Slashdot Mirror
How President Trump Could Destroy Net Neutrality (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Donald Trump's presidential election victory could have dire consequences for U.S. internet freedom and openness, according to several tech policy experts and public interest advocates surveyed by Motherboard on Wednesday. The Republican billionaire will likely seek to roll back hard-won consumer protections safeguarding net neutrality, the principle that all internet content should be equally accessible, as well as a host of other policies designed to protect consumers, ensure internet freedom, and promote broadband access, these experts and advocates said. In the wake of Trump's election victory, FCC Chairman Wheeler is likely to step down before the billionaire reality TV star is inaugurated in January. Incoming presidents traditionally have the prerogative to select the leader of FCC, which has broad regulatory power over the nation's cable, phone and satellite companies. It's unclear whom Trump might nominate to lead the FCC, but Ajit Pai, the Kansas-born Republican FCC commissioner and former Verizon lawyer, is likely to be a contender. Trump has tapped Jeffrey Eisenach, a conservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, to lead his telecom policy transition team, according to Politico. Eisenach is a well-known figure in right-wing telecommunications policy circles, with a reputation as a "crusader against regulation." One immediate consequence of Trump's election is a dimmer outlook for ATT's proposed $85 billion buyout of entertainment giant Time Warner. Last month, Trump vowed to block the deal, warning that it would result in "too much concentration of power in the hands of too few." Trump's ignorance about tech and telecom policy was on full display throughout the election season. For example, Trump blithely compared net neutrality to the FCC's old Fairness Doctrine, a bizarre and ignorant assertion for which he was roundly mocked. The Fairness Doctrine, which was eliminated decades ago, required media outlets to afford a "reasonable opportunity" for the airing of opposing views on major issues. Net neutrality has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine, but rather ensures that consumers have open, unfettered access to the internet. Net neutrality can't be torpedoed overnight. The FCC rules prohibiting online fast lanes and discriminatory broadband practices are now U.S. policy, and they can't be dismantled at the whim of an authoritarian president. But a Trump-backed, Republican-led FCC could simply stop enforcing the net neutrality policy, rendering it essentially toothless. That could unleash the nation's largest cable and phone companies, including Comcast, AT&T and Verizon, to expand controversial practices like "zero-rating" that are designed to circumvent net neutrality.
The Republican billionaire will likely seek to roll back hard-won consumer protections PERIOD.
FTFY
You're right - and it's a click-bait headline that I fell for. Shame on all of us who clicked.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The GOP platform specifically states that it is against net neutrality
Amazing how easy it is to get hens to vote for foxes these days. Just point out some connection, any sort, no matter how tenuous, between a candidate you want to defeat and some unpopular entity, and you can write off their entire voting record no matter how long it is. So we can write off that Clinton has always been one of the leading sponsors of net neutrality, including being a cosponsor of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 1996 and having voted for every net neutrality bill while she was a Senator.
No, just point out that Viacom donated money to an international charity that her husband founded and which she does not work for, and all of the sudden, forget about how she actually, consistently voted - instead, vote for the guy who literally promises to overturn net neutrality.
I wish it was just this one issue, but the whole campaign has been like this on virtually every issue.
It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
I doubt that the Congressional Republicans can agree among themselves what they want to do with running the government. They haven't been able to do that under Obama for eight years. As a moderate conservative, I expect some bloodletting between the different factions.
That's true, but it hardly means "Trump can't do squat".
Take this case: Trump can simply direct the FCC not to enforce net neutrality, the same way Obama directed the DEA not to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that chose to legalize.
As commander-in-chief of the armed forces Trump has very direct control over what the US military does. He could, for example, just announce that he would not order them to act in accordance with the requirements of the NATO alliance treaties. Poof, NATO is basically gone, even though the US still technically has an obligation to comply. And of course we've basically given the president carte blanche to declare and prosecute wars. Congress can deny funding, eventually, but that still leaves a lot of leeway. Oh, and Trump will have The Button and there's not a damned thing anyone could do to stop him from pressing it whenever he wanted, short of Congress pre-emptively legislating that the system be dismantled (and if Trump commanded the armed forces not to comply?).
On trade, the president can't set arbitrary tariffs, but he can arbitrarily set 15% tariffs for up to 90 days on whatever he wants, and he can just keep rotating those tariffs around. Or he could even direct the coast guard to simply stop incoming vessels and order them out of US waters. That would be a violation of international laws and trade treaties alike, but nothing could actually stop him from doing it, other than the refusal of the Coast Guard to carry the orders out. Maybe they'd stand up to him, dunno.
I could go on. Just think about every federal agency and about what kinds of orders a president could give them, keeping in mind that while the orders can't be to do anything illegal, they can be to do anything at all that is legal, regardless of the agency's intended mission, and ordering them to simply sit on their hands is almost always legal.
The bottom line is that our system is a presidential system, not a prime ministerial system. A president is actually not that far from a constitutional monarch in power, with the one enormous exception that it's not a lifetime job. Prime ministers are considerably more limited because they're subject to recall by parliament. Congress can have all the votes of "no confidence" it wants, the president is the president. They have to impeach him and they have to try him if they want him out... something that has never been done so there's a pretty heavy historical weight of precedent behind it. And the Republicans are *not* going to hand that sort of victory to the Democrats.
No, Trump can do one hell of a lot, regardless of what Congress wants. I'm not saying he will, but don't think he couldn't.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.