Slashdot Mirror
Trump Appoints Third Net Neutrality Critic To FCC Advisory Team (dslreports.com)
Last week, President-elect Donald Trump appointed two new advisers to his transition team that will oversee his FCC and telecommunications policy agenda. Trump has added a third adviser today who, like the other two advisers, is a staunch opponent of net neutrality regulations. DSLReports adds: The incoming President chose Roslyn Layton, a visiting fellow at the broadband-industry-funded American Enterprise Institute, to help select the new FCC boss and guide the Trump administration on telecom policy. Layton joins Jeffrey Eisenach, a former Verizon consultant and vocal net neutrality critic, and Mark Jamison, a former Sprint lobbyist that has also fought tooth and nail against net neutrality; recently going so far as to argue he doesn't think telecom monopolies exist. Like Eisenach and Jamison, Layton has made a career out of fighting relentlessly against most of the FCC's more consumer-focused efforts, including net neutrality, consumer privacy rules, and increased competition in the residential broadband space. Back in October, Layton posted an article to the AEI blog proclaiming that the FCC's new privacy rules, which give consumers greater control over how their data is collected and sold, were somehow part of a "partisan endgame of corporate favoritism" that weren't necessary and only confused customers. Layton also has made it abundantly clear she supports zero rating, the practice of letting ISPs give their own (or high paying partners') content cap-exemption and therefore a competitive advantage in the market. She has similarly, again like Eisenach and Jamison, supported rolling back the FCC's classification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II, which would kill the existing net neutrality rules and greatly weaken the FCC's ability to protect consumers.
There's nothing sensational, leftist, or tabloidish about this story.
Net neutrality is a frequent topic of discussion on Slashdot. Anything that the President-elect does that could affect it is news for nerds and stuff that matters.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
OP here, knowing the usual subjects would try and known be down a peg or two for throwing in the towel in trying to enjoy a tech site for nerds when it's nothing but a flood of butthurt liberal editors smearing our president every chance they get with propaganda I decided it deserves one final message.
You haven't said what you think this so called "propaganda" is -- the headline and summary are factual and don't even say that opposition to net neutrality is "bad", they just pointed out that the weakening of net neutrality policies is consumer un-friendly and will be a boost to large ISP's. That's hardly a controversial opinion and many conservatives think it's a good thing. This same article could be posted on a conservative news site and it would be applauded as a step in the right direction.
If you take offense at your own political party's policies, then maybe you're supporting the wrong party?
Doesn't actually have to be about politics at all to get people riles.
You can say just about anything and it will end up being trolled by political zealots.
It is the new reality... let us hope that eventually it falls off just like it rose up.
The left is carping on every slight aspect of everything Trump does, and in a negative tone.
How would you report this? Seems like you have two options, report the appointment but fail to mention the guy's public position that may be of great concern to many of your readers, or ignore it because you don't like the criticism of Trump's appointment.
Which are you advocating?
Honestly, we don't know *what* will happen in the future, and even if the absolute worst case imaginable for this specific issue... nothing will change.
The Republicans have been talking about destroying net neutrality for a long time, and now control the presidency, both houses and the SCOTUS. The guy in who will be president is appointing people who want to get rid of neutrality rules. How on earth can you conclude that the "worst case imaginable" is for nothing to change? That seems like the least likely scenario of them all.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
No, Trump supporters don't give a crap about the fact that their messiah is a Bullshitter in Chief. Maybe they are just stupid. Really, really stupid people.
What they are is angry people. He has managed to tap into anger that has been cultivated over the past 20 some years.
And anger is seldom concerned with facts. It only knows it is angry.
It also tends to stay angry, and is very difficult to control, usually requiring a ramping up of that anger, because the angry will turn on others in an instant.
Hell, after winning possibly the biggest upset in history, when what would otherwise be a time of celebration, its pretty evident that the anger of his supporters hasn't subsided a bit. The people who have lost are angry, yet orders of magnitude less angry than the winners.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
hell, for trump supporters even Trumps own words do not matter.
Multiple sources, including an opinion piece (on CNN!!! the normalizing fools!) actually state "stop taking Trump literally", "stop believing everything he says".... and this is from people who supported him on the basis that "he tells it like it is" !!!
WTF is wrong with these idiots?!
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.