How so-called ‘net neutrality’ will fare under President Trump

“With news this week about the nomination of Ajit Pai as the next chair of the FCC, much of the attention has focused on his stance on net neutrality and the likelihood the existing rules on net neutrality will be dismantled,” Jan Dawson writes for Tech.pinions. “However, net neutrality is a complex topic; even the definition of net neutrality is subject to widely differing interpretations. It’s worth breaking down exactly what’s likely to change and what isn’t at a Pai FCC.”

“The first challenge here is defining net neutrality. A very general definition would be it refers to treating all internet traffic equally. It sometimes seems as if some people really do believe net neutrality can only merit the name if it’s really that broad. But that would preclude any sort of network prioritization which puts time sensitive packets above non-time sensitive packets and would also preclude any sort of prioritization by user or content at times of congestion on the network. Most reasonable people seem to at least leave some leeway for sensible network management in order to improve the performance of services subject to delays, such as voice and video calling or live video streaming,” Dawson writes. “Beyond that, the consensus breaks down very quickly.”

“we’re unlikely to see an apocalyptic end to the internet as we know it, even if the FCC begins taking apart the present net neutrality regulations,” Dawson writes. “We will likely see more zero rating and similar programs which don’t prioritize or degrade traffic but merely apply different data pricing to it. If you object to that kind of thing as a breach of net neutrality, you’re likely to be upset but most consumers will be either blissfully unaware or happy about it.”

Much more in the full article – highly recommendedhere.

MacDailyNews Take: Arguing about so-called “net neutrality” is like arguing about the shape of fog. The lack of (a common) definition obviates rational discussion.

New FCC chairman Ajit Pai vows to take a ‘weed whacker’ to so-called ‘net neutrality’ – January 24, 2017
President Trump elevates Ajit Pai to FCC Chairman – January 23, 2017
Outgoing FCC chief Tom Wheeler offers final defense of so-called ‘net neutrality’ – January 13, 2017
Under President Trump, Obama ally Google may face policy setbacks, including roll back of so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – November 18, 2016
Jeb Bush on FCC and so-called ‘net neutrality’ regulation: ‘One of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard’ – March 8, 2015
Who loves the FCC’s overreach on so-called ‘net neutrality?’ Telecom lawyers – March 5, 2015
Legal battles loom over FCC’s so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – February 26, 2015
U.S. FCC OKs so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules on party-line vote – February 26, 2015
U.S. FCC’s rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ expected to unleash slew of court challenges – February 26, 2015
EFF: ‘We are deeply concerned; FCC’s new rules include provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach’ – February 25, 2015
The U.S. FCC’s Orwellian Internet policy – February 25, 2015
Democratic FCC commissioner balks at so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – February 24, 2015
FCC chief pressed to release proposed regulations governing so-called ‘net neutrality’ – February 23, 2015
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai: Obama’s plan a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet – February 10, 2015
Congress launches investigation as Republicans claim Obama had ‘improper influence’ over so-called ‘net neutrality’ – February 7, 2015
FCC chairman proposes to regulate ISP’s under Title II – February 4, 2015
U.S. congressional Republicans’ bill aims to head off Obama’s so-called ‘net neutrality’ plan – January 17, 2015
U.S. Congressional proposal offers Internet rules of the road – January 15, 2015
U.S. FCC says it will vote on so-called ‘net neutrality’ in February – January 3, 2015
FCC hopes its rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ survive inevitable litigation – November 22, 2014
Obama-appointed FCC chairman distances himself from Obama on so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 12, 2014
What does so-called ‘net neutrality’ mean for Apple? – November 12, 2014
AT&T to pause fiber investment until net neutrality rules are decided – November 12, 2014
There’s no one to root for in the debate over so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 11, 2014
U.S. FCC plays Russian Roulette with so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 11, 2014
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner: Republicans will continue efforts to stop misguided scheme to regulate the Internet – November 10, 2014
Tech Freedom: Obama cynically exploits confusion over Title II, misses opportunity to lead on legislative deal – November 10, 2014
Obama want FCC to regulate the Internet; Cruz calls it ‘Obamacare for the Internet’ – November 10, 2014


  1. Yes, net neutrality will be killed, most probably. Google, Amazon, corporate media will buy fast traffic from cable and cellular providers such as Comcast and Verizon, while smaller sites such as MDN will become slow.

  2. Maybe soon you’ll be able to read blogs after subscribing to a Premium Social Media package, a great add-on if you upgrade today to the Pro-level Internet Access at your data-cap level. You’ll be able to read Approved Blogs from our exclusive Partner catalog, non-throttled!

  3. comrade Trumps sophisticated understanding of the internet is astounding. His refusal to stop tweeting on his vulnerable device provides a nice pipeline for his Russian handlers. I’m confused. Didn’t he want to lock Hillary up for her insecure email server? Perhaps his new FCC
    chief will straighten this all up.

    1. “Comrade” “Russian handlers”?

      Russia is not communist for decades already, and it is time to stop with the zero evidence Alex Jones-level lunacy about Russia that Democratic oligarchy uses to avoid responsibility for undermining democracy by rigging primaries against Bernard Sanders.

  4. The one way I see it, is to do it at packet level.
    Each website gets a turn with one packet moving thru the router.
    That would work for average web pages. What happens when someone wants to stream a movie from Netflix? Just because it’s one file it does not count as one item. That movie is equal to about 4,000 webpage views, so stand in line at the router while each service gets its turn to push thru it’s packet.

    Not gonna happen, but at the packet level it would be fair.

  5. They need to stop Comcast and others from limiting downloads and put something in place so it stays unlimited before streaming TV becomes more mainstream and they start Tiers up!

  6. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

    Trump is a horrific fascist mentally ill disaster.

    We ain’t seen nothing yet.

    Sad. Go ahead. Keep normalizing and defending him. Then look in the mirror, get tested…

    1. Apparently, president Trump gave a TV interview yesterday. I read the transcript. Most of the interview focused on the important issues for the nation: size of the inauguration crowd, outcome of the popular vote in the election, and the reception of his CIA speech…

      They did talk a little bit about the Mexican wall, Chicago crime, few other issues. But main focus was on the pressing issue of the crowd size at the inauguration.

    2. Based on that interview last night, it seems that Trump has a very hard time accepting that sometimes he isn’t the best. While he likes to say that he had the highest inauguration TV ratings, that isn’t actually correct (31 million for Trump, 38 million for Obama, 42 million for Reagan). As for that inauguration attendance, scientists estimate:

      Obama 2009: 1.5m
      Obama 2013: 1m
      Clinton 1993: 800k
      Trump: 300-600k
      Bush 2001: 300k
      Clinton 1997: 250k

      It is quite straightforward to estimate, with reasonable accuracy, the number of people at a specific known site by analysing enough photographs (including aerial / satellite) that clearly show coverage.

      Trump seems to be obsessed by the situations in which he was NOT the best, the most popular, the highest rated. They seem to gnaw at him, he simply cannot let go of the fact that 3M more people voted for the other candidate, that 7M more people tuned in to watch the other guy’s inauguration, that 1M more people came to the Mall to be there for the inauguration…

      I cannot understand, why is he so obsessed with these things? He would be scoring many more points with ordinary people if he simply ignored the taunts from the liberal pundits about these crowd sizes, or TV audience sizes, or popular vote defeat. By constantly obsessing about them, he keeps playing into their hands; instead of discussion about policy and what he’s doing (and he is clearly doing stuff), all the media is talking about is his petulant responses about how he would have campaigned in California or New York, and how the crowd size was tremendous….

      1. Five points:

        • Washington DC is 51% black, a population that (stupidly) votes 95% Democrat (meaning the party can count on their votes while totally ignoring their plight simply by giving “black” issues cursory lip service every four years). Yes, snowflakes, I’m “racist.” (sarcasm)

        • Washington DC is a company town. Some 40% of DC workers work for the government. They have a vested interest in government, not in shrinking it. They therefore back Democrats who like to grow government.

        • They all walked a few blocks to watch the Oblahblah mistake get sworn in.

        • On top of all of that, it rained during Trump’s Inauguration.

        • Oblahblah finished his tenure with a 47.9% average job approval rating, ranking below eight presidents, including Richard Nixon, and ahead of only three — Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman — in Gallup’s polling history (you won’t ever see this news in the leftist, biased MSM, of course):

        1. 47.9% — thanks for bring that up. Finishing this month 4% higher than Trump is STARTING with… the lowest start EVER for any president, since these figures have been measured.

        2. Whoa. Did F2T2 just call Trump a liar? I think he did – Trump says his crowd was bigger, but F2T2 is saying it was not and giving whiny complaints on why not.

          Man, F2T2, what are the other right-wingers gonna do to you at parties, now that you’ve shown your disloyalty by not just repeating the same lies as your hero?

          1. Come on, coward.
            Let us know whether you intentionally are calling Trump a liar or whether you’re just trying to bury us in bullshit.
            Trump says it was NOT smaller, and you’re saying it was smaller but there’s an excuse.
            Which is it?

        3. Google is a great thing; it helps easily confirm or debunk anything.

          Washington, D.C. has total population of around 600,000 people. If what you say is correct, and the population there is 51% black, then even if every single black man, woman and child from DC who voted for Obama showed up on the mall for the inauguration, that would still only inflate the number by around 300,000. If all those black people from D.C. stayed home for that inauguration, Obama’s attendance would still have been higher than anyone else, and still almost three times higher than Trump.

          Rain is definitely a plausible excuse, but the forecast was for 30% chance, and a trip to the inauguration from out of town tends to be planned well in advance that weather forecast doesn’t come into play. And those who traveled to D.C. for this were unlikely to stay in their hotel and watch it on TV, just because there was a chance it would rain. So, certainly, the number was depressed due to that rain, but by how much, we won’t know.

          One thing is clear: there are no landslide victories in America anymore. The overall population leans slightly democratic (judging by the popular votes in the recent elections), but the division is so profound that there will never be another Reagan landslide victory (nor similar subsequent inauguration attendance / viewership).

          I think we can agree that, in terms of inauguration crowds, first Obama inauguration was an outlier. As the first black president, he attracted the crowd that normally doesn’t bother, who wanted to watch history. However, second time around, inauguration tends to be a prefunctory event, and yet, it was still higher than any other president.

          Trump should be pleased with the fact that his attendance was the highest among the Republican presidents and leave it at that. America is waiting for much more important things from him than measuring d!ck size. and that one, he’ll never win (against the other guy)…

          1. Trump supporters work for a living. Unlike limousine liberals, most don’t have the type of disposable income to buy plane tickets/hotel rooms in order to stand out in the rain and, thanks Obama’s reckless open borders policies, risk a major terrorist attack. They already celebrated Trump’s landslide victory with their friends and families in their hometowns and have been celebrating for months. MAGA.

            1. I totally understand your enthusiasm, your guy won, but let’s be real. You may try explaining away the numbers, but in the end, they are still there, and what they are saying is that two Democrats had larger inauguration crowds than Trump. As I said, it isn’t a d!ck measuring contest, and he should really leave it at that; more important things are ahead, election and inauguration is behind.

              As for the landslide, according to the data, the election was a squeaker, with several swing states going his way by a very slim margin;

              Arizona: 4%
              Florida: 2.2%
              Michigan: 0.3% (just 11,000 votes difference)
              North Carolina: 3.8%
              Pennsylvania: 1.2%
              Wisconsin: 1%

              For every South Dakota that Trump won, there was a Vermont that Clinton won. In the end, thanks to the squeaker votes in the states such as MI, PA, WI, FL, he got the electoral votes.

              It is just fine to celebrate victory of your guy, but calling it a landslide when most voters voted against him is simply untruthful. Out of 58 presidential elections, Trumps margin of victory ranks at 46, near the bottom of that list (squeakers that were narrower than his include Bush Jr, Nixon, Carter, JFK, etc).

    1. That US productivity curve (GDP per capita) is very symptomatic. It very closely correlates with the highest marginal tax rate (for the highest earners).

      Americans work longer hours, the American workforce is larger than it has ever been before, yet productivity, expressed as GDP, is at a lowest point since WWII. A very simple explanation is the persistent and growing income gap between executive pay and the rest. For example, while the income of the top 1% of the population has grown almost 200% since the 70s, for the rest of the nation, that rate is around 50%. With wealth distribution, these numbers are even worse; top 3% of the population owns more than 55% of personal wealth in the US. Income inequality, as well as wealth distribution, in the US have returned to the levels last seen in 1920s.

      It seems that lowering taxes and rewarding CEOs doesn’t really help anyone but the richest of the rich.

  7. Verizon, Comcast etc. are oligopolies (the only two choices I have, in fact) who provide a flow of photons or electrons to my home. This is no different than any other public utility. The electric company provides electrons and is not allowed to charge me more if I use them to watch TV vs turn on a light vs play on a Wii. The water company is not allowed to charge me more for watering my lawn vs taking a shower or doing dishes. The gas company can’t charge me one rate for heating and another for barbecuing.

    Given their oligopoly status, I see no legal basis or standing why cable/internet providers should be allowed to charge me more based on what I *do* with the photons or electrons that flow through their system, and that is precisely what they want to do. There is ZERO benefit to me as a consumer for that action, only harm.

  8. Different price tiers is not “net neutrality;” It’s net bias favoring those who can afford it and disfavoring those who can not.

    This stifles innovation from the poor but industrious while not hurting the wealthy margarita sippers.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.