Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Is Trump's Next Target, Administration Says (fiercetelecom.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fierce Telecom: During a press event yesterday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said that next up on President Trump's telecom agenda is to roll back the FCC's 2015 Open Internet net neutrality rules. However, according to some reports, that might not happen as quickly as Congress' recent move to rescind rules that prevented internet service providers from selling users' data. As noted by the New York Times, Spicer said that President Trump had "pledged to reverse this overreach" created by net neutrality. He said the FCC's net neutrality rules, passed in 2015, are an example of "bureaucrats in Washington" placing unfair restrictions on internet service providers, essentially "picking winners and losers" in the telecom market. In comments aimed at the wider telecom market, Spicer said Trump will "continue to fight Washington red tape that stifles American innovation, job creation and economic growth." However, as the NYT reports, the process to repeal net neutrality likely won't follow the same procedure as Congress' recent vote to remove broadband privacy rules -- since those rules were only a year old, Congress was able to use the Congressional Review Act to move forward with its action. The FCC's net neutrality rules, however, are more than two years old and so can't be reviewed by that same act. Thus, it may fall on newly installed FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to rescind the FCC's Open Internet rules, which he voted against when he was a commissioner at the agency under former chief Tom Wheeler.
Can you give an example where the net neutrality rules actually did anything useful in terms of stopping an ISP from doing something they should not?
It's hard to prove some company is not starting up because of regulations concerns. It's on you to prove the regulations are useful and used.
What we know for sure is that more regulations mean more work for companies (in terms of hiring lawyers) to make sure they are complying with rules. That is beyond dispute. That cost gets passed along to the consumer, one way or another.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That is unless you believe in alternative facts
After "Reductio ad Hitlerum", we now have "Reductio ad Trumperium". Bravo.
lucm, indeed.
Dude, you are a fucking moron. Do you always side with stupidity? I am just asking since you are batting 1000 so far.
The day we need a lynch mob we'll make sure to call you. Until then, why don't you try to contribute something to the discussion instead of hiding behind the people who do like a fucking coward hiding behind a school bully?
lucm, indeed.