Net Neutrality Is Trump's Next Target, Administration Says (fiercetelecom.com) 136
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.
Again GOP is not friends to /.ers (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I pity those who actually thought he cares about IT and science as evident by the posts.
At least a bit more than other politicians who have continually expanded H1Bs and didn't even bother with rhetoric denouncing companies that outsourced their IT (Disney, UCSF Hospital, etc..) Time will tell, but at least we have the rhetoric coming from a politician.
Enjoy those non existent tax cuts and ISPs selling your browsing history and capped low QOS connections.
More crystal ball reading.. The law that was repealed never went into effect. Here is an idea though.. how about you petition Government for a better law instead of whining about the law that never did anything being revoked?
Don't let your employer find your porn history?
Most employers won
Nothing like ignoring history (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So then do you oppose automation and support government to get involved to stop it? Or do you favor the free market for these out of work employees who never better themselves like most slashdoters?
Re: Again GOP is not friends to /.ers (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people keep saying that the law wasn't in effect yet so there is no issue.
Because that is the truth, the Law was not in effect. There is absolutely no change to anything with this law being revoked.
Let's think about this. Let's say hordes of people are being tortured and a law is passed that would stop that abuse and it takes effect on Friday. You are one of the victims and you knew you were about to be free on Friday, then this happened and your not. Now I am asking you, if your that guy in that situation are you seriously going to try to tell us it doesn't matter because it hasn't gone into effect yet?
Oh, I see. We have to argue with an absurd level of delusion to claim the law should have remained. Appeal to emotion is the answer! Thanks, I could have never seen the light without your fallacious arguments!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it doesn't matter to your employer, but not all of us work at Wal-Mart.
Clinton and plenty of DNCers aren't either. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
What I find pretty ironic is that the most anti-liberty, anti-privacy, anti-accountability powerful Dems, Pelosi and Feinstein, supposedly represent the Californian techno-meritocratic, startup-minded, pro-privacy liberals.
It's an unorthodox and non-PC thought, but perhaps the Bay Area hyperintelligent technocrats are not so progressive anyway, and their representatives are actually doing a faithful job?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What I find pretty ironic is that the most anti-liberty, anti-privacy, anti-accountability powerful Dems, Pelosi and Feinstein, supposedly represent the Californian techno-meritocratic, startup-minded, pro-privacy liberals.
It's an unorthodox and non-PC thought, but perhaps the Bay Area hyperintelligent technocrats are not so progressive anyway, and their representatives are actually doing a faithful job?
You obviously don't work for one of those Bay Area companies. Many of them are beginning to fall apart internally due to things like wage increases because "gender" and "Ethnicity" instead of merit, promoting technocratic policies inside the company, demanding support for those same powerful Dems, ostracizing Conservative views, etc...
I happen to work for one, hence posting AC. Moral sucks for half the company, people simply take advantage of any opportunity to "not" work, and let problems (like security
Re: (Score:1)
It's not about IT or science. Not even privacy or surveillance. It's all about screwing H1Bs. This is what /.ers care about.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I pity those idiots who think the general public did not care about privacy or equal access. Idiot Republicans just blew their lead in one quick hit. Gone in two years and two years latter both privacy and equal access put back in place and people will abso-fucking-lutely loathe the piece of shit fuck heads at the scummy ISPs, talk about blowing away their future, fucking idiots. Morons who think they can still get away with this shit, boy, do they have a lesson to learn. The new privacy laws and dat
Swamp (Score:2)
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?
Go ahead (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
After the way Silicon Valley companies treated Trump during the campaign, they shouldn't expect a lot of support from him during his presidency.
Re: Go ahead (Score:1)
Isn't it a bit soon to discard the "President for all Americans" bullshit?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
interesting quote from the Wikipedia entry on this issue:
A richly funded Web site, which delivers data faster than its competitors to the front porches of the Internet service providers, wants it delivered the rest of the way on an equal basis. This system, which Google calls broadband neutrality, actually preserves a more fundamental inequality
Ya more companies would want neutrality than not (Score:2)
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 reac
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You must live in an alternative reality because many consumer groups [savetheinternet.com] were in favor of net neutrality. Or are you just lying?
Did you actually look at that list of "consumer groups" before linking it? Or did you just chase a good headline and leave it to that, hoping that your clever accusation of living in an alternative reality would be a good smokescreen?
Here's the list of those organizations, some even signed twice and the poster made sure to mix them up. Can you please indicate which of those are "consumer groups"? I see one, maybe two, unless you consider United Church of Christ as a consumer group.
Alliance for Community Med
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually look at that list of "consumer groups" before linking it? Or did you just chase a good headline and leave it to that, hoping that your clever accusation of living in an alternative reality would be a good smokescreen?
Yes I did. Did you?
Here's the list of those organizations, some even signed twice and the poster made sure to mix them up. Can you please indicate which of those are "consumer groups"?
You mean like these groups which you listed: Consumer Federation of America, Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Internet Archive, Common Cause, Free press. Public Knowledge,
I see one, maybe two, unless you consider United Church of Christ as a consumer group.
So where did I say that ALL groups listed where consumer groups. I said many. In the above list, I've clarified several. You really are all about strawman arguments, aren't you?
Re: The Other Side of that Dark Coin (Score:2, Insightful)
What the fuck has happened to my SlashDot?
This used to be a place for nerds
The readers are all fucking morons now
Fuck
Re: (Score:2)
So, blocking Netflix was pro-consumer?
Re: (Score:2)
Right, no corporation ever supported the party in power. All of those companies made major contributions to Democratic Party politicians.
So you know that all 150 companies supported Democrats? How? Or are you asserting something without proof?
Trump's a bitch (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
As an AC, you get insightful and upvoted to a 3, yet all you did was name call and trash talk.
This is insightful? You're just complaining and name calling.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't tell if I should worry or not. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of his executive orders are mere show, he'd need Congress or changes to international agreements to make any real changes. The latest example is his order for agencies to scour U.S. trading partners for signs of dumping. He cannot arbitrarily impose sanctions on trading partners. Those are governed by WTO rules. His order was merely to impress the people who take him seriously.
Re: (Score:1)
This tripe again? The only thing that can destroy the alliance at this point in time is alliance members not fulfilling their agreements. Only 5 member nations meet the defense spending requirement goals. Those other nations are doing more to undermine the alliance than Putin could ever dream of doing. Who in their right mind would want to stay in an alliance with members that are too cowardly to defend themselves and too ashamed to defend liberty?
What the fuck is the alliance defending if Europe is too cow
Re: (Score:2)
lol, I don't know which is more ridiculous. Trump being under Putin's thumb for a piss fetish or because of money. If it was money, what is to stop Trump from saying "Not going to pay. You can shove it."? What is Russia going to do? Seize his assets in Russia? Make a fit? Send their money collectors? Try and assassinate Trump? Do you think Russia would risk war over a few million dollars? What can Russia honestly do against POTUS? Embarrass him. Oh noes! How retarded are you?
Not allowed to know or was it p
Wrong-way round (Score:1)
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?
if it ain't broke (Score:1)
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?
nyet neutrality (Score:1, Offtopic)
n/t
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:5, Funny)
I agree. The GP is clearly trying to impugn the character of the President of the United States by suggesting some connection to Russia, which is ridiculous on its face. He should be modded down severely.
Does this really constitute an agenda? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
A crippled government cannot take away your liberties. Also, a crippled government cannot stop the evildoers from taking away your liberties.
It can't take away the liberties that it cripples its ability to take away, but it doesn't have to cripple its ability to take away all your liberties equally.
"picking winners and losers" (Score:3)
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.
How will we ever SURVIVE? (Score:1)
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 a
This will fix the privacy issue (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [iapp.org] which outlines the problem.
Headache... (Score:1)
I think "Headache" is the name of the new visual theme here no Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
You got that right. I first saw the new theme this morning...I had to resist the urge to vomit.
Re:Trump is right (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you give an example of a situation where an Internet startup has been hampered by the net neutrality rules?
The problem is define "Net Neutrality". Everyone has a different definition.
Re:Other way round (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Like the Netflix vs. Comcast spat? Seemed like it suddenly resolved itself once the new rules came out...
Re:You have that very, very wrong (Score:5, Informative)
That was resolved (correctly) BEFORE REGULATION.
No it wasn't, and your link is proof of that. Your "resolution" involved Netflix paying a fee to Comcast to deliver packets that Comcast's customers had already paid for. Capitulating to extortion is not the same thing as a resolution.
Re:You have that very, very wrong (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't resolved until Netflix was able to stop paying those fees, and that didn't happen until the laws were changed. Make up your own mind, by all means, but if you can't appreciate the distinction I was drawing and recognize that the other poster was being disingenuous in suggesting that things had been resolved, I doubt we'll be seeing eye to eye.
Re:You have that very, very wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
You're looking at all of this backwards, presumably because you're not aware of the history here. Net neutrality was law from the mid-90s until about 2013 when those laws expired. Within about a year of them expiring, we saw shenanigans like the ones I mentioned above.
So when you ask what benefit we've seen from net neutrality: Google, Facebook, Netflix, and every other company that began and was able to flourish in that period because net neutrality ensured that they were able to each everyone equally. That's what net neutrality was able to foster.
On the other hand, I actually agree with some of what you've said in other posts about the free market taking care of things, but there's an issue preventing that from occurring here: exclusivity agreements. Most states and municipalities either signed explicit exclusivity agreements with ISPs (who were eventually bought out by the big players, thus conferring those rights to the big guys), or else granted implicit exclusivity by having laws on the books that prevent competitors from laying their own lines. Those agreements create regional monopolies (i.e. these ISPs are the only ones who even CAN have access to those subscribers), and where we allow monopolies to exist, the free market is incapable of addressing problems, hence why we we heavily regulate monopolies. That's why regulation is necessary here, just as it is in any other monopoly situation.
Remove the barriers to competition and I'm fine with letting the free market handle things (net neutrality or not, I would LOVE to switch ISPs, but I only have one broadband choice in my area), but don't dismantle the one and only protection we have against bad behavior until you fix the market side first.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...was resolved after the new rules came out, but when the OP shows that it was before...
Well, no, it wasn't resolved before.
Netflix decided that they stood to gain more money than they lost by paying off Comcast, so Netflix paid Comcast, despite Comcast being in the wrong for throttling traffic.
It is not an industry standard to throttle traffic on a per website basis, and this is traffic that has already been paid for by the consumer.
Amazon doesn't have to pay Comcast for me to use their site, Slashdot doesn't have to pay Comcast for me to use their site.
If Netflix and Comcast customers
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As it is, pretty much all big telcos to have a monopolistic stranglehold on their market. They have no competition because they made sure in many areas that there can't be any competition, through contracts they've signed with communities many years ago. Sure, shitty decision making on the side of the communes, but such anti-free-market contracts should be able to be contested after some time.
Here in comm
Re: (Score:3)
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.
That's a fair summarization, and I would say "it depends". In an actual free market, I'd agree with you that "no" is the answer, since the same would apply equally to Netflix, who would doubtless denounce Comcast's bad behavior and then raise their rates for Comcast's customers, thus prompting Comcast's customers to look for alternative ISPs. Some would leave, some would stay, and some would ditch Netflix. No matter what, problem solved.
Unfortunately, that isn't able to happen here, since most of those cust
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In a free market, that sort of thing should not be possible in the first place since monopolies are either broken up or regulated to prevent them from leveraging their position for ill-gotten gain.
The paradox of the free market. Since it always destroys itself once individual players get big enough, and become intent on destroying their competition, you need regulations to keep that from happening, which means it isn't free any more.
Bad regulations suck (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
That was resolved (correctly) BEFORE REGULATION.
No it wasn't, and your link is proof of that. Your "resolution" involved Netflix paying a fee to Comcast to deliver packets that Comcast's customers had already paid for. Capitulating to extortion is not the same thing as a resolution.
Aaaaannnnnd SuperKendall disappears!
Re: (Score:2)
That was resolved (correctly) BEFORE REGULATION. It is the proof that regulation was not needed.
You seem to forget that the current regulation is to keep the net neutral as it has been since the beginning of the internet. What you are saying is misleading.
All the FCC did was not to change what existed before. That is unless you believe in alternative facts.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So what you are saying is that you have nothing to contribute to the statement or the validity of the argument?
No
Re:Other way round (Score:5, Insightful)
> made sure it was harder than ever to compete agains the big ISP's like Comcast. ...
> It's hard to prove some company is not starting up because of regulations concerns.
You do a wonderful job of arguing against yourself.
> 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.
No, it's really not.
Re:Other way round (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Er what? The regulation that is in place is that no one has to pay for preferential treatment. What you are saying is as asinine as saying prove to me that because anyone can drive in any lane on a freeway that no one is being harmed by that.
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.
Your premise is flawed in that you are asserting that companies must hire more lawyers to comply with net neutrality. No what they must do is the same thing they have done since the birth of the Internet.
Re: (Score:3)
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 is too bad for you that goalpost moving is not an Olympic sport. You would win the gold.
Re: Other way round (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A new federal government connection to every home and select an ISP from say Texas or Florida anywhere in the USA depending on what they offer?
Make every US ISP equal on existing private networks?
Allow every ISP in the US able to build their own new networks anywhere or have a local or city government build a network?
Like the old alarm services?
The best option would be a community network with many different ISP on it. The city connects hardware to you but offers not network se
Re: (Score:2)
A new federal government connection to every home and select an ISP from say Texas or Florida anywhere in the USA depending on what they offer?
How about actual competition? There have been multiple times that a government, fed up with the poor service of ISPs, have built their own only to face legal action from ISPs.
Make every US ISP equal on existing private networks?
How about following the rules that everyone else has to follow.
Allow every ISP in the US able to build their own new networks anywhere or have a local or city government build a network?
ISPs have opposed any network not theirs.
The best option would be a community network with many different ISP on it. The city connects hardware to you but offers not network services, select any ISP that offers a good service on that city hardware.
Again you have to survive legal actions by current ISPs first.
Re: Trump is right (Score:1)
You just made a fantastic argument as to how regulation fosters innovation. You innovate not charge more! Think of it this way, what does the price tiers do? They price out users based on their usage habits. We want to use the internet in bigger and more innovative ways but there's a ceiling as to your audience even if the true demand is there.
The fact is telecoms have little incentive to boost their speed and innovate because they're just pulling in easy money. Just about everyone needs the internet but th
Re:Trump is right (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Are you on crack? Net Neutrality helped to kill the Comcast-Time Warner merger. [cnet.com]
Stopping Comcast and Time Warner from merging into a super-company makes it easier, not harder, to compete against them.
Re: Trump is right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Trump voters deserve what they get.
Yeah, and morons themselves, Hillary voters deserve Trump also. Democrats fucked it up real good.
Re: Trump is right (Score:1)
Yeah they really screwed the pooch. Putting Hillary up as their candidate gave the republicans all they needed to buy Trump and have him do their bidding after his obvious victory.
There is no president right now, he is a puppet. Trump being president is literally the government running a social experiment on us.
Re:Trump is right (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump voters deserve what they get. Their "analysis" of current issues proves it time and time again. Getting fucked couldn't happen to a better group of morons. Schadenfreude is rich.
Alas, Trump voters are nowhere near the only ones getting fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
The day we need a lynch mob we'll make sure to call you.
And the day we need someone to use strawman arguments, we'll call you. The poster didn't threaten anyone with harm. He asked why SuperKendall "always sided with stupidity".
Re: (Score:1)
The day we need a lynch mob we'll make sure to call you.
And the day we need someone to use strawman arguments, we'll call you. The poster didn't threaten anyone with harm. He asked why SuperKendall "always sided with stupidity".
The point is not about threats, the point is about jumping on a bandwagon of bashing someone without providing a reason
Re: (Score:2)
The point is not about threats,
That's not what you said. You said: "The day we need a lynch mob we'll make sure to call you."
lynch mob [cambridge.org]
noun
a group of people who want to attack someone who they think has committed a serious crime
the point is about jumping on a bandwagon of bashing someone without providing a reason
That also not what the poster said either. He seemed to know Super Kendall's history of inane arguments.
Re: Trump is right (Score:1)