11 ms·

Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

scorown 10y ago
The title here and the title of article - completely different.
- throwawayIndian 10y ago
  Edited. I picked it up from the FFTF (Fight For The Future) email I got in my inbox today morning.
ainiriand 10y ago
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.
- patcheudor 10y ago
  The irony here is that eliminating net neutrality regulations are the opposite of security in most ways because without it, ISP's and whatnot are free to shape traffic however they see fit and in doing so introduce risk. Additionally, from a governance perspective the growing consensus, whether we feel good about it or not, is that we are going to need more regulations surrounding the Internet and devices which connect to it. Moving away from net neutrality rules "because regulation" doesn't bode well for getting control of what is by all measures an out of control market. Bruce Schneier covers this pretty well in his testimony to Congress: http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/bruce-schneier-internet-of-things/ http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/bruce-schneier-internet-of-th...
- ape4 10y ago
  I'll be good business for the incumbents. But bad for the regular users, startups, freedom.
  - mstodd 10y ago
    How is it bad for those things, especially freedom? Regulation takes away freedom, by definition. An ISP start-up offering services which discriminate traffic now can't exist, and therefore can't give consumers more options. This is why I'm against net neutrality. I also believe that even with NN, companies will do what they want if it's worth the risk of being caught.
    - CalChris 10y ago
      Regulation takes away freedom is simplistic libertarian drivel. According to that malarkey the 13th Amendment took away the freedoms of slaveholders: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction
      - bmelton 10y ago
        TIL that the 13th amendment is a regulation. It's ironic, since you're explaining to others in a post above this one the very difference between "laws" and "rules", so it's pretty clear that you understand the false equivalence you're making.
        CalChris 10y ago
        Nice try, but regulation in the context of mstodd's post (regulation takes away freedom) is: the action or process of regulating or being regulated It's a gerund of regulate. Your misreading would allow that regulation(s) take away freedom but laws and Constitutional Amendments don't. And that's just gibberish.
        10y ago
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > for the Trump supporter this is not a bad thing, per-se This is a bad thing for all consumers, period.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        > 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.
dominotw 10y ago
Wapo king of fake news[1]. Also, Title edited for maximum click bait. 1. http://original.antiwar.com/thomas-knapp/2016/11/20/washington-post-vs-fake-news-pot-meet-kettle/ http://original.antiwar.com/thomas-knapp/2016/11/20/washingt...
- throwawayIndian 10y ago
  > 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 10y ago
    "no matter which side you're on"... but what about those against net neutrality? Are we not a side?
    - jachee 10y ago
      Sell me on the argument against it? Arbitrary operator editorial ability seems like a dangerous and irresponsible thing.
      - nbb 10y ago
        Rabble rabble government bad rabble rabble.
        sctb 10y ago
        We asked you to stop posting like this, so we've banned the account. We're happy to unban accounts if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll post civilly and substantively in the future.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        > 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.
dogma1138 10y ago
Will dismantling the legacy also include scaling back the drone and surveillance programmes? Or is Obama's legacy is only the good parts?
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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.
  - taneq 10y ago
    Can anyone who downvoted this point to any time in the past few years that a major party in a western nation promised to reduce surveillance, increase government transparency, or add new protections for individuals?
  - gweinberg 10y ago
    Well, no. It's one of those issues where the elected officials of both parties largely agree, and the voters of both parties largely agree, but the voters disagree with the officials.
nunez 10y ago
This is not for sure. Even the article says so.
- guelo 10y ago
  The headline says could. What's your point?
transfire 10y ago
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 10y ago
  I am curious about the source of this image, care to share?
  - qb45 10y ago
    Google search on HP domain yields this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/losing-net-neutrality-wha_n_338351.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/losing-net-neutrali... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/net-neutrality-gone_n_4611477.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/net-neutrality-gone... Which in turn credits this as the original source: http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/9yj1f/heres_a_new_scenario_i_just_created_illustrating/ http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/9yj1f/heres_a_new_scen...
luso_brazilian 10y ago
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.
- hx87 10y ago
  Certainly true of the libertarian right, but not of the social conservative right, who have been rather inconsistent in opposing "FCC legislating TV language and obscenity" and "DEA or Department of Health legislating controlled substances".
  - briandear 10y ago
    As a self-identified member of the libertarian right I absolutely agree. I get into this debate with so-called Conservatives frequently: smaller government and less regulation means marriage equality (at the state level,) the dismantling of the DEA (leaving it to states to make their own rules,) and the elimination of the Dept. of Education (leaving that to states as well,) among many other things. It also calls for overturning Roe v. Wade (but not for the reasons the social-right wants but because it's really a 10th Amendment issue.) By the way before I get downvoted for my views, I am merely pointing out that actual conservatism is a position of Federalism rather than a position on a particular agendas of certain groups. That means a government should be closer to the people it obsensibly represents and decision should be made at the lowest level until such time as it affects a higher level. For example, if California wants to legalize heroin, that's for California to decide -- it has no practical effect on people in Louisiana. The problem with many social conservatives is that they are intellectually inconsistent -- you can't call for government to enforce what 'you' want but then call for smaller government when it comes to what 'they' want. It's a question of the scope of government and at what level government ought to be acting -- it really isn't about specific issues but the bigger question of "Is this the role of the Federal government."
MichaelBurge 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - colejohnson66 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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.
qb45 10y ago
> 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.
cmurf 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    I'm not suggesting net neutrality is not regulation. I'm suggesting it's simpler regulation than letting companies sort it out, which always end up with many competing top end interests getting all sorts of exceptions applied by scalpel and duct tape.
ci5er 10y ago
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!"
- dcposch 10y ago
  > 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 No. Everyone should have an equal say. That's what national popular vote ensures. Clinton got over 2m more votes than her opponent, but will not be President. That's not democracy. I completely agree with your point about limiting executive power.
  - skirunman 10y ago
    Exactly, this is not "democracy". However, the USA is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. Electing the POTUS via a national popular vote would be rife with more problems than it solves. This article does a good job explaining this topic. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-electoral-college-enlightened-democracy http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-elector...
    - ajross 10y ago
      That's a Heritage piece (republican think tank, and not even one with a particular philosophical lean: Heritage is a straight ticket republican mouthpiece) written in the days before the 2004 election when it looked like Bush was going to lose the popular vote again like he did in 2000. That's, like, the precise opposite of a measured review of the subject. Seriously?
seibelj 10y ago
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.
- vmarsy 10y ago
  You might have a wrong definition of net neutrality. What the consumer-facing ISPs want is more something like tier levels: basic tier gets only 2mbps, platinum tier get 250mbps for instance (and other tiers in between) . So if I'm Spotify and I pay platinum , it is extorting other players, especially small ones as they can't afford paying platinum level. This is even more true if ISP decide that only one music app can be platinum, forcing all music services to bid for that platinum spot, raising the cost for it even more. In the meantime, Backbone providers still provide Pandora, deezer, i<3 radio, and [new hot music startup, potentially more innovative than Spotify] at 250mbps to the consumer-facing ISP, but the consumer-facing ISP decided to create artifical scarcity and throttles those. A theoretical counter argument would simply say: but in that case free market would penalize that ISP as consumers would choose a different one. But I think that's a naive answer because : some people don't see/know the issue, Spotify is good enough, as lycos search and MySpace were good enough at their prime. and more importantly it's a fact that 3 out of 4 Americans do not have a choice in high speed broadband provider. And for those who do, they're sometimes locked in because they still want that cable TV bundled with it. (hypothetically, This would be even more true if that bundle TV provided HBO at 250mbps where regular HBO would be deprioritezed because they didn't pay the platinum level, instead Netflix got it. HBO was business savvy enough to get prioritized via the bundle story.)
- logmeout 10y ago
  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.
stcredzero 10y ago
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.
maxxxxx 10y ago
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.
pessimizer 10y ago
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.
jMyles 10y ago
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."
Animats 10y ago
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-neutrality-regulations-under-threat-trump-fcc-appointments https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/22/obama-net... [2] https://www.aei.org/publication/broadband-competition-in-the-internet-ecosystem/ https://www.aei.org/publication/broadband-competition-in-the... [3] http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/do-we-need-the-fcc/ http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/do-we-need-the...
brilliantcode 10y ago
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.
gaius 10y ago
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 10y ago
  What does the Washington Post and Snowden have to do with them printing an article (not an editorial) on net neutrality?
  - gaius 10y ago
    It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom of course.
    - grzm 10y ago
      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-doesnt-deserve-a-pardon/2016/09/17/ec04d448-7c2e-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesn...

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

throwawayIndian 10y ago
Edited. I picked it up from the FFTF (Fight For The Future) email I got in my inbox today morning.

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.

patcheudor 10y ago
The irony here is that eliminating net neutrality regulations are the opposite of security in most ways because without it, ISP's and whatnot are free to shape traffic however they see fit and in doing so introduce risk. Additionally, from a governance perspective the growing consensus, whether we feel good about it or not, is that we are going to need more regulations surrounding the Internet and devices which connect to it. Moving away from net neutrality rules "because regulation" doesn't bode well for getting control of what is by all measures an out of control market. Bruce Schneier covers this pretty well in his testimony to Congress: http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/bruce-schneier-internet-of-things/ http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/bruce-schneier-internet-of-th...
ape4 10y ago
I'll be good business for the incumbents. But bad for the regular users, startups, freedom.
- mstodd 10y ago
  How is it bad for those things, especially freedom? Regulation takes away freedom, by definition. An ISP start-up offering services which discriminate traffic now can't exist, and therefore can't give consumers more options. This is why I'm against net neutrality. I also believe that even with NN, companies will do what they want if it's worth the risk of being caught.
  - CalChris 10y ago
    Regulation takes away freedom is simplistic libertarian drivel. According to that malarkey the 13th Amendment took away the freedoms of slaveholders: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction
    - bmelton 10y ago
      TIL that the 13th amendment is a regulation. It's ironic, since you're explaining to others in a post above this one the very difference between "laws" and "rules", so it's pretty clear that you understand the false equivalence you're making.
      - CalChris 10y ago
        Nice try, but regulation in the context of mstodd's post (regulation takes away freedom) is: the action or process of regulating or being regulated It's a gerund of regulate. Your misreading would allow that regulation(s) take away freedom but laws and Constitutional Amendments don't. And that's just gibberish.
        10y ago
throwaway729 10y ago
> for the Trump supporter this is not a bad thing, per-se This is a bad thing for all consumers, period.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      > 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.

dominotw 10y ago

Wapo king of fake news[1]. Also, Title edited for maximum click bait. 1. http://original.antiwar.com/thomas-knapp/2016/11/20/washington-post-vs-fake-news-pot-meet-kettle/ http://original.antiwar.com/thomas-knapp/2016/11/20/washingt...

throwawayIndian 10y ago
> 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 10y ago
  "no matter which side you're on"... but what about those against net neutrality? Are we not a side?
  - jachee 10y ago
    Sell me on the argument against it? Arbitrary operator editorial ability seems like a dangerous and irresponsible thing.
    - nbb 10y ago
      Rabble rabble government bad rabble rabble.
      - sctb 10y ago
        We asked you to stop posting like this, so we've banned the account. We're happy to unban accounts if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll post civilly and substantively in the future.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      > 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.

dogma1138 10y ago

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

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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.
- taneq 10y ago
  Can anyone who downvoted this point to any time in the past few years that a major party in a western nation promised to reduce surveillance, increase government transparency, or add new protections for individuals?
- gweinberg 10y ago
  Well, no. It's one of those issues where the elected officials of both parties largely agree, and the voters of both parties largely agree, but the voters disagree with the officials.

nunez 10y ago

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

guelo 10y ago
The headline says could. What's your point?

transfire 10y ago

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 10y ago
I am curious about the source of this image, care to share?
- qb45 10y ago
  Google search on HP domain yields this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/losing-net-neutrality-wha_n_338351.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/losing-net-neutrali... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/net-neutrality-gone_n_4611477.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/net-neutrality-gone... Which in turn credits this as the original source: http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/9yj1f/heres_a_new_scenario_i_just_created_illustrating/ http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/9yj1f/heres_a_new_scen...

luso_brazilian 10y ago

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.

hx87 10y ago
Certainly true of the libertarian right, but not of the social conservative right, who have been rather inconsistent in opposing "FCC legislating TV language and obscenity" and "DEA or Department of Health legislating controlled substances".
- briandear 10y ago
  As a self-identified member of the libertarian right I absolutely agree. I get into this debate with so-called Conservatives frequently: smaller government and less regulation means marriage equality (at the state level,) the dismantling of the DEA (leaving it to states to make their own rules,) and the elimination of the Dept. of Education (leaving that to states as well,) among many other things. It also calls for overturning Roe v. Wade (but not for the reasons the social-right wants but because it's really a 10th Amendment issue.) By the way before I get downvoted for my views, I am merely pointing out that actual conservatism is a position of Federalism rather than a position on a particular agendas of certain groups. That means a government should be closer to the people it obsensibly represents and decision should be made at the lowest level until such time as it affects a higher level. For example, if California wants to legalize heroin, that's for California to decide -- it has no practical effect on people in Louisiana. The problem with many social conservatives is that they are intellectually inconsistent -- you can't call for government to enforce what 'you' want but then call for smaller government when it comes to what 'they' want. It's a question of the scope of government and at what level government ought to be acting -- it really isn't about specific issues but the bigger question of "Is this the role of the Federal government."

MichaelBurge 10y ago

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 10y ago
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.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- colejohnson66 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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.

qb45 10y ago

> 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.

cmurf 10y ago

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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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.
- cmurf 10y ago
  I'm not suggesting net neutrality is not regulation. I'm suggesting it's simpler regulation than letting companies sort it out, which always end up with many competing top end interests getting all sorts of exceptions applied by scalpel and duct tape.

ci5er 10y ago

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!"

dcposch 10y ago
> 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 No. Everyone should have an equal say. That's what national popular vote ensures. Clinton got over 2m more votes than her opponent, but will not be President. That's not democracy. I completely agree with your point about limiting executive power.
- skirunman 10y ago
  Exactly, this is not "democracy". However, the USA is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. Electing the POTUS via a national popular vote would be rife with more problems than it solves. This article does a good job explaining this topic. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-electoral-college-enlightened-democracy http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-elector...
  - ajross 10y ago
    That's a Heritage piece (republican think tank, and not even one with a particular philosophical lean: Heritage is a straight ticket republican mouthpiece) written in the days before the 2004 election when it looked like Bush was going to lose the popular vote again like he did in 2000. That's, like, the precise opposite of a measured review of the subject. Seriously?

seibelj 10y ago

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.

vmarsy 10y ago
You might have a wrong definition of net neutrality. What the consumer-facing ISPs want is more something like tier levels: basic tier gets only 2mbps, platinum tier get 250mbps for instance (and other tiers in between) . So if I'm Spotify and I pay platinum , it is extorting other players, especially small ones as they can't afford paying platinum level. This is even more true if ISP decide that only one music app can be platinum, forcing all music services to bid for that platinum spot, raising the cost for it even more. In the meantime, Backbone providers still provide Pandora, deezer, i<3 radio, and [new hot music startup, potentially more innovative than Spotify] at 250mbps to the consumer-facing ISP, but the consumer-facing ISP decided to create artifical scarcity and throttles those. A theoretical counter argument would simply say: but in that case free market would penalize that ISP as consumers would choose a different one. But I think that's a naive answer because : some people don't see/know the issue, Spotify is good enough, as lycos search and MySpace were good enough at their prime. and more importantly it's a fact that 3 out of 4 Americans do not have a choice in high speed broadband provider. And for those who do, they're sometimes locked in because they still want that cable TV bundled with it. (hypothetically, This would be even more true if that bundle TV provided HBO at 250mbps where regular HBO would be deprioritezed because they didn't pay the platinum level, instead Netflix got it. HBO was business savvy enough to get prioritized via the bundle story.)
logmeout 10y ago
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.

stcredzero 10y ago

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.

maxxxxx 10y ago

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.

pessimizer 10y ago

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.

jMyles 10y ago

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."

Animats 10y ago

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-neutrality-regulations-under-threat-trump-fcc-appointments https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/22/obama-net... [2] https://www.aei.org/publication/broadband-competition-in-the-internet-ecosystem/ https://www.aei.org/publication/broadband-competition-in-the... [3] http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/do-we-need-the-fcc/ http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/do-we-need-the...

brilliantcode 10y ago

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.

gaius 10y ago

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 10y ago
What does the Washington Post and Snowden have to do with them printing an article (not an editorial) on net neutrality?
- gaius 10y ago
  It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom of course.
  - grzm 10y ago
    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-doesnt-deserve-a-pardon/2016/09/17/ec04d448-7c2e-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesn...