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.

Comments

I dunno...

[Okian Warrior]

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.

I dunno - it sure seems sensational, leftish, and tabloidish to me.

The left is carping on every slight aspect of everything Trump does, and in a negative tone.

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.

As far as I can tell, there's no legislation demanding net neutrality in the US. We have an FCC regulation that's been tied up in court for a year and a half, and meanwhile Comcast is free to degrade Netflix and demand an internet levy on Netflix as a customer.

I further note that Trump has a tendency to be concerned with voter needs as opposed to corporate needs, and wants to build up his brand by being the best president in the last 50 years, and the best of all time if possible. He also has shown a willingness to take actions in contradiction to advice(*).

We don't know what he'll do, but it can't be much worse than what was done under Bush, or under Obama. Which was basically "companies can do what they want, the US government can do what it wants, and screw the needs of the people".

Obama expanded internet surveillance, and spent trillions on unneeded military buildup while letting our own infrastructure decay. It's been that way for years, coming up on decades.

Is appointing a net-neutrality opponent really that sensational?

I suppose if you're a Democrat, it is.

We elected Trump for the actions he will take.

So far, he hasn't really done anything except prevent a bunch of jobs from leaving the US.

(*) Hillary chose to take out Qaddafi in contradiction to advice as well. The advice pointed out that it would lead to the formation of ISIS, but it was her decision to make.

Re:Slashdot is officially worse than breitbart now

[BlueStrat]

If you don't think net neutrality **matters** then you are badly misinformed and brainwashed by right-wing propaganda.

If you think the "Net Neutrality(TM)" regulations in question, cooked up by a bunch of K Street lobbyists, bankers, megacorps, and PACs, bear even a passing resemblance to what people here understand as actual network-level "net neutrality", then you, Sir, are both naive and a fool.

Strat