Trump Appoints Third Net Neutrality Critic To FCC Advisory Team (dslreports.com) 191
Last week, President-elect Donald Trump appointed two new advisers to his transition team that will oversee his FCC and telecommunications policy agenda. Trump has added a third adviser today who, like the other two advisers, is a staunch opponent of net neutrality regulations. DSLReports adds: The incoming President chose Roslyn Layton, a visiting fellow at the broadband-industry-funded American Enterprise Institute, to help select the new FCC boss and guide the Trump administration on telecom policy. Layton joins Jeffrey Eisenach, a former Verizon consultant and vocal net neutrality critic, and Mark Jamison, a former Sprint lobbyist that has also fought tooth and nail against net neutrality; recently going so far as to argue he doesn't think telecom monopolies exist. Like Eisenach and Jamison, Layton has made a career out of fighting relentlessly against most of the FCC's more consumer-focused efforts, including net neutrality, consumer privacy rules, and increased competition in the residential broadband space. Back in October, Layton posted an article to the AEI blog proclaiming that the FCC's new privacy rules, which give consumers greater control over how their data is collected and sold, were somehow part of a "partisan endgame of corporate favoritism" that weren't necessary and only confused customers. Layton also has made it abundantly clear she supports zero rating, the practice of letting ISPs give their own (or high paying partners') content cap-exemption and therefore a competitive advantage in the market. She has similarly, again like Eisenach and Jamison, supported rolling back the FCC's classification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II, which would kill the existing net neutrality rules and greatly weaken the FCC's ability to protect consumers.
Wish it was a joke. (Score:5, Funny)
A conman, racist and misogynist walk into a bar.
Bartender says: "What will it be Mr. Trump"
Re: (Score:2)
You believe you represent a majority?
Re: (Score:2)
You believe you represent a majority?
Only by about 2.4 million votes or so.
Trump won the election with the rules everyone knew (whether those are fair or not is another debate), but there's not really any reasonable way you can claim Trump represents the majority. Hillary got more votes overall.
Re: (Score:2)
I think AC was alluding to what he/she thought of the people who voted for Trump that are automatically racist and speaking from their (assumed) perspective.
Why not? (Score:2, Informative)
Since he also appointed a ex-Goldman Sachs executive for the Treasury...
Re: Why not? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, it's a good thing Clinton lost because she was so in bed with Wall Street. And I'm glad we got Trumpnwho is so anti establishment and he's gonna look out for us little people.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep.... more of the revolving door we have always had.
So far it seems like Trump is doing much of the same as everyone else who gets into higher office. Surround himself with the establishment and those who have monied interests in things going their way.
So much for draining the swamp... he will make the biggest swamp every in America.... Its going to be HUGE!
This won't end badly.. (Score:4, Insightful)
"which would kill the existing net neutrality rules and greatly weaken the FCC's ability to protect consumers."
Cool, now ISP's can be sued for copyright violations through their pipes! The most likely outcome will be that EU three-strikes regulations will seem pretty generous after the lobbies get at the bill that fills this regulatory void. My presumed outcome is that ISP's will disable service if a subscriber is accused of being in violation of copyright. The threat of direct law suits are just too high to simply give nominal protection to their customers (a large number of whom actually violate copyright laws daily). Oh, but there's some form of arbitration which makes Youtube's take-down system seem fair and balanced.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be great if ISP's were actually held liable? They would be begging to be put under common carrier regulation within days!
Uhmmm IIRC the US gained a six strike system back in 2012
https://torrentfreak.com/isp-s... [torrentfreak.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Far more likely they'd just immediately knuckle under to the MPAA/RIAA/etc and grant them the power to basically demand that a given user get cut off from the internet, without so much as a chance to defend themselves. That's what the media cartels REALLY want.
Worse, most of the media owners increasingly now ARE your ISP, so they wouldn't even have to go to court, just send over an interoffice email.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there aren't really that many use cases for really fast connections for personal use. HD streaming, even 4K streaming won't saturate a 100Mbit/s link, but heavy torrenting definitely will.
The biggest pirates also buy the fastest connections and pay the biggest subscriptions.
Unless of course the ISPs want to focus on just business customers, who can definitely saturate a 1Gbit/s link no problem, given enough employees. But that's a much smaller and tougher market, which requires significantly more reso
Re: This won't end badly.. (Score:2)
Cool, now ISP's can be sued for copyright violations through their pipes!
Net neutrality has nothing to do with this issue, and FCC Commissioners can't change it anyway. But thanks for the red herring.
The law you're referring to is the Safe Harbor provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It's a law that was passed by Congress (with bipartisan support) and then signed into law by the President. Because Safe Harbor is part of a law, the only way for Trump to get rid of Safe Harbor is to get majorities in Congress to pass a second law repealing it. The FCC has nothing to do
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, now ISP's can be sued for copyright violations through their pipes!
That's easy to deal with. Just split up the internet into bundled access so that you can pay for the parts you want just like cable. Then they can control what you do and don't see on the internet. Problem solved.
"Make American Great (for a few) again!" (Score:3, Insightful)
Has Trump made any appointments that could even be perceived as being for the good of the general public? Virtually all the ones I've heard of sound like the most obvious form of industry/'conservative" shills possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Seem so.
I think this will be the most corporate-centric administration ever.
The twist might be a bit of anti-globalism... but if a company has a veneer of being pro-US and pro-Trump, then they will largely be lauded up and down and given the keys to the kingdom.
Re: (Score:2)
It wont be anti-globalism because anti-globalism is inherently anti-corporatism. Anti-globalism would hurt Trump's own businesses and whilst he may have claimed to have stepped back from them (for at least 4 years) he'll still want his family to be getting rich off them.
I suspect you'll see targetted protectionism however claimed as anti-globalism - i.e. "We're placing sanctions on the Chinese because we're anti-global" when in fact those sanctions will just be targetted protectionism against say China's fi
Re: (Score:2)
I agree... more of a veneer of anti-globalism was what I was meaning. The appearance of anti-globalism... but meanwhile going gang-busters like kids in a candy store.
Little restraint.... under the very thin veneer.
Of course everything will be for the benefit of the citizens as always.
Take that corporate America! (Score:3)
Seriously - I want to hear from an avid trump supporter on how this - as well as his other cabinet appointments is draining the swamp (of special interest lobbyists).
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously - I want to hear from an avid trump supporter on how this - as well as his other cabinet appointments is draining the swamp (of special interest lobbyists).
I don't think any of them thought that far ahead. Do you expect logic and reason from people who come up with a heckle like 'keep your government hands off my Medicare.'?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a strawman - I'd be happy if banned Schmidt and Zuckerberg as well from influencing politics as well.
It will create jobs too - lawyers who will line up to start litigating end users.
Plus - get a job at any ISP - we already pay for peering - this isn't about that really - it's about companies being able to actively punish ISP's for NOT paying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Leftists complaining (Score:3)
Seriously - I want to hear from an avid trump supporter on how this - as well as his other cabinet appointments is draining the swamp (of special interest lobbyists).
Firstly, this isn't a cabinet appointment.
As to draining the swamp, he's already done this [politico.com].
Thirdly, he's not in office yet, wait to see what he actually does.
And finally, you always have to ask "compared to what?"
The Democrats have no vision or leadership on this issue, or any other.
Calling Trump bad on his choices is all they have.
Re:Leftists complaining (Score:4, Funny)
Right - so he's ok banning lobbyists, unless they actually work for him (Treasury Secretary as an example).
Re: (Score:1)
As to draining the swamp, he's already done this [politico.com].
Thanks for that link, interesting. I have to rebut it a little, from the article:
- This is actually a loosening of his earlier one.
- It's just a promise, which any politician disposes of quickly, and there's already a lot of his transition team members in clear violation of it.
- There's also a similar pledge the Obama administration put in effect (also broken for some new hires), with possibly a more stringent definition in the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and it applied a year in advance instead of 5 yea
Re: (Score:3)
There are lots of great rules that could be enacted to break the lobbying power.5 year ban in the link above would be a good start, but it is unlikely to come up for a vote. Too many people are part of the revolving door.
Re: (Score:3)
It's interesting that you feel the need to drag the democrats in to answer a question about how this action matches his campaign promises.
Re: (Score:2)
JFC you're dumb
Blame? (Score:2)
It will be interesting to see if Drumpf supporters will blame Drumpf when they suddenly have to pay their ISP extra in order to reasonably stream Netflix videos, and more again to watch youtube videos, and more again to listen to spotify...
Somehow I doubt it... they'll just blame the greedy corporations for doing what capitalist corporations do without recognizing the hypocrisy of loudly complaining about capitalists while staunchly supporting capitalism.
Yes, net neutrality is dead (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not seeing Hillary being a hero for that
http://www.insidesources.com/h... [insidesources.com]
Re: (Score:2)
not seeing Hillary being a hero for that
Clinton might have just played footy with the subject for four years and have been replaced. Trump, on the other hand, is lining up to take a gigantic shit on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump can be replaced easily in four years too if the Democrats run a serious candidate instead of the farce that was Hillary. Hope they learned their lesson and get serious, otherwise you'll have Trump-type presidents until the end of time
Re: (Score:2)
The republicans made it very clear they were done with the usual cast of character
What will happen? (Score:2)
Shaping, slowness, data caps, offers of pay for speed become the norm on many local ISP contracts.
A user in an inner city area then has the option of one or two slow or really expensive ISP plans.
If the users wants media from a server on the other side of the USA or in a fly over state they will have to pay for an extra fast account per month.
Internet brands that have formed monopolies, duopolies or non compete cartels will get exposed as m
Re: (Score:2)
Pay up and hope it will be different this time or build a real network.
I vote for that second one. We need a meshing network built from the ground up for security. Something with flood prevention built right in, where you can actually tell the next hop to stop flooding you and have it forwarded along the chain (and telling them is itself cryptographically secure to avoid spoofing, to avoid using it for DoSing.) Ring- or Star-wired networks are inherently vulnerable to bad actors.
Wish granted (Score:2)
FTC, not FCC, is the correct agency. (Score:3)
Most of the harm from ISP misbehavior is the manifestation of one of two perverse-incentive situations:
- integration of an ISP into a content-provider megacorp, leading to penalization of competitors or other perceived threats to the larger content-providing component.
- an under-competitive market situation (monopoly, duopoly, other under-four-competitors) situation, allowing ISPs to provide less than they promised or less than what is expected of "internet service" without a "vote with their feet" option for customers.
Both of these are not internet-technology issues and both are things the FCC handles poorly, and which are outside its mandate. They're better handled by such agencies as the FTC and DOJ, under antitrust and consumer fraud models, than by the FCC.
With respect to the content-provider/ISP vertical integration issue: Trump has already come out opposing the ATT/ Time-Warner merger. Additionally, the mainstream media's pile-on against his campaign has left him with no love for the "content providers". I'd be willing to bet that he'd be all for antitrust action to split up the other ISP ("content transport") / news reporting ("content generation") partnerships under the rubric of "breaking up anticompetitive vertical integration". B-)
Re:Slashdot is officially worse than breitbart now (Score:5, Informative)
With the sensational leftist tabloid boogeyman headlines and clickbait articles, this isn't the site for me anymore. You've jumped the shark /. kindly go fuckoff and join all the other extremist sites while I go search for tech news that matters.
What part of "Trump Appoints Third Net Neutrality Critic To FCC Advisory Team" is not completely factual? You may not like the facts but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be reported.
Re:Slashdot is officially worse than breitbart now (Score:4, Informative)
One has to understand, for Trump supporters, facts don't matter.
Not his use of illegal foreign workers (which he stiffed on paying), not his doing business with an Iranian bank which funds terrorists, not his use of Chinese rather than American steel, not his doing business with Cuba while it was under sanctions, not his assaults on women, not the fact his casinos never turned a profit while he personally ran them, not that his casinos went bankrupt more than once, not the multiple failed businesses, not the 4,000 lawsuits he's been involved in, not his "foundation" from which he illegally paid his legal and personal bills, not to mention the same "foundation" illegally buying him things, not the fact his corrupt "foundation" was barred from soliciting donations in the entire state of New York, not that he called people in the military idiots and stupid, or defamed a military family whose son died defending this country, not that he dodged the draft while claiming possibly getting an STD from sleeping around was his personal Vietnam, or the litany of other facts about him.
Nope. None of those facts matter. They're nothing more than sensational lies from the "extremist" left.
Re:Slashdot is officially worse than breitbart now (Score:5, Informative)
You forgot to mention the Trump University [wikipedia.org] that
was also the subject of two class action lawsuits in federal court. The lawsuits centered around allegations that Trump University defrauded its students by using misleading marketing practices and engaging in aggressive sales tactics. Trump settled all three lawsuits in November 2016, after being elected to the presidency; he agreed to pay a total of $25 million.
No, Trump supporters don't give a crap about the fact that their messiah is a Bullshitter in Chief. Maybe they are just stupid. Really, really stupid people.
Re:Slashdot is officially worse than breitbart now (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Trump supporters don't give a crap about the fact that their messiah is a Bullshitter in Chief. Maybe they are just stupid. Really, really stupid people.
What they are is angry people. He has managed to tap into anger that has been cultivated over the past 20 some years.
And anger is seldom concerned with facts. It only knows it is angry.
It also tends to stay angry, and is very difficult to control, usually requiring a ramping up of that anger, because the angry will turn on others in an instant.
Hell, after winning possibly the biggest upset in history, when what would otherwise be a time of celebration, its pretty evident that the anger of his supporters hasn't subsided a bit. The people who have lost are angry, yet orders of magnitude less angry than the winners.
Re: Slashdot is officially worse than breitbart no (Score:5, Informative)
Or maybe they had nothing too lose and voting for trump was more of a f u to the rest of the nation http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]?
Nothing to lose? How about their Medicare? If Obamacare is repealed, the Medicare expansion dies and all those red states populated with lots of new Medicare patients are fucked. See Kentucky, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Sucks to be us...
provocation and trolling- Trump gets it. (Score:1)
I won't bother finding the youtube link for you, but go watch the Kahn family on the DNC nomination stage. You are just as guilty of Trumpesque distortion when you imply that Trump's behavior was not partially justified as defensive political reaction. If the Kahn family didn't *want* to provoke a very public response from a presidential candidate, they could have chosen a much less gauntlet-level initiation of their free speech. Trump
Re: (Score:2)
really? because you should watch the video, as your remarks are off base.
what the Khan family did and said was in no way inflammatory or poorly thought out, but completely justified and rational.
both at the convention and the later campaign ad ("Mr. Trump, would my dead son have a place in your America?")
the sequence of events:
-Trump calls for Muslim ban, for registration of people "from certain areas"
-Khan family, and other military families too by the way, as well as current past veterans who are Muslim,
Re: (Score:1)
FTFY. Iran hasn't attacked another country since the War of 1812, and the people it funds are resisting the terrorism of the United States and it's Gulf Coast allies.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality has a well known anti-American Exceptionalist bias. [wearechange.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Well, the Left and the Democrats have only themselves to blame. We all know this, right? Voting for Trump was the last, desperate move of ordinary Americans whose backs were up against the wall. Hillary promised open borders, Trans-Pacific Partnership, more free trade, more H1Bs, more exporting of jobs, and everything the heartless globalist political class wanted. They were going to stick it to America and they were going to make it HURT. On November 8th Americans' vision of America was going to die,
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the Left and the Democrats have only themselves to blame.
But you are happy now correct? I mean you won, and will get to implement policies and laws that will repair the damage that the embedded enemies of our country have done to our country.
America stands on the cusp of greatness again, and we must not allow anything to stand in the way of that return to greatness.
Meanwhile you're invited to my popcorn party. Tequila and Jaeger on tap.
Re:Slashdot is officially worse than breitbart now (Score:4, Insightful)
Hillary promised none of those things, you are once again spouting BS.
and like trump supporters, you also exhibit the ability to ignore that things are in the best shape they have been in decades, say "everything is s---", and vote for the guy who will actually turn it to s---.
and don't talk about compassion.
trumpers have no room, none, to speak about "learning compassion".
that is such bs.
Re:Slashdot is officially worse than breitbart now (Score:5, Insightful)
hell, for trump supporters even Trumps own words do not matter.
Multiple sources, including an opinion piece (on CNN!!! the normalizing fools!) actually state "stop taking Trump literally", "stop believing everything he says".... and this is from people who supported him on the basis that "he tells it like it is" !!!
WTF is wrong with these idiots?!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forget, reality has a tilt to the left, at least if you go buy idiots like the grandparent.
Trump is anti net-neutrality, this should NOT be a surprise to his supporters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot is officially worse than breitbart now (Score:5, Informative)
No, reality is things like:
- evolution and global warming actually exist
- the country is actually in the best shape it's been in decades
- equality of civil rights is not special rights
- Obama not only didn't wage a war on fossil fuels, but oversaw the largest increase in production basically ever, such that the US is actually now the world's largest producer, and is reaping record profits
- Obama simultaneously oversaw the explosion of the "green revolution" and its industry, creating another explosion of entrepreneurs and jobs in a developing industry
- Obama actually delivered on all the economic promises of his defeated opponents (and then some), oversaw the longest streak of consecutive economic and job growth, and the largest rise in wages in decades
- Obama improved America's standing in the world following the disastrous years of Bush the Lesser, and that we have assisted or taken the lead in several international agreements (Paris climate agreement, TPP (for good or ill), Iran Nuclear deal, etc) leading to an improvement in international relations
Each of which are things whose existence is only denied by American conservatives.
- they, as a party platform, question or outright deny the existence of basic scientific facts
- they say the country is falling apart
- they think granting LGBT the right to marry, or buy goods and services, just llike everyone else is "special" rights, somehow
- they think Obama tried, and has, killed the fossil fuel industry
- they think the green revolution is sham that wasted taxpayer dollars
- they, contrary to all evidence otherwise, maintain that unemployment now...RIGHT NOW...is higher than it was in the great depression
- they think the country is a laughing stock right now, because of Obama, and that no one respects us....that somehow the years of Bush the Lesser were a high point in out international relations
Re: (Score:2)
With the sensational leftist tabloid boogeyman headlines and clickbait articles, this isn't the site for me anymore. You've jumped the shark /. kindly go fuckoff and join all the other extremist sites while I go search for tech news that matters.
What part of "Trump Appoints Third Net Neutrality Critic To FCC Advisory Team" is not completely factual? You may not like the facts but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be reported.
Its interesting, in a previous article about Il Don being banned from Twitter, Pepe' is all frothing at the mouth about banning his free speech. Yet we come with a story about their guy appointing an opponent of net neutrality, and we get Pepe' in shitfit rage about "sensational leftist tabloid" bullshit.
It is a bit worrisome when a subject such as net neutrality, which at one time would have been important because net neutrality is or should be important to "nerds", is subject to this level of attack. Is
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Starting to suffer ?!? Sit down. I have something to tell you and it's going to make you sad.
Well yeah - it doesn't really suffer from that until I leave......... 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot has been shit since around the time CmdrTaco left.
That is about right.
Re:Slashdot is officially worse than breitbart now (Score:5, Insightful)
OP here, knowing the usual subjects would try and known be down a peg or two for throwing in the towel in trying to enjoy a tech site for nerds when it's nothing but a flood of butthurt liberal editors smearing our president every chance they get with propaganda I decided it deserves one final message.
You haven't said what you think this so called "propaganda" is -- the headline and summary are factual and don't even say that opposition to net neutrality is "bad", they just pointed out that the weakening of net neutrality policies is consumer un-friendly and will be a boost to large ISP's. That's hardly a controversial opinion and many conservatives think it's a good thing. This same article could be posted on a conservative news site and it would be applauded as a step in the right direction.
If you take offense at your own political party's policies, then maybe you're supporting the wrong party?
Re: (Score:1)
>you're supporting the wrong party?
your parties are both wrong.
Re:Slashdot is officially worse than breitbart now (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing sensational, leftist, or tabloidish about this story.
Net neutrality is a frequent topic of discussion on Slashdot. Anything that the President-elect does that could affect it is news for nerds and stuff that matters.
Re: (Score:1)
You can pretty much see the painting on the wall. Politics has all but ruined Slashdot. I've been here around 16 years, and I've never been more driven to quit entirely. The site and the community over the last year has degenerated from critical/debating to dogmatic/adhominem.
Re:Slashdot is officially worse than breitbart now (Score:4, Insightful)
You can pretty much see the painting on the wall. Politics has all but ruined Slashdot. I've been here around 16 years, and I've never been more driven to quit entirely. The site and the community over the last year has degenerated from critical/debating to dogmatic/adhominem.
Slashdot is at a point where netnews was 10 or so years ago. There were some groups that I frequented for electronics and amateur radio. But the kooks were taking over. Some folks from West Virginia who were suffering from severe psycho-sexual issues were carrying on the equivalent of a bar room brawl. Then there was the guy who was opening a shitload of mail accounts in order to get around our blocking him. And none of these posts had a thing to do with the topic. Eventually, after finding perhaps one post out of several hundred that was worth reading, and looking at my blocklist, I came to the conclusion that there was no point in being there. Meanwhile every other legitimate poster was also vacating the premises, leaving the place to the rabble who destroyed it.
Interestingly, after wrecking the place, the nuts left as well. Seems part of the fun was pissing off the rest of us. Leaving behind a graveyard to today.
This is where Slashdot finds itself today. A place where in order to get any on-topic or intelligent conversation, I have to read with the filters set pretty high. Which as it turns out, hides most of the posts in any story.
Slashdot is on the cusp of going the way of netnews.
Re: (Score:1)
As an AC, you're not coming here. You don't exist. Your word (and mine) are nonexistent. So feel free to leave, because you already said so 3 times in this thread. (At least you can't prove you didn't, and this is enough for me)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like stories about American issues spend time on forums in your own country. It's not our fault no-one uses them, it's yours.
Re:Slashdot is officially worse than breitbart now (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't actually have to be about politics at all to get people riles.
You can say just about anything and it will end up being trolled by political zealots.
It is the new reality... let us hope that eventually it falls off just like it rose up.
Re: (Score:2)
But that is just the point.
Interesting comments get modded down for not conforming to this or that zealots liking
Has nothing to do with actual content or quality of the post so much as perception of content in many cases.
Some are just hunkered down in ideologic bunkers sniping whenever anything they don't think they approve of passes their way.
I dunno... (Score:4, Interesting)
There's nothing sensational, leftist, or tabloidish about this story.
Net neutrality is a frequent topic of discussion on Slashdot. Anything that the President-elect does that could affect it is news for nerds and stuff that matters.
I dunno - it sure seems sensational, leftish, and tabloidish to me.
The left is carping on every slight aspect of everything Trump does, and in a negative tone.
Honestly, we don't know *what* will happen in the future, and even if the absolute worst case imaginable for this specific issue... nothing will change.
As far as I can tell, there's no legislation demanding net neutrality in the US. We have an FCC regulation that's been tied up in court for a year and a half, and meanwhile Comcast is free to degrade Netflix and demand an internet levy on Netflix as a customer.
I further note that Trump has a tendency to be concerned with voter needs as opposed to corporate needs, and wants to build up his brand by being the best president in the last 50 years, and the best of all time if possible. He also has shown a willingness to take actions in contradiction to advice(*).
We don't know what he'll do, but it can't be much worse than what was done under Bush, or under Obama. Which was basically "companies can do what they want, the US government can do what it wants, and screw the needs of the people".
Obama expanded internet surveillance, and spent trillions on unneeded military buildup [wikipedia.org] while letting our own infrastructure decay. It's been that way for years, coming up on decades.
Is appointing a net-neutrality opponent really that sensational?
I suppose if you're a Democrat, it is.
We elected Trump for the actions he will take.
So far, he hasn't really done anything except prevent a bunch of jobs from leaving the US.
(*) Hillary chose to take out Qaddafi in contradiction to advice as well. The advice pointed out that it would lead to the formation of ISIS, but it was her decision to make.
Re: (Score:2)
So far, he hasn't really done anything except prevent a bunch of jobs from leaving the US.
Looks like you're swallowing the output of Trump's propaganda department hook, line and sinker.
Now, other than that smoke screen, what he has actually been doing so far is to tap into the drain spigot of the DC swamp to fill up his administration. This story is yet another example.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The left is carping on every slight aspect of everything Trump does, and in a negative tone.
Not everything
Just the outlandishly stupid, illegal, or dangerous stuff. If that feels like everything, well ...
Re: (Score:2)
Is it left to take the side that the internet should be left as it is and has been? I thought of keeping things largely as they are as a conservative thing in general or at least in the sense of what the word conservative means.
"Is appointing a net-neutrality opponent really that sensational?"
It is when you are reading about something that has been covered and talked about for the longest time on this site.
It seems like the vast majority of people on tech sites are not particularly interested in having the
Re:I dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
The left is carping on every slight aspect of everything Trump does, and in a negative tone.
How would you report this? Seems like you have two options, report the appointment but fail to mention the guy's public position that may be of great concern to many of your readers, or ignore it because you don't like the criticism of Trump's appointment.
Which are you advocating?
Honestly, we don't know *what* will happen in the future, and even if the absolute worst case imaginable for this specific issue... nothing will change.
The Republicans have been talking about destroying net neutrality for a long time, and now control the presidency, both houses and the SCOTUS. The guy in who will be president is appointing people who want to get rid of neutrality rules. How on earth can you conclude that the "worst case imaginable" is for nothing to change? That seems like the least likely scenario of them all.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno - it sure seems sensational, leftish, and tabloidish to me.
I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
except he didn't stop the jobs from leaving.
Pence did.
the plant is in Indiana.
Pence is still governor of Indiana for a few a weeks.
Pence promised a continuation of some economic incentives.
cities, legislatures, and governors do this all the time, its nothing special.
and in return carrier will keep ~40% of the jobs here.
the other 60% of jobs are still going to mexico.
trump is simply going to take credit for something would have happened anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: I dunno... (Score:5, Informative)
We know exactly how the clintons made themselves rich because its all in their tax returns. Returns that go back like 40 years.
Bill did tons of speaking tours, raking it in from people with more money than sense who wanted to rub shoulders with a former president.
He wrote a couple of books that got crazy absurd advances.
Hillary did a bunch of speeches in front of similar too-rich-for-their-own-good fools she parted from their money and wrote a couple of less lucrative books.
So, absolutely nothing like trump's modus operandi of fucking over regular schlubs just because they can't afford to fight back. [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Bing Bing Bing... you win the prize for unearthing the falseness and misguidedness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing sensational, leftist, or tabloidish about this story.
Net neutrality is a frequent topic of discussion on Slashdot. Anything that the President-elect does that could affect it is news for nerds and stuff that matters.
What is interesting is that the anger in some folks was stoked to such a level that they now oppose net neutrality, based on the next occupant's appointments. I have to imagine that once upon a time, opposition to net neutrality would have approached 100 percent in here.
Re: (Score:1)
With the sensational leftist tabloid boogeyman headlines and clickbait articles, this isn't the site for me anymore. You've jumped the shark /. kindly go fuckoff and join all the other extremist sites while I go search for tech news that matters.
Your shrill little tirade would be worth discussing if you hadn't posted as an AC; but since you couldn't be bothered to log in first, or were so embarrassed that even pseudonymity wouldn't do, then good luck, and good riddance to you.
Re: (Score:1)
With the sensational leftist tabloid boogeyman headlines and clickbait articles, this isn't the site for me anymore. You've jumped the shark /. kindly go fuckoff and join all the other extremist sites while I go search for tech news that matters.
How is it sensational?
Donald Trump has appointed people who are in fact against network neutrality...
Those people have been on the payroll of big ISPs to specifically oppose net neutrality and their opinions are a matter of public record!
If you don't think net neutrality **matters** then you are badly misinformed and brainwashed by right-wing propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
Those people have been on the payroll of big ISPs to specifically oppose net neutrality and their opinions are a matter of public record!
Not Roslyn Layton who is the subject of the story. She was "a visiting fellow at the broadband-industry-funded American Enterprise Institute". Which is far from "being on the payroll". After all, the US government is also funded by the broadband industry via taxes. Is President Obama thus on the payroll too?
The story is packed full of innuendo.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you don't think net neutrality **matters** then you are badly misinformed and brainwashed by right-wing propaganda.
If you think the "Net Neutrality(TM)" regulations in question, cooked up by a bunch of K Street lobbyists, bankers, megacorps, and PACs, bear even a passing resemblance to what people here understand as actual network-level "net neutrality", then you, Sir, are both naive and a fool.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
When the price of Amazon Prime and Netflix go through the roof while Hulu or some ISP video service get a big pricing and performance advantage, we will see how you feel.
As awful as Trump being president will be, I'm going to enjoy all the Trump supporters as it dawned on them just how much their little protest vote is going to fuck things up.
Re: (Score:2)
As awful as Trump being president will be, I'm going to enjoy all the Trump supporters as it dawned on them just how much their little protest vote is going to fuck things up.
I think you're going to be disappointed. Even after being in charge of 4 branches of government, I bet the excuse for when anything goes wrong will be "but Hillary".
Re: (Score:1)
He could be found in bed with a dead girl, a live boy and a Mexican Muslim and his supporters would find a way to say he was a genius for doing it.
Thats the most American thing ive ever heard a Liberal say! Congratulations!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What and use MuchbetterCO? Their service is laggy and the picture quality is awful when it does load I think they need better servers on their end because I pay $5,000/mo for a 50,000Mbps connection (no not really this is an example chill) so it's not on my end and my ISP BestISP says everything is fine (MuchbetterCO hasn't paid BestISP extortion for fair access to their customers and customers unable to see BestISP's interferance blame MuchbetterCO)
That's sounds familiar..... oh yeah that's exactly what Co
Re: (Score:2)
With the sensational leftist tabloid boogeyman headlines and clickbait articles, this isn't the site for me anymore. You've jumped the shark /. kindly go fuckoff and join all the other extremist sites while I go search for tech news that matters.
Breitbart - whether you agree w/ it or not - is at least something that was created for political news, and dedicated to a particular POV - specifically, a right wing POV. Slashdot, OTOH, was originally a tech centric site - online, and more FOSS leaning than, say, BYTE used to be when it was around. It's gone from that to heavy clickbait articles on things like climate, politics, Uber, et al, instead of remaining dedicated to tech centric issues
Re:Jesus fucking christ NO ONE CARES (Score:4)
jesus how ignorant are you?
yes, the appointee needs the approval of congress....a congress controlled by the party that opposes net neutrality
no, the democrats didn't have a supermajority in the congress. if they had, the republicans wouldn't have been able to block them at every turn. that's the point of a super majority
no, they aren't the exact same:
-Hillary didn't mock a disabled person on national television
-Hillary didn't describe and brag about sexual assault
-Hillary didn't claim that paying employees for work done was a sacrifice equivalent to a father's loss of a son to combat
-Hillary didn't exhibit both explicit and coded racism on the complain trail on multiple occasions
-Hillary didn't silence dissent at rallies and suggest that "maybe they deserved to be roughed up a bit", or later excuse supporters who committed violent assault against someone based on race
-Hillary didn't have multiple and ongoing legal battles in the campaign involving fraud or sexual assault, or multiple past lawsuits involving discriminatory housing practices
how long does this list need to be before you realize that you're full of cr-- ?
Re: (Score:2)
YOU personally are too stupid to realize they are both exactly the same.
Nope. None of the candidates on either side were exactly the same as Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
"Your team lost. Deal with it, and shut the fuck up about who Trump appoints...."
Huh? That makes zero sense.
Any citizen or non citizen can comment on anything about what Trump does or doesn't do.....
Right now he is lining up appointments.... people will say stuff about that.
Get used to it. We will have 4-8 years of heavy heavy commentary on everything Trump does... just like their was for Obama and Bush before him and Clinton before him... ....
Each an every day there will be hundreds of news pieces on Trump
Re: (Score:1)