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.

Comments

Trump is right

[SuperKendall]

Net Neutrality was overreach, that instead of helping the people who wanted it, made sure it was harder than ever to compete agains the big ISP's like Comcast.

The more rules there are, the fewer businesses can meet them. The fewer businesses you have, the worse service will be.

Re:Trump is right

[AHuxley]

Can you give an example of a situation where an Internet startup has been hampered by the net neutrality rules?
Think of it from the ISP view.
Millions in funding has to be found for upgrades to pass on "streaming", "p2p" and other data.
As an ISP what do you get? Consumers paying low amounts per month expecting a business grade connection 24/7.
Peering deals with other providers and networks don't cover costs.
Faster internet, no caps and users keeping apps running 24/7.
What can an ISP do? Shape? Slow? Put in data caps? Block p2p?
What about streaming? No revenue is shared from that data use, all the profit goes back to the streaming company.
So an ISP can now offer separate but equal internet options.
Want to p2p all day? Buy a p2p ready service.
Want to stream a lot of different movies and tv series? Buy a streaming service ready account.
Just want web, email and some social media? Traditional accounts with new data caps can cover that.
The ISP gets to protect its shareholders and owners profits, the user gets to pay for the types of network services they want to enjoy.
More ISP upgrades can then be added. The users enjoy better p2p and streaming services.

You have that very, very wrong

[SuperKendall]

Like the Netflix vs. Comcast spat?

That was resolved (correctly) BEFORE REGULATION. It is the proof that regulation was not needed.

Seemed like it suddenly resolved itself once the new rules came out...

Netflix/Comcast issues was resolved long before.

(June 12th 2015 was when NN rules went into effect, the "Netflix Resolved" article is from Feb 23, 2014).

I can understand how you might think that given how misleading most NN advocates have been.

Re:You have that very, very wrong

[lucm]

Capitulating to extortion is not the same thing as a resolution.

So first you say the OP is wrong because the Netflix vs Comcast thing was resolved after the new rules came out, but when the OP shows that it was before, suddenly he's wrong because now you don't consider the thing to be resolved. You're like that guy who peddles bullets that can penetrate any bulletproof vests, then comes back the following week peddling bulletproof vests that stop any bullet.

I had no opinion about net neutrality but the more I read posts like yours, the more I realize that there's very little substance and a lot of bullshit on your side of that fence.

Re:You have that very, very wrong

[lucm]

When you say that "it wasn't resolved until Netflix was able to stop paying those fees", you're the one being disingenuous because you're basically changing what "resolved" means. What happened is that in 2014, before those regulations, Netflix settled with Comcast. That qualifies as resolved.

But let's assume for a minute that net neutrality is a good thing. Did it make your ISP bill go down? What about the cost of a Netflix subscription, did it go down? Is there more competition in the ISP/cable industry, or less? In a nutshell, what are the tangible positive outcomes of these regulations? Who actually came out with a win?

The more I look into this, the more it seems that net neutrality is not at the benefit of the small guy. It reminds me of that tort reform that was presented as "fighting against frivolous lawsuits" but that ended up putting caps on damages paid by large corporations.

The Other Side of that Dark Coin

[SuperKendall]

So if were the Democrats I would frame this as Trump being anti-business.

That is correct. Net Neutrality was indeed pro-busienes - but who was it supposed to help?

So yes, Trump is not being pro-business here. He's being pro-consumer by abolishing the pro-business Net Neutrality rules. And that is why Trump is right.

NATO is Trump's next target...

[bit trollent]

Donald Trump's puppet masters in Russia have commanded him to destroy our alliances and undermine NATO.

Donald Trump is dutifully following Vladamir Putin's orders to sabotage America at all levels.

After all, Donald Trump's bribes have already been payed, and his tape has already been peed on.

Vladimir Putin owns Donald Trump and is controlling our foreign policy through him.

Regulations suck

[lucm]

You're missing the point. The debate is not between two laws that would either force or prevent Netflix to pay Comcast. The debate is: should there be a law preventing Comcast from doing whatever the fuck they want with their business?

My take on this is: no. The second you start regulating service providers, you're killing the incentive to become one. Why do you think all those fiber projects and super-fast connected cities going down the drain?

It's best to bet on good ol' free market. Look at what's going on in Venezuela. They started regulating everything, even the price of big screen TV, and strangely the more they regulated, the more they drove their country into the ground as nobody had any incentive on doing business under these conditions. Why on earth would you want to follow their lead.