They (CNN and others) say he wants to destroy net neutrality. this sounds scary

They (CNN and others) say he wants to destroy net neutrality. this sounds scary.

He does want to redesignate internet as a contract carrier, instead of a title II common carrier. Internet was designated a Title II common carrier by Obama in 2014. prior to this, it had always been considered a contract carrier…

Im honestly torn on this issue.

The designation of Title II common carrier is what allows the government increased controls and surveillance capability with the medium. Think Telephone lines. Title II common carrier networks are subject to nearly unfettered gov't control and regulation.

There is also the argument that something sinister is happening, such as the re-designation to contract carrier is to force out small business and allow large business a monopoly over bandwidth.

Is the new FCC guy as scary as the fake news says he is?

imho, the people should just seize the means of communication…

Is this just more Fear Porn from the liberal news media?

Trump has been shittalking net neutrality for basically as long as net neutrality has been in public debate so yes he probably wants to destroy net neutrality.

What im getting at is net neutrality is being used as a buzz word.

Was reclassifying the internet so that it was a "financial instrument subject to wire laws" really making the net more neutral? or was it allowing more govt control over what happens on it

Sometimes things can serve more than one purpose.

having ISP's block websites they don't like (like this one) is scary but having the Feds listen to everything is just as scary

these are the kinds of kafkaesque moments that define living in a corporate fascist meme prison

This is exactly my point. I dont think I know anyone who is against so-called 'net-neutrality'… But is deregulating the internet really increasing the neutrality of it, or allowing for more bias?

What compounds this whole isse (for me) is that I try to read the regulation being discussed before I formulate a solid opinion on it. The FCC's Title II Common Carrier regulation is a 335 page document written back in the 30's. Its not something I have the time to read and understand, and I hate just taking the fake news at their word.

Holla Forums seems to be against NN, make of that what you will.

The Feds are already listening in on everything anyways and will continue to do so after this. The only thing it really did was give the FCC the power to whack ISPs on the head when they got too greedy which they won't have the power to do anymore. So bite the pillow because Comcast is going in dry.

Honestly I think as soon as trump realizes this change means the feds can't listen to everything he'll make them come up with a new classification that allows isps to block websites they don't like AND have the feds listen to everything.

nice trips

i can't answer this question. internet is DARPA creation which was capitalized upon by STEM institutes and Military before it became a commercial service. Now we have deep web, normie web and then grey spots like 8ch. IDK that we have any kind of better time to look back on unless we're talking 90's """""""cyber""""""" chatrooms which were mostly used by mega nerds from STEM, spooks and then pedos. Decentralizing the internet is the best option, Urbit is reactionary but we need to break off from the grid in any way possible

possibly. I tend to agree with this:


Im not a legal expert, nor do I know of all the black deals that happen between govt and ISP's, but I tend to think that the transfer of internet from a gov't regulated financial commerce item, to a free market style item will mean that the govt has a lessened ability to monitor what happens on it this is as long as you ignore their thousands of clandestine pieces of monitoring hardware already in place, many unknown to the ISP's

Distribution > decentralization my friend. The internet is currently decentralized.
But it needs to be come fully distributed. A fully distributed entity if free of centralized control by definition.
I am all for breaking of the grid.
leftynet when?

You know, this is actually totally feasible.

If people were to start buying wireless repeaters and running them at home by linking your station with your neighbors station and so on, large scale, off-the-grid fully distributed communication networks could be formed

those dubs. thank you i am ignorant in the matters of networking and tech in general, just have high verbal autism levels so i can pick up on the gist of what people are talking about

Net neutrality has nothing to do with government spying. That's the patriot act you need to be looking at.

read further up the thread, it does indirectly relate to Feds ability to easily tap internet communications

Doesn't the Patriot act make it redundant though? I thought it basically allowed whatever kind of wiretapping they wanted with trivial roadblocks

Except it doesn't even if net neutrality went away tomorrow it would be just as easy to tap as it was the day before. Your confusing different parts of the government and different laws for each other.

it indirectly allows government control over internet by classifying it as a "financial instrument subject to wire laws" in the exact same way the telephones are regulated and have allowed for gov't tapping since before the patriot act was ever a thing

This is called a Title II common carrier.

The patriot act allows wiretapping on grounds of suspected terrorism without the requirement of a warrant.

it indirectly does, actually.
just about as easy, but it does affect the gov't control over the net
A major difference is the so-called 'kill button' for the interent.
With the internet being considered a title II common carrier, as it has been since 2014, it allows for the government to disable it if they so wish, as in states of emergency, as well as an increased ability to monitor it as a whole

This is burried in the 335 page FCC document on title II common carriers.

I should have worded this more accurately. it allows for the government to legally order ISP's to suspend services for indefinite periods, as they can do with telephone lines.

They don't even really need to wiretap in a lot of cases anymore actually. ISPs legally have to retain information for a certain period and the NSA can waltz in and take it when they need it.

This pertains to old-fashioned telephone over copper as well?
I didnt think they recorded conversations that went on over copper lines, although I know i do believe they are required to monitor almost everything electronic-related in the fashion you described

I don't really know about copper phone lines but they probably have to keep those too. With ISPs the mechanisms for automatically capturing network traffic are already in place by default in case something gets fucked up. It was very easy for the government to come in and say okay now just hold onto that data so we can access it if we need it kthx.

Quick question. Was the ICANN stuff about how the US won't have control over the internet anymore? Does this mean this whole death of net neutrality thing is mitigated somewhat?

They have nothing to do with each other and please stop saying that the US had control over the internet because of ICANN. They had control over a few DNS root servers and could have done exactly jack shit about the other ones around the world.