Net neutrality ally Wheeler to quit FCC

[SansVarnic]

Net neutrality ally Wheeler to quit FCC

By: Brett Molina , USA TODAY

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/15/fcc-chief-wheeler-step-down/95464232/

 

 

Quote

On Thursday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler announced that he'll be stepping down from the post on January 20th, 2017, the same day as President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration.

Quote

Wheeler was named FCC chair in 2013. One year later, he helped pass rules on net neutrality, which require Internet service providers to treat all content on the web equally.

However, those rules could be in jeopardy when President-elect Donald Trump takes office. In a tweet in 2014, Trump called the FCC's adoption of Net neutrality rules a "power grab" by President Obama.

 

Lol, Yay. This guy is responsible for some pretty disrupting things at the FCC and I for one am happy to see him go away. Must be afraid that he was going to fired so he decided to step down before it could happen.

 

Thoughts?

[SCHISCHKA]

isnt it normal in the USA for gov department leaders to resign when presidents change? The new president chooses who they want and it saves them from being sacked. He prob gets a super nice golden hand shake too

[SansVarnic]

1 hour ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

I'm gonna refrain from saying what I'm thinking lest the mods find and kill me

He passed a ruling increasing the FCC's power of authority under his appointment that should have been passed as a bill in congress. No government entity may increase their authority with out congressional approval. I don't care if it was Net Neutrality or not what he helped do was not constitutionally legal, not within the FCC power to do. The man should have been impeached for doing what he did. IF congress had passed a bill to increase the FCC power base and then they passed Net Neutrality then everything would be all hunky dory and I would have no issue but that is not the case here. So yes I am quite happy to see his ass going away.

[QueenDemetria]

Good, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

58 minutes ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

I'm gonna refrain from saying what I'm thinking lest the mods find and kill me

Wheeler was "one of the bad guys" for years(lobbying for the wrong people/ideas), then said some good things(net neutrality), yet still solved none of the problems.

 

Edit: 

[Deli]

Someone much worse, in the back pocket of big ISP, is gonna replace him. Sure people will be happy now.

[SansVarnic]

16 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

Riiiiight, because that’s totally what matters here. It’s not like we don’t have bigger fish to fry than the FCC’s sphere of authority ?

 

Hyperfocusing on a double-edged sword like that and glancing over the likelihood that his replacement will be far less lenient in regards to Internet Neutrality is terrible, man. Get your head together.

Every pebble counts beside your assuming my position and motives.

*edit

Either way he was a bad egg in the realm of things and I am glad he is leaving, I take what I can get. No need to over react.

Edited December 16, 2016 by SansVarnic

[potoooooooo]

16 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Every pebble counts beside your assuming my position and motives.

*edit

Either way he was a bad egg in the realm of things and I am glad he is leaving, I take what I can get. No need to over react.

So you're glad to see the only person in a position to protect the internet go?

 

Ugh

[QueenDemetria]

1 minute ago, potoooooooo said:

So you're glad to see the only person in a position to protect the internet go?

 

Ugh

He was in the position capable of protecting the internet, yet didn't do a single thing to protect it.

[Misanthrope]

19 hours ago, QueenDemetria said:

Good, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Wheeler was "one of the bad guys" for years(lobbying for the wrong people/ideas), then said some good things(net neutrality), yet still solved none of the problems.

 

Edit: 

True, but Trump will name someone much worst that will flatout kill net neutrality for good.

[QueenDemetria]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

True, but Trump will name someone much worst that will flatout kill net neutrality for good.

Good, it needs to die since Net Neutrality as we know it is worthless and holding back actual net neutrality. Unfortunately the internet needs to become (absolutely)horrible for people to stand up and actually fight to make it right, but as of right now people are supporting anti-net neutrality practices and calling them great(Comcasts caps, T-Mobile One, AT&T/Vzw zero rating, the list goes on).

[SansVarnic]

2 hours ago, potoooooooo said:

So you're glad to see the only person in a position to protect the internet go?

 

Ugh

LMAOOTFRLAT ...... thanks I needed a good laugh today. Wheeler ... protecting ... the ... internet, what have you been smoking today?

 

Sarcasm aside; Wheeler has not raised a finger in defense of the internet. You name me one thing he has done of significance that he has done to improve or protect the Internets value.

[potoooooooo]

8 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

LMAOOTFRLAT ...... thanks I needed a good laugh today. Wheeler ... protecting ... the ... internet, what have you been smoking today?

 

Sarcasm aside; Wheeler has not raised a finger in defense of the internet. You name me one thing he has done of significance that he has done to improve or protect the Internets value.

He reclassified ISPs under Title II, which in effect banned throttling and paid prioritization. That's literally net neutrality.

 

If you don't acknowledge that as his doing you are delusional...

[Guest Kloaked]

19 hours ago, Deli said:

Someone much worse, in the back pocket of big ISP, is gonna replace him. Sure people will be happy now.

Wheeler was already in the back pocket of big ISPs, despite what people perceived him as. He is not an ally of "net neutrality".

[Guest Kloaked]

8 minutes ago, potoooooooo said:

He reclassified ISPs under Title II, which in effect banned throttling and paid prioritization. That's literally net neutrality.

 

If you don't acknowledge that as his doing you are delusional...

He didn't do anything. The pressure from the public made the FCC propose a portion of net neutrality as law - it was never actually passed into law, obviously.

[QueenDemetria]

33 minutes ago, potoooooooo said:

He reclassified ISPs under Title II, which in effect banned throttling and paid prioritization. That's literally net neutrality.

 

If you don't acknowledge that as his doing you are delusional...

https://www.att.com/att/sponsoreddata/en/index.html#tab2

https://explore.t-mobile.com/t-mobile-one-faq

https://www.verizonwireless.com/solutions-and-services/apps/go90/

https://www.google.com/amp/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/10/6/13192832/comcast-xfinity-home-internet-data-caps-one-terabyte

 

These are blatantly violating Net Neutrality, yet Wheeler praises them. He says one thing, yet does another. We still have throttling, paid prioritization, no competition, caps, zero security(ISP's collecting and selling data), and even worse: nobody fighting for whats right. The examples above are just the blatant examples, ISP's are hiding a lot more than this(remember when fast.com showed most ISP's throttled Netflix?). Net Neutrality hasn't even reduced that nonsense ISP's pull, and it some ways it pushed ISP's to exploit these practices even more.

 

Edit: Pure gold - https://www.google.com/amp/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/10/19/13330158/t-mobile-unlimited-data-settlement-fine-discount-free-data

[SansVarnic]

35 minutes ago, potoooooooo said:

He reclassified ISPs under Title II, which in effect banned throttling and paid prioritization. That's literally net neutrality.

 

If you don't acknowledge that as his doing you are delusional...

I don't and I won't. Not sure what fake news feed you have been following but it appears you need to switch over to a reputable source of information.

 

As said below by others I have no need to repeat it.

29 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

Wheeler was already in the back pocket of big ISPs, despite what people perceived him as. He is not an ally of "net neutrality".

26 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

He didn't do anything. The pressure from the public made the FCC propose a portion of net neutrality as law - it was never actually passed into law, obviously.

17 minutes ago, QueenDemetria said:

https://www.att.com/att/sponsoreddata/en/index.html#tab2

https://explore.t-mobile.com/t-mobile-one-faq

https://www.verizonwireless.com/solutions-and-services/apps/go90/

https://www.google.com/amp/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/10/6/13192832/comcast-xfinity-home-internet-data-caps-one-terabyte

 

These are blatantly violating Net Neutrality, yet Wheeler praises them. He says one thing, yet does another. We still have throttling, paid prioritization, no competition, caps, zero security(ISP's collecting and selling data), and even worse: nobody fighting for whats right. The examples above are just the blatant examples, ISP's are hiding a lot more than this(remember when fast.com showed most ISP's throttled Netflix?). Net Neutrality hasn't even reduced that nonsense ISP's pull, and it some ways it pushed ISP's to exploit these practices even more.

^^^ @QueenDemetria is correct nothing has changed for the better.

Net Neutrality was a ploy and it is as simple as that, the real deal behind it was to increase power by the FCC without congressional support an dhow they did it was illegal. The funny thing is if Congress gets the burr out of it's arse they can do what needs to to be done properly.

[QueenDemetria]

1 minute ago, SansVarnic said:

^^^ @QueenDemetria is correct nothing has changed.

Net Neutrality was a ploy and it is as simple as that, the real deal behind it was to increase power by the FCC without congressional support an dhow they did it was illegal. The funny thing is if Congress gets the burr out of it's arse they can do what needs to to be done properly.

I edited my post right before you quoted me, and this is a quote from the link I just posted:

Quote

According to the FCC, the problem isn’t the throttling, but the way T-Mobile marketed the plan. 

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

I'M **TRIGGERED**

 

lol

[SansVarnic]

4 minutes ago, QueenDemetria said:

<snip>

I'M **TRIGGERED**

 

lol

Me as well.

 

I have T-mobile and though I don't have the new plan they promote but I have 6gb of high speed and it throttles [slows down] to 128kbs after its used up, if that isn't throttling then I am John Henry.  

[Guest Kloaked]

28 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Me as well.

 

I have T-mobile and though I don't have the new plan they promote but I have 6gb of high speed and it throttles [slows down] to 128kbs after its used up, if that isn't throttling then I am John Henry.  

ARE YOU SAYING NET NEUTRALITY ISN'T A THING YET?!?!?! HOW DARE YOU?!?!

/s

[Trik'Stari]

I'm not sure which would be worse. This,

 

Or the internet being censored in a way that makes anything labeled "hatespeech" a crime. (and in this example, hatespeech would be disagreeing with democrats/leftists) If Shillary had won instead.

 

In one way we are probably going to be financially censored (you can't access example website because you haven't paid a ridiculous amount for the premium ultra user uber plus package) and in the other eventuality we'd have simply been literally censored from well, disagreeing with anything the democrats said or believe.

 

Yay for being forced to take a bite off of either end of an ENORMOUS shit sandwich.

 

(this is what we call a false dichotomy. different tools and "gospel", same results)

[SansVarnic]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

<snip>

I could not have said it better. (Well maybe but a bit differently But you have such a way with words )

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, SansVarnic said:

I could not have said it better. (Well maybe but a bit differently But you have such a way with words )

I'll admit that I'm biased towards what we are getting. Because at least being financially censored means you can actually get through it.

 

Being censored for "moral" purposes would be a hell of a lot harder to "break through".

 

TL;DR:

Putting a price on the ability to speak your mind > outright banning certain thoughts and ideas.

[Guest Kloaked]

5 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I'm not sure which would be worse. This,

 

Or the internet being censored in a way that makes anything labeled "hatespeech" a crime. (and in this example, hatespeech would be disagreeing with democrats/leftists) If Shillary had won instead.

 

In one way we are probably going to be financially censored (you can't access example website because you haven't paid a ridiculous amount for the premium ultra user uber plus package) and in the other eventuality we'd have simply been literally censored from well, disagreeing with anything the democrats said or believe.

 

Yay for being forced to take a bite off of either end of an ENORMOUS shit sandwich.

 

(this is what we call a false dichotomy. different tools and "gospel", same results)

Well if the FCC had its way, the government would be 100% in control of that. Luckily our system separates powers like it does and it didn't happen.

 

I'd rather have Comcast telling me that I'll get 1Gbps and only get 60Mbps 99% of the time than have everything I like to view involving politics being censored from my viewing.