that retarded face, how can anyone possibly like him?

Also such a system is an extra point of failure, degrading the reliability of the Internet as a whole for no reason other than to line a penny-pincher's pocketbook.

Fuck
Off

He's going to kill the Internet as we know it. He doesn't want Net Neutrality, and despite people wanting NN, he wants to ignore the comments and kill it. I hope his children are Bernie supporting liberals.

>Harvard trained lawyer who was employed by Verizon, does not mean he supports their idealogy

no but his actions sure do

You sound kind of nasally with all of that pajeet shit in your nose.

Because of his STUPID FUCKING FACE

respect

Have you seen him respond to "mean" tweets?

youtube.com/watch?v=iBt84HNAGwU

Yea, mega-cringe, like watching a bad comedian crash on stage, but this guy is in charge of an entire gov't organization. Obviously the Independent Journal Review, who produced this video, thought this was how an FCC chairman should be spending his PR time as well. What work ethic does this guy have such that instead of using PR time to address hard questions, he spends it making contriving bad jokes about his twitter hecklers? When did this country decide they want to support and respect someone who focuses on negativity...

i have decided to be nice to indians and it starts with him. they will be taking back america and reclaim it as their rightful owner so i dont want to piss them off anymore.

besides, the internet shit freedom crap only applies to america and not the other part of the world so what do i care about?

inb4 if america set it then others will follow, yeah right, no one is going to follow a moron committing suicide. however, the US will force other country to follow suit because that is the way it has always been, the US is the bully that takes what he wants and push people around cant wait for it to fall