[cenhyperion]

It's worth noting that both the President of the US and the FCC Chairman have not taken a side in this. Wheeler seems to genuinely have consumers's interests in mind, but they're going to have to push back against a _lot_ of business pressure from some of the largest lobbyists in Washington.

Don't get cynical, your words matter and enough voices coming together on an issue has worked in the past (SOPA) and will work in the future. I'd strongly encourage anyone who has a stake in this fight (most of HN's audience) to submit their thoughts to the FCC and your congressional representatives.

[fnordfnordfnord]

>Wheeler seems to genuinely have consumers's interests in mind, but they're going to have to push back against a _lot_ of business pressure from some of the largest lobbyists in Washington.

Tom Wheeler, former lobbyist for National Cable Television Association, and the Cellular Telephone & Internet Association; genuinely cares what I think? You can't be serious.

>Don't get cynical, your words matter and enough voices coming together on an issue has worked in the past (SOPA) and will work in the future.

What are you talking about COPPA/DOPA/COICA/SOPA/CISPA/CIPA/PIPA keeps getting resurrected, time after time, they've tried everything. Anybody who has been paying attention is right to be cynical.

[cenhyperion]

"I have met with the Chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, and I believe he is a good actor who wants to do the right thing"

Sam Altman - http://blog.samaltman.com/net-neutrality

[fnordfnordfnord]

>>I have met with the Chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, and I believe he is a good actor who wants to do the right thing. But he is fighting against very powerful lobbyists and large companies that want to disrupt the freedom of the Internet. We should help him defend it.

That's not nothing, but is Altman merely being diplomatic and trying to appeal to Wheeler's good nature, or could he be a dupe? Either could be the case.

I met a few well connected political types myself, and my impression is that many of them are very good at being likeable. As an example, James Clapper, Keith Alexander, and George W. Bush; all three are strongly controversial public figures who have been reported as being likeable people even by staunch critics who have met them.

Wheeler's long and profitable career investing in and advancing the interests (as a lobbyist) of wireless and cable companies excludes him from the list of people who I would expect to advocate for my personal interests in any case other than when his and my interests intersect, which are few if any.

[cryoshon]

The president is a malicious actor who is also a lame duck-- he's protected corporate interest at every step, and this step in his presidency will likely be no different. He campaigned on promoting net neutrality, and has of course stayed aloof/ineffectual/silent/absent during net neutrality's fulcrum moment so far.

As for Wheeler, he was a lobbyist before he had this job, and will likely return to lobbying after his tenure as director ends. Wheeler also proposed the fast-lane, aka the death of net neutrality, which passed a vote. In summary: a lobbyist who lobbied for the cable companies he is now "regulating" and who is now pushing a proposal against net neutrality. Where do you think his allegiances really are? He's acting strongly and specifically against our collective interests regardless of anyone's personal judgments.

Our voices matter only in the sense that we can use our voices to organize with each other and effect change as a bloc by raising money and threatening the status quo.

[dragonwriter]

> It's worth noting that both the President of the US and the FCC Chairman have not taken a side in this

The FCC Chairman -- as part of the 3-2 majority of the commission that keeps adopting pro-neutrality regulations -- has taken a pro-neutrality side repeatedly. The current anger from some neutrality proponents is that the particular approach the majority of the commission has taken to rescue some neutrality provisions from the most recent court decision isn't the mechanism that those proponents prefer (for those that actually are objecting based on the real legal situation) or doesn't just reinstate what the court struck down (for those that are reacting to the content without considering the context).

The former is a real and meaningful objection -- but its simply not the case that the FCC Chair hasn't taken a side.