Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans The Internet Businesses Government The Almighty Buck Politics Technology

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Net Neutrality Is Trump's Next Target, Administration Says

Comments Filter:
  • by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Friday March 31, 2017 @09:10PM (#54155953) Journal

    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)

      by s.petry ( 762400 )

      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

      • 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?

      • Why do people keep saying that the law wasn't in effect yet so there is no issue. 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?
        • by s.petry ( 762400 )

          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!

      • Wow. So Comcast can sell your browsing history to your boss, but that's OK because "most employers won't have a problem with your porn habits unless it's the kind that's illegal"???

        Maybe it doesn't matter to your employer, but not all of us work at Wal-Mart.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It's not about IT or science. Not even privacy or surveillance. It's all about screwing H1Bs. This is what /.ers care about.

    • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      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

    • Mr. Trump is starting to look quite at home in the swamp. Even though he'll probably be the last to realize it.

      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)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Friday March 31, 2017 @09:19PM (#54155987)
    From what I remember the last time this came up, there were about 150 companies that signed a letter as proponents [vox-cdn.com] 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.
    • 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.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Isn't it a bit soon to discard the "President for all Americans" bullshit?

      • I don't believe many of these companies have changed their minds about Net Neutrality regardless of who is in power. Amazon, Google, and Netflix have vested interests in keeping the internet the way it is.
        • by lucm ( 889690 )

          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

        • 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

  • Trump's a bitch (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2017 @09:37PM (#54156061)

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

  • 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.

    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      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.

  • 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?

    • 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)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

    n/t

  • 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.
  • by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Friday March 31, 2017 @10:59PM (#54156343) Homepage

    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 Anonymous Coward

    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

  • by tranquilidad ( 1994300 ) on Friday March 31, 2017 @11:21PM (#54156413)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I think "Headache" is the name of the new visual theme here no Slashdot.

    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      You got that right. I first saw the new theme this morning...I had to resist the urge to vomit.

Be sociable. Speak to the person next to you in the unemployment line tomorrow.

Working...