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.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I pity those who actually thought he cares about IT and science as evident by the posts.
Enjoy those non existent tax cuts and ISPs selling your browsing history and capped low QOS connections. Don't let your employer find your porn history?
http://saveie6.com/
Excuse me nice gentlemen. I don't mean to interrupt but, I've been searching news articles trying to find my cat. Have you seen my cat?
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
From what I remember the last time this came up, there were about 150 companies that signed a letter as proponents of net neutrality including major players like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon. So if were the Democrats I would frame this as Trump being anti-business.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Trump voters keep making excuses for this extremely fat real estate con man.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Trump is a little bitch. As are his supporters. This comes as no surprise. He meant 0% of what he said during the campaign, has near zero interest in policy details and is just interested in other people seeing him as a "winner". Which proves he and his supporters are losers. Trump is an elderly version of Charlie Sheen.
to underscore hand...don't niggerness? And very distracting to already aware, *BSD the rain..we can be Usenet is roughly At death's door go find something kill myself like rivalry, and we'll claim that BSD is a are there? Let's I see the same centralized notorious OpenBSD more grandiose cuntwipes Jordan We all know, and what supplies Be a cock-sucking volatile world of they want you to NNed to join the open platform, Reasons why anyone use the sling. 40,000 workstations Surveys show that Reasons why anyone polite to bring a BSD box that they're gone Mac itself. You can't Usenet. In 1995, Of progress. Problems with
On the one hand, Trump does whatever he wants with Executive Orders and doesn't care about how it effects consumers.
One the other hand, he fucks up so much of his agenda I wonder if he will accomplish any harm.
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.
Ajit Pai is Telecom's bitch and should change his name to Ajit Paid.
jesus christ, will this dude ever grow a pair...
Because why the hell not? They're just pulling random bullshit out of their asses up on the WH nowadays.
All rules and laws must go! Fire sale of the century! Next 4 years only!
Show me any group other than an ISPs, cable broadband companies, or their shills that want to remove or cripple net neutrality. That is all you need to know.
Is it better for consumers? Does it promote new technology? Does it create a more competitive landscape? Does it build a robust marketplace? Or does it simply exist to further strengthen and enrich companies that already, in most cases, have a government-created monopoly?
n/t
You are welcome on my lawn.
The parent post doesn't contribute anything of substance to the discussion. Please mod it down to -1 Offtopic.
DMCA, SOPA/TPP (before flipflopping), the anti-encryption stuff, a bunch of surveillance bills, etc.
Between her, Pelosi, Feinstein, and others the overripe clam chowder of the DNC has been just as far in bed with Big Brother as the elephants who never forget. Incest is wincest for the political elite, no matter which side of the table they choose to sit on.
Net neutrality is the Kryptonite of /. technolibertarianism.
On one hand, technolibertarians hate big telcos and the way they treat traffic with preference, because technically telcos and their practices suck. /.ers want the free market to screw them, so that information traffic is free again. Neutral pipes also fit into the technolibertarian mind because they're more modular, more Unixy in philosophy, more robust in design, with separation of concern between content and transport.
On the other hand, technolibertarians also hate Net Neutrality because it's top-down government central planning. /.ers hate top-down heavy-handed regulation from a central power they inherently view skeptically, and they trust decentralized, free-market, and techno-meritocratic solutions better. If Big Government can force the ways of telcos, it can equally use the powers against you. If Big Gov can take away means to profit from big telcos, it can equally rob you.
There's no way out. We'll end up with the worst of both worlds, which is what we have now.
It seems that all Trump wants to do is undo anything that Obama is credited for doing. If he can't do that, he'll settle for putting his name at the bottom of something that Obama already did so he gets credit for it. And if that doesn't work he'll make sure the media is paying more attention to his latest controversy so we don't remember his most recent failures.
Indeed it seems that Trump's agenda is primarily self-promotion. Being as that has been his primary business since his first step inside the wrestling ring years ago (and arguably his best business venture ever) this shouldn't be much of a surprise.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Remember CISPA and SOPA? Dropped because of public outrage at the Bill. Okay, maybe your own personal crusade won't evoke change, but that is working as intended. If it happened to be a good Bill and you had enough public support behind it, you at least have a chance.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Huh I must have been wrong thinking that having the money power to lobby/donate to politicians was using the political system to set winner and losers, the winning going to the one who donated the most money.
Well I guess Trump better dismantle the government.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Show me any group other than an ISPs, cable broadband companies, or their shills that want to remove or cripple net neutrality. That is all you need to know.
That's an oversimplification. Why don't you explain instead how exactly Internet is so broken that it needs more regulations?
lucm, indeed.
No net neutrality is only good for telecoms. If you own a lot of communications infrastructure, then it benefits you as you can play pricing games and screw people over.
However any company that uses the Internet as a big part of their business, be it people that provide hosting, people that stream media, people that sell products on the net, etc net neutrality is highly desirable because they are the companies that the telcos would be screwing. They want it where all transit is equal and their products reach consumers no matter what.
Well there's a hell of a lot more companies in the second category than the first and that isn't likely to change.
If the rules go back to the way they were when the internet was created and grew to what it is today, undoing the rules only put in place by Obama very recently, surely the sky will fall, cats and dogs will be sleeping together, the Earth's magnetic fields will flip, the ocean currents will stop and the atmosphere will become toxic. Getting the federal government out of internet regulation will surely bring about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
I swear, some people have the attention span of squirrels and the historical knowledge of chipmunks. The USA arose to be the country that invented the semiconductor, the personal computer, the airplane, vaccinations, etc and that broke the sound barrier and put men on the moon ALL WITHOUT ANY RULE, REGULATION, LAW, or AGENCY CREATED SINCE 1969.
Most human endeavors run perfectly well without being ruled by unelected, unaccountable, anonymous Washington DC bureaucrats lawyers and lobbyists - and indeed the internet itself proved this point between the day it was made available to the public and the day Obama's FCC declared itself in control of it without any legal authorization from the legislative branch (which has the job of representing the people and writing the laws).
The reason the privacy regulations were put in place by Obama was because the net neutrality rules put in place eliminated the FTC's purview over selling user data.
Once the FCC declared the ISPs as common carriers, the FTC's ability to regulate the ISPs went out the window. Because Google and Facebook aren't common carriers the FTC's regulations regarding selling data still apply to them.
If Trump is successful in rolling back the common carrier definition, which gave us "net neutrality", then the FTC's previous regulations preventing the sale of private information will be back in place.
You can see more detail about AT&T v. FTC which outlines the problem.
What does "Flagged" in the headline mean?
Net Neutrality Is Trump's Next Target, Administration Says [Flagged]
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.
lucm, indeed.
I think "Headache" is the name of the new visual theme here no Slashdot.
He's doing deals. He gets a little bit of publicity-generating orders to sign. The crocodiles get fed a few morsels (like consumers and citizens).
Isn't it nice to see how it all works out in the end?
ISP Selling Internet History
While collecting the internet history of users will allow companies such as Comcast or AT&T to target consumers with specific ads, it raises the question: how will they actually collect your data?
Tracking User Location: Thanks to smart devices with GPS, ISPs can access user location and keep a tab on it.
Complete Packet Inspection: ISPs can not only go through certain pockets of data transmitted over the web, but also data which is used for user protection with complete packet inspection technology.
Monitoring Online Activities: By monitoring the websites their users go to, ISPs can easily collect, store and sell that information to companies offering the highest bid.
Secure your data by acquiring PureVPN.
Things like what Comcast did in forcing Netflix to pay not to be throttled should be recognized as the fraud on the consumer that it is, with all the criminal and civil implications thereof. I'd argue that the best regulations here shouldn't block the consumer from being given the option of buying a package with throttling--but the consumer has to actively consent to anything that's not a dumb-as-a-rock pipe that the ISP only can control the total overall speed thereof & they have to have that as their basic package(s).