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.
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.
"surveyed by Motherboard " is all I needed to hear. This is through-and-through FUD. To best of my knowledge Trump is rather anti-media, and all big players that would benefit from NN repeal are also happen to be media.
Trump is a business man, those other business men are his competitors not his friends. At that end of town there are no friends just acquaintances and temporary partnerships. Reality is, for Trump business ventures Net Neutrality is a huge plus and as such it would be really dumb to cripple his and his families future business interests. We have seen the corruption, only 0.0001 percent of business profit with an absence of net neutrality, where as 99.999 percent of business profit with net neutrality. Smart business choice is net neutrality is good for the majority of business and only a tiny handful of business profit from it absence.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
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 hope so.
I don't have to live in America, but I do have to share the world with the rest of you, and I'm not looking forward to your guy nihilistically firebombing it. If he comes to the decision to simply listen to the rest of the Republican party and puts in place standard conservative policies ... hey, another George Bush, we survived the last one. If he starts tearing down every major international institution on economics and security alliances? The potential chaos is almost unlimited.
It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
Seriously? The big news in tech for the next few weeks is "what is Trump going to do about issue X in tech" and you expect slashdot to ignore it?
There are other stories to read and comment on.
...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.
Similarly people wanted the benefits of Obamacare, such as subsidies, no lifetime caps, must accept everyone, no insane prices if your sickly, etc, etc. I know my father had heart then lung problems for the last probably twenty years of his life. Our health insurance was insanely expensive, and you just had to pay it or you would probably not get it again. Now that will probably be back. As far as my own health insurance goes, the impact is likely none, since my company provides it.
The Trump voters who hated Obamacare seem to be one of two groups. The first were mainly just the deadbeats. They hated it because they now had to pay for insurance or get a fine, and it wasn't even a big fine. I'm embarrassed to say that I have a half sister like this. She just uses emergency rooms and stiffs them on the bill. The second group was the one that acted shocked at the premium increases. People from the first group decided that the fine wasn't high enough, so they were not going to contribute and the hell with the consequences, hence the risk pool was smaller, hence the fees went up. They forget that before Obamacare fees also went up every year like clockwork. I suppose you could add a third if you add the low IQ trolls who believe it is the worst thing since malaria just because of frequent lies used in talking points and fake news stories, but you gotta write them off and hope they don't reproduce.
Selling across state lines is no magic cure either. States establish minimum standards which Obamacare also mandated. Sure people will be able to buy junk policies again, and worse they will be able to buy policies that are probably little better than toilet paper. Said people will love and treasure their wonderful and super cheap health insurance, right up until they get sick then go bankrupt. At this point I have no sympathy for those people, unless they voted against Trump. If they voted for Trump, get sick, and go bankrupt, well they deserve it.
Actions have consequences, and it is past time our policies reflect that. Those who can afford health insurance but instead waste the money on crap, and then stick us ultimately with the bill are leeches on society, and I suspect a great many of them were Trump voters. I'm not even sure hospitals should be forced to pay in those cases. In fact, if they were to just remove the fine on Obamacare, but also remove your right to emergency room care for failing to pay said fine, then that would seem fair to me, or at least fairer.
Another action that has consequences is the love of tax cuts. The ones in Bush's era ballooned the deficit under Obama. Now the ones in Trump's era will balloon the deficit even farther. If I had a kid, I'd be worried. Fortunately it just doesn't matter to me. As a software engineer, Canada will probably take me, if I get desperate :)