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.
A conman, racist and misogynist walk into a bar.
Bartender says: "What will it be Mr. Trump"
With the sensational leftist tabloid boogeyman headlines and clickbait articles, this isn't the site for me anymore. You've jumped the shark /. kindly go fuckoff and join all the other extremist sites while I go search for tech news that matters.
What part of "Trump Appoints Third Net Neutrality Critic To FCC Advisory Team" is not completely factual? You may not like the facts but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be reported.
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.
Since he also appointed a ex-Goldman Sachs executive for the Treasury...
"which would kill the existing net neutrality rules and greatly weaken the FCC's ability to protect consumers."
Cool, now ISP's can be sued for copyright violations through their pipes! The most likely outcome will be that EU three-strikes regulations will seem pretty generous after the lobbies get at the bill that fills this regulatory void. My presumed outcome is that ISP's will disable service if a subscriber is accused of being in violation of copyright. The threat of direct law suits are just too high to simply give nominal protection to their customers (a large number of whom actually violate copyright laws daily). Oh, but there's some form of arbitration which makes Youtube's take-down system seem fair and balanced.
Bye!
When the price of Amazon Prime and Netflix go through the roof while Hulu or some ISP video service get a big pricing and performance advantage, we will see how you feel.
As awful as Trump being president will be, I'm going to enjoy all the Trump supporters as it dawned on them just how much their little protest vote is going to fuck things up.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
One has to understand, for Trump supporters, facts don't matter.
Not his use of illegal foreign workers (which he stiffed on paying), not his doing business with an Iranian bank which funds terrorists, not his use of Chinese rather than American steel, not his doing business with Cuba while it was under sanctions, not his assaults on women, not the fact his casinos never turned a profit while he personally ran them, not that his casinos went bankrupt more than once, not the multiple failed businesses, not the 4,000 lawsuits he's been involved in, not his "foundation" from which he illegally paid his legal and personal bills, not to mention the same "foundation" illegally buying him things, not the fact his corrupt "foundation" was barred from soliciting donations in the entire state of New York, not that he called people in the military idiots and stupid, or defamed a military family whose son died defending this country, not that he dodged the draft while claiming possibly getting an STD from sleeping around was his personal Vietnam, or the litany of other facts about him.
Nope. None of those facts matter. They're nothing more than sensational lies from the "extremist" left.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Has Trump made any appointments that could even be perceived as being for the good of the general public? Virtually all the ones I've heard of sound like the most obvious form of industry/'conservative" shills possible.
You forgot to mention the Trump University that
was also the subject of two class action lawsuits in federal court. The lawsuits centered around allegations that Trump University defrauded its students by using misleading marketing practices and engaging in aggressive sales tactics. Trump settled all three lawsuits in November 2016, after being elected to the presidency; he agreed to pay a total of $25 million.
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.
Seriously - I want to hear from an avid trump supporter on how this - as well as his other cabinet appointments is draining the swamp (of special interest lobbyists).
Seriously - I want to hear from an avid trump supporter on how this - as well as his other cabinet appointments is draining the swamp (of special interest lobbyists).
Firstly, this isn't a cabinet appointment.
As to draining the swamp, he's already done this.
Thirdly, he's not in office yet, wait to see what he actually does.
And finally, you always have to ask "compared to what?"
The Democrats have no vision or leadership on this issue, or any other.
Calling Trump bad on his choices is all they have.
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.
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.
Hillary promised none of those things, you are once again spouting BS.
and like trump supporters, you also exhibit the ability to ignore that things are in the best shape they have been in decades, say "everything is s---", and vote for the guy who will actually turn it to s---.
and don't talk about compassion.
trumpers have no room, none, to speak about "learning compassion".
that is such bs.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Or maybe they had nothing too lose and voting for trump was more of a f u to the rest of the nation http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...?
Nothing to lose? How about their Medicare? If Obamacare is repealed, the Medicare expansion dies and all those red states populated with lots of new Medicare patients are fucked. See Kentucky, for example.
You can pretty much see the painting on the wall. Politics has all but ruined Slashdot. I've been here around 16 years, and I've never been more driven to quit entirely. The site and the community over the last year has degenerated from critical/debating to dogmatic/adhominem.
Slashdot is at a point where netnews was 10 or so years ago. There were some groups that I frequented for electronics and amateur radio. But the kooks were taking over. Some folks from West Virginia who were suffering from severe psycho-sexual issues were carrying on the equivalent of a bar room brawl. Then there was the guy who was opening a shitload of mail accounts in order to get around our blocking him. And none of these posts had a thing to do with the topic. Eventually, after finding perhaps one post out of several hundred that was worth reading, and looking at my blocklist, I came to the conclusion that there was no point in being there. Meanwhile every other legitimate poster was also vacating the premises, leaving the place to the rabble who destroyed it.
Interestingly, after wrecking the place, the nuts left as well. Seems part of the fun was pissing off the rest of us. Leaving behind a graveyard to today.
This is where Slashdot finds itself today. A place where in order to get any on-topic or intelligent conversation, I have to read with the filters set pretty high. Which as it turns out, hides most of the posts in any story.
Slashdot is on the cusp of going the way of netnews.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
No, reality is things like:
- evolution and global warming actually exist
- the country is actually in the best shape it's been in decades
- equality of civil rights is not special rights
- Obama not only didn't wage a war on fossil fuels, but oversaw the largest increase in production basically ever, such that the US is actually now the world's largest producer, and is reaping record profits
- Obama simultaneously oversaw the explosion of the "green revolution" and its industry, creating another explosion of entrepreneurs and jobs in a developing industry
- Obama actually delivered on all the economic promises of his defeated opponents (and then some), oversaw the longest streak of consecutive economic and job growth, and the largest rise in wages in decades
- Obama improved America's standing in the world following the disastrous years of Bush the Lesser, and that we have assisted or taken the lead in several international agreements (Paris climate agreement, TPP (for good or ill), Iran Nuclear deal, etc) leading to an improvement in international relations
Each of which are things whose existence is only denied by American conservatives.
- they, as a party platform, question or outright deny the existence of basic scientific facts
- they say the country is falling apart
- they think granting LGBT the right to marry, or buy goods and services, just llike everyone else is "special" rights, somehow
- they think Obama tried, and has, killed the fossil fuel industry
- they think the green revolution is sham that wasted taxpayer dollars
- they, contrary to all evidence otherwise, maintain that unemployment now...RIGHT NOW...is higher than it was in the great depression
- they think the country is a laughing stock right now, because of Obama, and that no one respects us....that somehow the years of Bush the Lesser were a high point in out international relations
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
jesus how ignorant are you?
yes, the appointee needs the approval of congress....a congress controlled by the party that opposes net neutrality
no, the democrats didn't have a supermajority in the congress. if they had, the republicans wouldn't have been able to block them at every turn. that's the point of a super majority
no, they aren't the exact same:
-Hillary didn't mock a disabled person on national television
-Hillary didn't describe and brag about sexual assault
-Hillary didn't claim that paying employees for work done was a sacrifice equivalent to a father's loss of a son to combat
-Hillary didn't exhibit both explicit and coded racism on the complain trail on multiple occasions
-Hillary didn't silence dissent at rallies and suggest that "maybe they deserved to be roughed up a bit", or later excuse supporters who committed violent assault against someone based on race
-Hillary didn't have multiple and ongoing legal battles in the campaign involving fraud or sexual assault, or multiple past lawsuits involving discriminatory housing practices
how long does this list need to be before you realize that you're full of cr-- ?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Most of the harm from ISP misbehavior is the manifestation of one of two perverse-incentive situations:
- integration of an ISP into a content-provider megacorp, leading to penalization of competitors or other perceived threats to the larger content-providing component.
- an under-competitive market situation (monopoly, duopoly, other under-four-competitors) situation, allowing ISPs to provide less than they promised or less than what is expected of "internet service" without a "vote with their feet" option for customers.
Both of these are not internet-technology issues and both are things the FCC handles poorly, and which are outside its mandate. They're better handled by such agencies as the FTC and DOJ, under antitrust and consumer fraud models, than by the FCC.
With respect to the content-provider/ISP vertical integration issue: Trump has already come out opposing the ATT/ Time-Warner merger. Additionally, the mainstream media's pile-on against his campaign has left him with no love for the "content providers". I'd be willing to bet that he'd be all for antitrust action to split up the other ISP ("content transport") / news reporting ("content generation") partnerships under the rubric of "breaking up anticompetitive vertical integration". B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way