
Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality - throwawayIndian
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/11/10/how-donald-trump-will-dismantle-obamas-internet-legacy/?can_id=d26c32e547189d21bd09e079aac85a20&email_referrer=breaking-trump-to-dismantle-net-neutrality-6&email_subject=breaking-trump-to-dismantle-net-neutrality&link_id=4&source=email-breaking-trump-to-dismantle-net-neutrality-6
======
ci5er
Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of
established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about
all of the stuff that "Trump _could_ do" until he gets around to doing it. He
talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that
people worry about him _potentially_ doing...

As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to
being hand-waved away.

The lesson that a lot of anti-Trumpers appear to have taken away from this
election is that the electoral college is bad because it lets people who don't
live on the coasts have a say too. I would prefer that the lesson were: "Gosh!
The President has too much power!"

~~~
throwaway729
_> because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too_

I'm from the midwest and I still don't understand this sentiment. Why should
the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at
night? That seems extremely anti-democratic to me.

It's not that people who don't live on the coasts shouldn't have a say. It's
that if someone wins a popular vote by _2 million fucking votes_ , then they
should probably win the election.

We already have the senate. The house also favors less populous states, even
if not by design.

And state governments.

People who don't live on the coasts have an enormous amount of say without
getting an extremely disproportionate voice in the presidential election.

~~~
13years
>That seems extremely anti-democratic to me.

Exactly, and it is supposed to be. We are a republic and not a democracy. The
founders strongly opposed democracy. One of the reasons being that minorities
would have no representation if your government is by majority rule only.

~~~
sgnelson
This is not really true. While yes, the tyranny of the majority is a very
important discussion, I would argue it plays no factor when it comes to the
specifics of how we elect the president. And the tyranny of the majority has
(arguably) been replaced by the tyranny of the minority (not any better imo.)
The election process has changed dramatically since the founding of the
country.

For instance, the electoral college now is almost nothing more than a rubber
stamp, with the electors themselves now supposedly having to follow the will
of the individual voters who have chosen a candidate for their state. This has
not always been the way.

Which is to say, the way that we now elect the president is supposed to be
democratic. The fact that many states have laws against faithless electors,
which goes against the very design of the electoral college in the first
place, which was to have "intelligent/elite" individuals to make a decision on
who would truly be the best candidate for the whole of the country.

So when discussing the (again, specifically the election of the President,
also see 12th amendment) electoral college, we cannot say that this is a
republican process; it is not.

People act like the electoral college system is some unchangeable entity that
is fundamental to this country, yet we have changed it countless times over
the past 220ish years, (including 14th, 15th, 19th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 26th
amendments to the US Constitution, which all effectively deal with who can
vote, or how we choose a president/VP. Further, each state has changed many
times how they choose the electors, which once may have been chosen by the
legislator, but is now by popular vote).

Almost each and every change was designed to make the election of the
President a more democratic process. To simply say that we are a republic and
not a democracy misses the point, is untrue, ignores history, and is frankly,
a lame excuse as to why we don't have a more democratic system for electing
our president.

~~~
13years
>Almost each and every change was designed to make the election of the
President a more democratic process. To simply say that we are a republic and
not a democracy misses the point, is untrue, ignores history, and is frankly,
a lame excuse as to why we don't have a more democratic system for electing
our president.

It does not miss the point, this was the intention despite what may have
changed later. Certainly it might be better stated that we were intended to be
a republic, but that has been weakened over time. The founders also stated
that government would always move towards greater concentrations of power and
that the constitution was only a parchment barrier. Assuming that later
revisions are improvements would be a logical fallacy without understanding
original intent.

------
luso_brazilian
The part of the Net Neutrality debate that is so often disregarded (and
probably the reason conservatives oppose it vehemently) is that it gives FCC
(an unelected body of government, part of the executive branch) power to
legislate.

Not passing judgement or touching the merit of the whole subject but it is a
very consistent position of the right in the United States to oppose
regulation passed down by unelected officials of the executive branch instead
of legislation created and approved by the legislative body through their
elected representatives.

It is a similar phenomenon to the one occurring in Europe with its maximum
exponent being the Brexit process, also motivated in a lot of ways by the
perceived interference in the day to day life of the British by regulations
passed down by unelected officials of the European Union instead of
legislation created and approved by the local legislative bodies through their
elected representatives.

In America, opposing FCC mandating net neutrality through regulation is akin
to other similar rejections of "legislation by the executive":

\- DEA or Department of Health legislating controlled substances

\- FAA legislating personal drones

\- FCC legislating TV language and obscenity

\- ATF legislating gun ownership, possession and storage

\- Treasury Secretary legislating penalties for failure to enroll in
government approved healthcare (Obamacare "Tax Penalty")

It is all part of the same phenomenon, people pushing back against what they
perceive as a federal overreach in areas that deny people proper
representation in contesting the regulations imposed.

Trump got elected on that exact platform by the detractors of such overreach
and it is only natural that he is going to follow the desire of his electoral
constituency.

~~~
hristov
It is completely normal and accepted for various agencies to make rules within
the confines of the laws that have empowered them. It is in fact necessary
considering how complex our society is. Congress cannot possibly control
everything.

If congress has power to pass certain laws, they have power to relegate some
of such authority to a governing body. If the FCC's rules are in accordance
with the laws that empowered it, then there is nothing wrong.

And no Trump never said he is against net neutrality. If he did that, he might
have lost the election -- net neutrality is very popular.

~~~
crdoconnor
[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/53260835850816716...](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/532608358508167168)

"Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality
is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media."

~~~
hristov
He tweeted that four days after the election. Again, I was correct to say that
removing net neutrality was not part of his election platform.

~~~
crdoconnor
"He never said he was against net neutrality" is what you said.

------
Animats
Probably.

Trump has announced two appointments to the FCC, Jeffrey Eisenach and Mark
Jamison.[1] Eisenach has a paper arguing that ISP's should not be subject to
any antitrust regulation.[2] Mark Jameson wants to abolish the FCC.[3]
"Telecommunications network providers and ISPs are rarely, if ever,
monopolies", he's written.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/22/obama-
net...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/22/obama-net-
neutrality-regulations-under-threat-trump-fcc-appointments)

[2] [https://www.aei.org/publication/broadband-competition-in-
the...](https://www.aei.org/publication/broadband-competition-in-the-internet-
ecosystem/)

[3] [http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/do-we-need-
the...](http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/do-we-need-the-fcc/)

------
MichaelBurge
I don't think Trump cares much about net neutrality in particular, but it
wouldn't surprise me if he abolished or severely cut back the FCC.

The big deal to me is mostly the last-mile infrastructure, which is more of a
local/state issue anyways. If the telecom companies mostly handled the
backbone, losing the government enforcement doesn't even seem that bad.

Regardless of what happens at the federal level, California and New York are
completely controlled by Democrats, so HN commenters should find it relatively
easy to push through state net neutrality laws. And bigger companies like
Netflix can probably bribe the smaller states by promising to set up a call
center in Montana or something in exchange for net neutrality laws in that
state.

Frankly, this current system where an unelected official gets to pick and
choose the scope of his agency is a bit silly. I wouldn't mind if the whole
agency is cut out, if its scope changes so wildly depending on who's
President.

~~~
shmerl
The irony is, places mostly controlled by Republicans will be bitten the most
by weaker FCC. They are already plagued by lazy and sleepy monopolists and
corrupted local laws written by them that prevent municipal networks and
result in overpriced and underpowered Internet. Without FCC it will only get
worse. So those who chose that will taste their own medicine.

~~~
colejohnson66
I thought rich people were given exceptional QoS so they don't complain about
it to the media. Not to mention: they're rich; They don't really care how much
their internet costs so long as it works.

~~~
shmerl
If rich people live in the area with bad Internet, there isn't much they can
do about it (except moving to a different place). And today practically
everyone cares, both rich and poor. Internet is an essential utility.

------
ainiriand
My opinion is that for the Trump supporter this is not a bad thing, per-se. It
is going to be masked under some coat of security mixed with a bit of
corporate capitalist liberty. And also, a lot of people is going to make a lot
of money filtering and analyzing data.

~~~
throwaway729
_> for the Trump supporter this is not a bad thing, per-se_

This is a bad thing for all consumers, period.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I think they mean, this will not damage Trump, as it will be spun as a
success, even as it causes damage to the average person. Probably applies to
many, if not all, of his policies.

~~~
meric
He has implemented zero policies and net neutrality is not a topic even
currently discussed. It is strange to see people make up something they think
is bad, accuse the person they don't like for doing it in the future despite
having no indications whether that person will actually do it, and then say
that persons supporters are stupid enough to support said action. I think most
Trump supporters are watching closely at Trump making sure to fulfill his
existing promises like the wall and why Trump backed away from investigating
Clinton than thinking about net neutrality, let alone excusing Trump for
disabling it (he hasn't), but that's just my observation.

~~~
throwaway729
_> It is strange to see people make up something they think is bad_

(Opposition to) net neutrality is not "made up".

 _> accuse the person they don't like for doing it in the future_

People posting here like net neutrality completely independently of how they
feel about Trump. You can go back way before Trump came on the scene and find
HN threads in which the majority opinion is largely supportive of NN.

This isn't a "demonize Trump" sentiment, it's a "pro net neutrality"
sentiment. And it always has existed as an extremely important issue for SV
completely independently of Trump. For decades.

 _> despite having no indications whether that person will actually do it_

...other than his word and the preference of relevant people on his transition
team.

 _> and then say that persons supporters are stupid enough to support said
action_

No one ever said that voters supporting Trump were stupid. Just that
abolishing net neutrality would hurt them.

E.g. it's possible that abolishing net neutrality would hurt a coal miner, but
it's none-the-less in that coal miner's best interest to vote for Trump.

------
maxxxxx
It's pretty safe to think that the Republicans will do exactly what corporate
lobbyists will them to do. I am not sure what the telcos' agenda is but this
what most likely will happen.

------
qb45
> Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net
> neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.

Is this really the best quote out there on Trump's intentions regarding NN?

To be honest, it looks like he took it for some other kind of regulation
altogether and just used it as a pretext to bitch about Obama and censorship.
If anything, NN forces all ISPs to "carry" conservative media.

------
dogma1138
Will dismantling the legacy also include scaling back the drone and
surveillance programmes? Or is Obama's legacy is only the good parts?

~~~
ocdtrekkie
The reason the drone and surveillance programs didn't take a large part in
election propaganda this past year is that violating individuals' rights has
bipartisan support.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Up voted because I cannot see how anyone could disagree with this. Obama
didn't do _anything_ to stem the flow of citizens' data being funneled into
the government machinery.

------
cmurf
Net neutrality involves less regulation and thus less barrier to entry. That
government requires IsPs to collect data on usage, and store it for several
months is a huge burden and cost to any would be small competitors.

The loss of net neutrality just increases walled gardens. And there will be a
patch work of exceptions instead of broad neutrality.

~~~
aleeds
I am all for net neutrality, but net neutrality is definitely regulation. It's
the government saying that one entity cannot pay another for a service/good,
classic regulation.

~~~
vmarsy
Which entity isn't paying exactly? Content providers have to pay an ISP to be
connected to the Internet in the first place. That price is diffused through
the whole network of ISPs through their pricing schemes in between each other.
It eventually reach the consumer-facing ISP such as AT&T and Comcast.

Instead of like you who pays for something like 100mbps download and 10
upload, big content provider probably have a commercial contract more like
100mbps upload and download for each of their data centers.

------
scorown
The title here and the title of article - completely different.

~~~
throwawayIndian
Edited. I picked it up from the FFTF (Fight For The Future) email I got in my
inbox today morning.

------
jMyles
The question is (or at least, soon will be) not whether a Trump administration
has any particular animus regarding net neutrality, but whether the government
will even have sufficient power to substantially dictate the direction of the
particulars of the internet at all.

And the answer is, with increasing clarity, "no."

------
nunez
This is not for sure. Even the article says so.

~~~
guelo
The headline says _could_. What's your point?

------
brilliantcode
One thing for sure, a political leader in a democracy will only cater to the
needs of his immediate key holders that run sectors of the country like the
economy, military, etc., who in turn will only seek to fulfill the minimum
amount of needs of the people that keeps them in power, nothing more nothing
less.

The difference between a one party state is freedom of speech, human rights, a
governing body that keeps the ruling party in check, and that using the
military to squelch riots on national television would be political suicide.

------
pessimizer
This is a positive thing. It turns out that we can't run government by the
Executive branch and various agencies just declaring stuff, we actually have
to build institutions up legislatively and inform citizens of their purpose in
order to create popular support that would punish legislators that don't
conform to desired norms. Obama should have cleaned house of corporate
Democrats voting in the interests of their paymasters, but his elite
upbringing and education inculcated an _actual belief_ in the policy
suggestions of the self-interested experts and corporate representatives who
he considered his peers. We've already seen what an unfettered executive looks
in the hands of a moron, and a elite corporate technocrat - how about a
madman?

That being said, this article is pure propaganda and contains no information.
Of course decisions made by agencies can be reversed by the combined efforts
of the elected head of state and the legislature. That's why we call it a
democracy. The Post gives us no reason to think he has strong feelings about
this other than

> Trump vowed to “eliminate our most intrusive regulations” and “reform the
> entire regulatory code.”

and a single tweet

> Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net
> neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.

And to back that up, anonymous sources saying that it's unlikely that Trump
was lying about something that they haven't even made a decent case that he
said he would do or even feels strongly about:

> "It's unlikely Trump was misleading the public, according to policy and
> business analysts. The new administration, they say, will instead delete
> from history the Federal Communications Commission's unprecedented
> regulations for Internet providers."

 _10 /10 anonymous unquoted policy and business analysts agree!_

This entire article is sourced to "analysts" and it's about what Trump "could"
do. What he could do with the support of Congress doesn't need "analysts" it's
just a point of fact. The random analysts are just to make this sound like
news.

Here's a better headline for the article so everybody will know it's shit and
not worth clicking on:

 _Robert Kaminski, a Telecom Analyst at Capital Alpha Partners Says: "Net
Neutrality Has a Big Target On Its Back," Declines to Explain Further_

edit: This isn't fake news, it's shit news. I'm not accusing the Washington
Post of being a fake news outlet.

------
gaius
Ah, the Washington Post, who gleefully published everything Snowden gave them,
then called for him to be jailed. What do they know about net-anything?

~~~
grzm
What does the Washington Post and Snowden have to do with them printing an
article (not an editorial) on net neutrality?

~~~
gaius
It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom of course.

~~~
grzm
I'm betraying a fundamental understanding of your point :)

Is this what you mean?

The Washington Post (along with the Guardian) was one of the first publishers
of material leaked by Edward Snowden as part of its new reporting function.
The Washington Post, as part of its editorial function, also published an
editorial[0] arguing that Obama should not issue a pardon for Snowden.
Therefore, the Washington Post cannot (or should not, or has no credibility
to) publish an article on Trump and net neutrality as part of its new
reporting function because it's position on issuing a pardon for Edward
Snowden is inconsistent with freedom (of speech).

I'm not sure which freedom you're referring to. Freedom of speech or freedom
of the press would be the likely ones, I think.

If that's not a fair summary of what you mean, please feel free to correct or
expand.

[0]: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-
doesn...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesnt-
deserve-a-pardon/2016/09/17/ec04d448-7c2e-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html)

------
seibelj
This is an unpopular opinion here, but I think net neutrality is too
absolutist. If a company wants to pay to have all the data of an app be free
for their users, that's great in my opinion. I don't want ISP's to extort
small players or artificially slow down anyone. But if a company wants their
video streaming app to be zero-rated by paying all the data costs, that seems
like a business decision to me. Some people would rather everyone suffer than
letting the market innovate on data plans.

~~~
logmeout
You can't make a logical case on a liberal site like HN for anything. It's not
allowed by the liberal elitists. Liberal here defined not as true liberal but
progressive (destructionist) liberal.

~~~
daemonk
My comment is not related to the topic at all.

Don't you think that these terminology we call each other by
(liberal/conservative..) is stifling constructive discussion?

I am sure there is a popular or objective definition of these labels. However,
there is also so much misinformation that loads these terms.

Whenever someone starts a conversation by calling the other side a liberal or
conservative, there is an automatic implicit assumption of their beliefs
whether that is correct or not. The social baggage that comes with these terms
are automatically placed on the other person.

I see this so much in real life and online discussions. It's just a shame that
people are using these words as an antagonist rather than a heuristic.

------
transfire
Can't wait to buy those "cheap" bundled Internet packages. Wow! Look at
everything you'll get.

[http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1567010/original.jpg](http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1567010/original.jpg)

~~~
paradite
I am curious about the source of this image, care to share?

~~~
qb45
Google search on HP domain yields this:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/losing-net-
neutrali...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/losing-net-neutrality-
wha_n_338351.html)

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/net-neutrality-
gone...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/net-neutrality-
gone_n_4611477.html)

Which in turn credits this as the original source:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/9yj1f/heres_a_new_scen...](http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/9yj1f/heres_a_new_scenario_i_just_created_illustrating/)

------
stcredzero
_The FCC 's newly passed privacy rules, meanwhile, force Internet providers to
give consumers a say in how their most sensitive personal data is used and
shared._

Whenever such issues comes up, I come out and advocate for the use of
"Reverse-DRM" \-- Instead of big companies using crypto against individuals,
individuals should be using such tech to protect themselves against big
companies. Often, people will counter by saying that laws are enough. However:
"Possession is nine tenths of the law" and "Opportunity makes a thief." Such
laws are necessary, but those would be way easier to enforce and pass in the
first place if consumers had some form of lock that companies had to
circumvent. This election also shows that laws shouldn't be the exclusive
protection.

It is precisely the asymmetric nature of power between companies and
individuals that makes the corporate use of DRM against individuals so
horrible, and the individual use of DRM against corporations so potentially
beneficial. However, there are so many online who simply knee-jerk against the
idea of DRM without thinking about this, it will probably never happen.

------
dominotw
Wapo king of fake news[1]. Also, Title edited for maximum click bait.

1\. [http://original.antiwar.com/thomas-
knapp/2016/11/20/washingt...](http://original.antiwar.com/thomas-
knapp/2016/11/20/washington-post-vs-fake-news-pot-meet-kettle/)

~~~
throwawayIndian
> Wapo king of fake news[1]

WaPo has been central to a lot of real news in recent history. Why do you say
that it is fake?

No matter which side you're on it is in our interest to _not_ let net
neutrality go down without any resistance.

~~~
joeclark77
"no matter which side you're on"... but what about those _against_ net
neutrality? Are we not a _side_?

~~~
jachee
Sell me on the argument against it?

Arbitrary operator editorial ability seems like a dangerous and irresponsible
thing.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Sell me on the argument against it?

There are three groups of people opposed to network neutrality. 1) People who
don't like government regulation in general, 2) Telecoms lobbyists and 3)
People who don't understand what network neutrality is.

Obviously only the first are worth listening to, though the second are the
loudest and the third are the most numerous.

And the issue with listening to the first group is that we have to do it in
the right order. The principle of not having the government regulate is that
the free market will take care of it, but there is currently no free market
for telecommunications, in part because the government has given the
incumbents access to eminent domain and a trillion dollars in government
subsidies over the past century. So the order of things would have to be to
first somehow have strong last-mile competition (e.g. more than 20 providers
on average) and only then remove network neutrality.

The people who actually believe this also believe that last mile is not a
natural monopoly. The proper way to answer it is to give them e.g. Nevada and
let them prove it. Then once Nevada somehow has 20 independent last mile
providers, we can do the same thing everywhere else and won't need network
neutrality anymore. And if they're wrong and they fail, then we'll know for
sure and the only people opposed will be the people no one should ever listen
to.

~~~
bmelton
> And if they're wrong and they fail

Fair point, but worth noting that they could fail for many reasons that have
nothing to do with your central thesis.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
In theory they could also fail because they're wrong about _something else_ ,
but whose problem is that? Either they can figure out how to have competition
without regulation, or they can't and we need network neutrality.

~~~
bmelton
Not trying to get involved in the debate around net neutrality, but you'd have
to have criteria around what is success and what is failure. Depending on how
you measure it, there are very few government programs that couldn't be
simultaneously cast as either a success or failure depending on which criteria
were chosen after the fact.

Clearly, those in favor will point out its positives and discard its
negatives, and vice versa.

The point, I think I'm making, is that for those opposed to net neutrality,
maybe some would be less opposed if success and failure were clearly defined,
and whatever regulations enacted were the least and most tailored amount of
regulations meant to specifically prevent the previously defined failure
states. Giving broad and ambiguous authority over something like "the
internet" is fraught with both wonder and peril, and until and unless "good"
and "bad" are quantified, it seems unfair to castigate "the other side" as
shills, or ignorant (not that I'm suggesting that you've done that, but it's
definitely been done).

~~~
AnthonyMouse
I can actually give you a pretty good definition if you want one.

Competition sufficient so that no last mile ISP has enough market power to
charge transit or content providers for access to their customers. That's the
exact minimum amount of competition necessary so that you don't need network
neutrality regulations -- enough so that the market does the job for you.

