Trump administration gives thumbs up to overturning FCC’s rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’

“The Trump administration supports the Federal Communications Commission effort to overturn net neutrality rules passed during the Obama years, a White House spokesperson said yesterday,” Jon Brodkin reports for Ars Technica.

“‘The previous administration went about this the wrong way by imposing rules on ISPs through the FCC’s Title II rulemaking power,’ “White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters yesterday,” Brodkin reports. “‘We support the FCC chair’s efforts to review and consider rolling back these rules and believe that the best way to get fair rules for everyone is for Congress to take action and create regulatory and economic certainty,’ [Sanders said].”

President Trump
President Trump
“The net neutrality rules passed in 2015 are enforced with the FCC’s Title II authority over common carriers; a previous version of the rules that did not rely upon Title II was thrown out in court,” Brodkin reports. “Under Chairman Ajit Pai’s leadership, the Republican-controlled FCC took a preliminary vote to undo the Title II classification and the net neutrality rules in May.”

Brodkin reports, “The Trump administration ‘believes that rules of the road are important for everyone—website providers, Internet service providers, and consumers alike,’ Sanders said.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: “Net Neutrality” in concept is much different than so-called “net neutrality” selectively imposed. Delve into the nitty gritty of the FCC’s so-called “net neutrality” and it’s not so “neutral” after all. As with most everything governmental, the fight is for who gets to control so-called “net neutrality” and who is subject to/gets exempted from said control, not how/whether/if it works for the end user.

As we wrote back in August 2006:

We don’t presume to know the best way to get there, but we support the concept of “Net Neutrality” especially as it pertains to preventing the idea of ISP’s blocking or otherwise impeding sites that don’t pay the ISP to ensure equal access. That said, we usually prefer the government to be hands-off wherever possible, Laissez-faire, except in cases where the free market obviously cannot adequately self-regulate (antitrust, for example). Regulations are static and the marketplace is fluid, so such regulation can often have unintended, unforeseen results down the road. We sincerely hope that there are enough forces in place and/or that the balances adjust in such a manner as to keep the ‘Net as neutral as it is today.

And as we followed up in September 2009:

That we have the same Take over three years later should be telling. Government regulations are not a panacea, neither are the lack thereof. It’s all about striking a proper balance where innovation can thrive while abuses are prevented.

Make that “the same Take over a decade later.”

SEE ALSO:
Apple’s deafening silence on so-called ‘net neutrality’ – July 14, 2017
FCC kicks off effort to roll back so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – May 18, 2017
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai explains why he wants to scrap so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – April 28, 2017
FCC Chief Ajit Pai develops plans to roll back so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – April 7, 2017
U.S. FCC chairman wields weed whacker, takes first steps against so-called ‘net neutrality’ – February 3, 2017
How so-called ‘net neutrality’ will fare under President Trump – January 26, 2017
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

35 Comments

    1. The U.S. citizen, in general, does not understand the issue. As with most issues, if they even know anything at all, it’s rarely deeper than a sound bite. This is a failure of the facile and corrupt U.S. media.

        1. Straw man questions shall go unanswered.

          The point of Pai’s work is to straighten out and scale back Obama/Wheeler’s mess. There are lots of Obama messes to clean up domestically and around the world.

          1. Assuming there is an Obama/Wheeler mess to straighten out, it seems unlikely to me that letting Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon tell us what the best solution is will result in an outcome that will benefit the rest of us. I was just looking for you to advance some evidence to the contrary.

            1. Pai’s FCC is simply returning broadband to the state under which it worked amazingly well up until 2015 when Obama/Wheeler wildly overreached.

            2. I’m not sure in which country you had lived for the past ten years or so.

              Time Warners, Comcasts and Verizons of every colour have been stiffing consumers for years, promising bandwidth, then charging extra from content providers to deliver that bandwidth to the consumer. And if they happen to offer competing services (and they all do, offering on-demand cable video), throttling competition was rampant, making Netflix stutter, even when I pay serious money for 80Mbps bandwidth.

              Arguing that the broadband worked amazingly well is profoundly ignorant, or disingenuous. Either way, it simply is NOT true.

              You will very soon see the consequences of deregulation. I hate to think what will happen with reliability of my streaming video services that aren’t Verizon FiOS (my current internet/cable TV provider).

        2. Can you give me an example of when a position advocate by Google and Facebook wasn’t designed mostly to help them avoid the cost of delivering their services and fattening their bottom lines? Content providers liked the Obama rules because it meant someone else had to pay to upgrade the pipes; those who actually had to invest in the infrastructure opposed the government telling them in its blundering way to how to run their businesses. And Obama pressured the supposedly independent FCC into using an 85-year-old piece of technical legislation as the basis for imposing rules, rather than seeking a democratic rule-making process. “Net neutrality” is a buzzword with so many meanings it is meaningless.

          1. You seem to be under the impression that the owners of the pipes are providing those pipes for free.

            I pay a hefty monthly money every month to Verizon to provide me 80Mbps of bandwidth. That is almost $1,000 every year. Just my household. Verizon is getting tons of cash from its FiOS subscribers to beef up the pipes. The average monthly home broadband prices have quadrupled over the past 18 years (since broadband went mainstream). Verizon’s fat bottom lines are quite fat, with plenty of margin for upgrading those pipes.

            When I pay as much as I pay, I shouldn’t expect Netflix (or Amazon) to pay as well. Especially when the only reason they are asked to pay is because they offer competing services to Verizon’s own on-demand streaming service.

      1. Shockingly, you understand. But I also point a long finger at what has happened to the US education system as well as to certain cultures within the USA that denigrate education and intelligence. Way to self-destruct America! Welcome to Idiocracy.

        [I used to delude myself about moving to the UK. But it’s even worse there. Sorry UK friends.]

          1. Teacher’s unions is a rough subject. In part, they were created because of the poor respect teachers were offered in many parts of the USA. Unionization is, IMHO, inevitable when one’s management is self-destructive. (I’ll skip the usual adjectives). There most certainly are dire socialists who’d demand unionization under any circumstances. But in this case I have NO sympathy for disrespectful school systems. They deserve unions. I find it sad that the teaching profession requires unions.

            I’ve gone over this ground before around here in comment chats. We found we all agreed that where teachers are provided with the most respect is where teaching is must successful, providing the best educated students. <–REVELATION

            1. What never gets mentioned regarding unions is that most of the people who bitch incessantly about Unions are people who have an employment contract. All a Union does is negotiate a contract for a group of employees with an employer. Without a Union most workers are “at will” employees who can be terminated at any time with or without reason.

              If the company negotiates a bad contract, I think that is on the company- not the workers and Union. I have never been in a Union but have supervised Union workers and had no problem at all. They were all highly trained, hard working, very capable and reliable people.

        1. Q: How do poll results prove respondents understand the issue?
          A: They don’t.

          Obamacare (ACA) was passed by The Democrat Party. There were ZERO republican votes (because they knew it was a boondoggle that would spiral into failure). Try a you may, the Democrats own the Obamacare mess. This has been proven with many elections since Obamacare’s passage. President Trump will drive home the message of who’s to blame, drowning out the distrusted mainstream media’s Democrat Party propaganda with ease.

            1. You will have to excuse First, whatever.

              He must have been Home Skewelled where they are taught that the flat Earth at the center of the Universe is circled by the sun put there by Jesus during Creation Week- year #1 about 4,000 years ago. They were also taught all the earth’s animals were gathered into a wooden ship with one family before the planet was flooded (not by Global Warming) by Gawd. They also believe that on Easter is Jesus comes out and sees his shadow we will have 6 more weeks of Spring.

              You could not expect someone like that to know that in the United States we have a Democratic Party- not a Democrat Party.

              And if you are lurking First, Whatever;
              How’s that Trump and Republican promise to repeal and replace the ACA working out for you? Shortly you Republicans get to fund Obamacare and get to raise the debt ceiling and you cannot blame anyone but yourselves.

          1. I’m not sure how much the driving (the message home) can change the fact that the Republicans today own ACA. They had six months since taking power (both houses, the presidency). They needed zero Democrats to pass ANY law they wanted. They tried two versions. Failed.

            As the clock continues to tick towards the mid-term elections, the failure of the majority party (with the majority president) to replace the existing health care law will come at a surprisingly high cost.

            Increasingly higher and higher majority of American population is now in favour of the ACA, and even more so against the TrumpCare (or whatever name you wish to call it). It is also increasingly more and more clear to those voters that, compared to ACA, millions of people will lose their health coverage.

            There is simply no good way for the Republicans in Senate (and Congress) for the ACA replacement saga to end. Leaving ACA (to presumably implode) will signal legislative ineptitute of magnificent proportions. And replacing it with a solution that cuts millions off from insurance isn’t any better.

            I am very curious to see what possible scenario will result in a positive outcome, with a health law that does what the President had promised (before he got elected): “No one will lose coverage. There will be insurance for everybody. Healthcare will be a “lot less expensive” for everyone — the government, consumers, providers. “

            So, universal coverage (for everybody), cheaper than Obamacare, and nobody who currently has coverage will lose it. I really, really want to see this work, since this is far better than Obamacare; this is like the UK (or Canadian) NHS — universal, single-payer plan for everyone. And ACHA is definitely nowhere near it.

      1. President Trump has already accomplished 1/3rd of what we sent him to D.C. to do:

        Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 🙂

        Next up: Replacing Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg with conservative justices.

        Constitutional rights preserved for decades!

        That’ll be more than enough, thanks — but, we’ll take the bonus roll-backs of stupid things like Obama’s FCC overreach and war on fossil fuels while dealing with North Korea, Iran, and Islamic terrorists, etc.

        1. May well happen, or may not. Either way, it seems to me that you are rapidly lowering the bar. In other words, It is OK for Trump to be the worst possible president in history, as long as he replaces two more supreme court justices, it’s OK.

          for the past year, we have been seeing your copy/paste work here (Trump’s “platform” on important issues). It all looked like you were genuinely serious about the possibility of Trump actually fulfilling all those campaign promises (immigration, the wall, taxes, regulation, health, infrastructure, climate action, etc). All that was essentially hot air, and the only real reason you (and folks like you) voted for him was the supreme court. And even that may not necessarily work out all the way (if RBG and Kennedy stay on for another year and a half, and if Democrats retake the Senate, which is becoming increasingly more likely with each day of legislative inaction of the current senate), then Democrats can do exactly the same thing that Republicans did to Garland (the Thurmond Rule).

          In the end, Trump may well end up accomplishing just that 1/3 of what you had sent him to do, which is to fill the seat of an rabid ultra-conservative justice with another, somewhat less conservative judge. Don’t forget, it was that same composition of the SCOTUS (complete with Scalia) that voted in favour of marriage equality, as well as for ACA (were your chief justice Roberts came in favour of it).

        2. For your information, the constitution is supposed to be a living document, updated by citizen representatives as technology and standards evolve. Yet you alternatively refer to the constitution as an unchanging fundamentalist touchstone and then preach the need to be activist and paranoid about whatever amendment (usually #2) you imagine could be undone despite the fact that no proposals have been made to update the aged document in decades. All this despite obvious shortcomings in constitutional rules for districting, campaign finance, political party transparency, election logistics, balanced federal budgets, limitations on executive privilege, transparency of meetings, and so on. All embarrassing areas that need immediate reform.

          Make up your mind. You want fundamentalism equal and opposite to islamic fundamentalism but even more nationalistic and paranoid, and you also now want to stack the deck with justices who are nominated by an idiot (Bannon’s puppet, DJ Trump) who has publicly admitted that he regrets having Sessions as AG because he thought the AG should act as the president’s personal defense lawyer.

          Wake up and realize that single party power without working checks and balances leads nations off of cliffs. Witness the ineptitude of the current administration.

  1. When Drumpf elevated Ajit Pai- Buttboy for the ISP/Telecom Lobby- to Chairman we knew what he was telegraphing.

    Obama appointed Pai to a regular Commission seat at the suggestion of Bitch McConnell. That should tell you more than enough.

  2. These new net rules will be tremendous!
    It will be cheeper for voters, er, customers, more profitable for companies, and faster for everyone.
    Everyone will win.

    Belieeeeeeve me!

  3. Net neutrality is a “nothing burger.” Really. The complete fabrication of this as being a “problem” is much ado about nothing. It is and always has been a solution looking for a problem — a feel good measure, rather than reality. It’s silly and really, truly, nobody benefits no matter how much those involved would like to make you believe. I know. I work for a telecom and we don’t and have never engaged in any practices this silliness claims; and for that matter, neither has any other company.

      1. I work for AT&T. I know what goes on and what we do since I am, well, a network engineer there. I have not had the privilege of cleaning toilets, but who knows, one day they might call on me to do so. I am very well acquainted with the industry and know what happens inside telecoms. What are your qualifications for knowing what goes on in the industry? Do you work for a major telecom? Do you know what goes on inside the doors? Please do tell.

Add Your Feedback

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