Trump has tapped net neutrality foe Ajin Pai to become Chairman of the FCC, the agency responsible for  enforcing and promulgating rules that assure an open Internet. His appointment, like many Federal appointments, will not require initial Senate approval (although he will need to be reconfirmed by the Republican-dominated Senate in 2017).


Why is this important? Because as head of the FCC, that agency will now be dominated by officials  opposed to the idea of an “open Internet:”

Net neutrality is the idea that your Internet provider must treat all Web traffic equally. A court decision in January struck down FCC rules meant to ensure that Internet providers do not discriminate by blocking or slowing certain content.

That decision opened the door for Internet providers like Comcast and Verizon to cut deals with content providers, which would pay to stream their content in an Internet “fast lane.”

Under President Obama’s leadership, the FCC reacted to this Court decision by reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service and thus applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 as well as section 706 of the Telecommunications act of 1996. The new Rule took effect in June, 2015. This nullified the prior Court decision and effectively made “net neutrality” the law of the land, at least temporarily. In 2016, the FCC’s new Rules were upheld by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. We have enjoyed an “open Internet” since that time.

That is all going to change, and not because of any Court decision, but because of Donald Trump.

His nominee, Ajin Pai, will, in position as Chairman, be empowered to revoke the old rules.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/20/1622924/-The-Orange-Swindler-s-First-Priority-Ending-Net-Neutrality

Here we go again.

How do I know this isn't fake news? I want a credible source. And no I don't consider Daily KOS to be credible.

The only one I heard of so far that I consider credible is from CNET.

If this is true, Well... Fuck.

Still, I want a legit news article from a credible news source that's not CNET.

Quote from: Decimator Omega on January 22, 2017, 07:40:37 PM

The only one I heard of so far that I consider credible is from CNET.

If this is true, Well... Fuck.

Still, I want a legit news article from a credible news source that's not CNET.

I just googled "Net neutrality" and went to the news section and got a bunch.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/report-net-neutrality-foe-ajit-pai-fcc-head-44935168

R.I.P my internet and Sep7agon I guess.

Again, if this really is true and the internet is pretty much gonna go under...

Dear Donald Trump.

Quote from: Deci on January 22, 2017, 07:49:12 PM

Quote from: Luciana on January 22, 2017, 07:43:09 PM

Quote from: Decimator Omega on January 22, 2017, 07:40:37 PM

The only one I heard of so far that I consider credible is from CNET.

If this is true, Well... Fuck.

Still, I want a legit news article from a credible news source that's not CNET.

I just googled "Net neutrality" and went to the news section and got a bunch.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/report-net-neutrality-foe-ajit-pai-fcc-head-44935168

R.I.P my internet and Sep7agon I guess.

Again, if this really is true and the internet is pretty much gonna go under...

Dear Donald Trump.

YouTube

I don't understand why this is such a surprise, nor why it's the only part of digital rights you're focusing on. Trump has been openly against net neutrality for years. He's called it a top down power grab and opposed it becoming an aspect of FCC policy. All three of his transitional advisers were opponents of net neutrality and supporters of big business rights. We have known this for months and while he never explicitly called to end it during his campaign, his position on the issue has been very clear and it has always stood to reason that he would look to repeal or somehow diminish net neutrality in the US.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/01/technology/net-neutrality-fight-trump/

http://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/509564/

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-much-danger-net-neutrality-now

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/11/10/how-donald-trump-will-dismantle-obamas-internet-legacy/?utm_term=.0e69ea5f9227

These are all older articles from a month or two back already talking about how Trump is a big risk to American net neutrality.

Still not discussing this with you for very good reasons.

Do we still have to keep giving him a chance?

How long has he been in office?

Eh, alright. If that's what you want. I'm not looking to start anything. Just pointing out that Trump's position on net neutrality has been known since long before the election and that both his actions and words made very clear that he opposes it. Him appointing another opponent of net neutrality and potentially undermining or even removing the policy really shouldn't come as a surprise and should've been expected by anyone who voted for Trump.

I just don't want to argue anymore. That's all we ever do when it comes to any hot button issue. It may start out as a friendly debate sure but then it can turn really heated fast.

And as far as this goes, the internet is likely gonna go under for me since our ISP is likely gonna want to charge more for using sites like YouTube, assuming this successfully gets killed.

Anyway I have an interview in a few hours.

Quote from: Deci on January 23, 2017, 12:56:01 PM

Quote from: Flee on January 23, 2017, 02:20:07 AM

Eh, alright. If that's what you want. I'm not looking to start anything. Just pointing out that Trump's position on net neutrality has been known since long before the election and that both his actions and words made very clear that he opposes it. Him appointing another opponent of net neutrality and potentially undermining or even removing the policy really shouldn't come as a surprise and should've been expected by anyone who voted for Trump.

I just don't want to argue anymore. That's all we ever do when it comes to any hot button issue. It may start out as a friendly debate sure but then it can turn really heated fast.

And as far as this goes, the internet is likely gonna go under for me since our ISP is likely gonna want to charge more for using sites like YouTube, assuming this successfully gets killed.

Anyway I have an interview in a few hours.

Didn't you vote for Trump, though?

I did. What you're going to disown me for that?

You should already know by now that when it comes to anything in relation to politics or any polices of any kind, that's something you and I shouldn't discuss about. So far I only disagree with him on one thing but even if I didn't vote for him it wouldn't matter regardless because he'd still win and this thread would still exist.

I had my reasons for voting for him. I really don't need you to lecture me on it.

Quote from: Flee on January 23, 2017, 05:02:23 PM

Quote from: Deci on January 23, 2017, 04:51:27 PM

Quote from: Flee on January 23, 2017, 02:43:14 PM

Quote from: Deci on January 23, 2017, 12:56:01 PM

Quote from: Flee on January 23, 2017, 02:20:07 AM

Eh, alright. If that's what you want. I'm not looking to start anything. Just pointing out that Trump's position on net neutrality has been known since long before the election and that both his actions and words made very clear that he opposes it. Him appointing another opponent of net neutrality and potentially undermining or even removing the policy really shouldn't come as a surprise and should've been expected by anyone who voted for Trump.

I just don't want to argue anymore. That's all we ever do when it comes to any hot button issue. It may start out as a friendly debate sure but then it can turn really heated fast.

And as far as this goes, the internet is likely gonna go under for me since our ISP is likely gonna want to charge more for using sites like YouTube, assuming this successfully gets killed.

Anyway I have an interview in a few hours.

Didn't you vote for Trump, though?

I did. What you're going to disown me for that?

You should already know by now that when it comes to anything in relation to politics or any polices of any kind, that's something you and I shouldn't discuss about. So far I only disagree with him on one thing but even if I didn't vote for him it wouldn't matter regardless because he'd still win and this thread would still exist.

I had my reasons for voting for him. I really don't need you to lecture me on it.

Not going to lecture or disown you. I just find it surprising how you, being someone who spends a ton of time on the internet, relies on it for most of his entertainment and even hopes to make a career out of something internet-related, have always been such a strong supporter of net neutrality and still voted for a man who made it very clear he opposed the very thing you value so much. Your reactions in this thread strike me as surprise when it's been clear that he'd do this for months.

Flee, you're an idiot my friend. If it wasn't for trump, Deci would never have gotten an interview for some minimum wage job. This clearly outweighs all the bad things trump has done and will do.

Its not minimum wage, and fucking stop already.

Trump didn't do it. I did. There, now drop it.

"Man, reading sure is hard, so I'll just post a dumbass Engadget article whose author doesn't even read what he links."

-OP, I'm sure.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db1219/DOC-342677A1.pdf
Here's the document in which he promises to revisit requirements for businesses subject to enhanced transparency rules, which place an onus on broadband providers to publicize certain aspects of their business:

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly
disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices,
performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient
for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content,
application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet
offerings.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

(As a consumer, I would already question the need for these rules; I have never felt that I have insufficient information to make informed choices in choosing which shitty telecom company I'm forced to use, but I digress)

Current rules exempted small providers (100,000 customers or less) from these rules until December of last year. Pai proposed a change to allow providers with up to 250,000 customers that short extension. That proposal was denied. Pai's reasoning is that small businesses competing with big providers would be forced to expend vital resources in doing this. I know from familial experience that being a small broadband provider is extremely competitive and has small margins. Pai was sticking up for small businesses, not large telecom providers. At no point has he expressed a desire to end net neutrality or get in bed with big telecom -- on the contrary, the 'opposition to net neutrality' mentioned by NPR is exactly what I just stated: a defense of struggling small businesses in the form of a temporary extension on new regulations.


Engadget extrapolates an attempt by Pai to temporarily help small providers as a justification for the claim that "it's safe to say that net neutrality will eventually lose a lot of its thunder under the new administration, assuming it survives at all." Engadget is, unfortunately, very left leaning in its desire to stir up net neutrality controversy at every turn. In Pai's attempt to help small businesses stay marginally, temporarily competitive with big telecom providers, they've spun that effort into a right-wing scandal of anti-net neutrality.

Please, people, read the sources. Engadget writers are not neutral journalists, and stirring up dissent in articles like these is literally their business model. Honestly, the OP and everyone just mindlessly reacting to this garbage article should be embarrassed.