Applying the Trump Doctrine to net neutrality

“President Trump’s approach to trade qualifies as a master class in political negotiation. When he imposed steel and aluminum tariffs on several Group of Seven (G7) countries, Canada vowed to retaliate and the European Commission issued a press release opposing the tariffs as ‘protectionism, pure and simple,'” Fred Campbell writes for Forbes. “A matter of days after getting Europe and Canada to go on record as opposing tariffs as simple protectionism, Trump called their rhetorical bluff at the annual G7 Summit, where he proposed the elimination of all tariffs and subsidies.”

“When faced with the professed object of their desire, the other members of the G7 balked. Trump’s insistence on fair dealing revealed the truth about the G7’s approach to trade,” Campbell writes. “The other members of the G7 don’t want truly fair and open trade; they want rules that let them hold the U.S. to a free-trade standard while securing unfair advantages for themselves. Trump wisely recognized that the best way to make real progress on free trade is to make sure these countries have some skin in the game.”

“The Democratic Party’s version of net neutrality regulation works the same way as the G7’s ‘rules-based trade’ policy,” Campbell writes. “Democrats’ rules-based approach to net neutrality required internet service providers (ISPs) to give government-regulated access to their platforms while leaving Silicon Valley’s big tech platforms free to block and prioritize content as a means of maintaining their monopolies and pushing Democrats’ political agenda.”

“The inconvenient truth [is] that Democrats would rather protect big tech monopolies than protect consumers,” Campbell writes. “Republicans in Congress should call the Democrats’ bluff. The insight of the Trump doctrine is that negotiation is only possible if both sides have some skin in the game. If the Democrats insist on regulating net neutrality at the FCC, Republicans should insist that the FCC regulations apply to big tech monopolies. That’s how Trump would do it.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote last December regarding the call by U.S. Senator John Thune (R-SD) for Congress to pass ‘net neutrality’ legislation:

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. The former is harder, but lasting; the latter is quicker, but ephemeral.

Real net neutrality legislation is the solution to the FCC/FTC regulatory seesaw.

SEE ALSO:
FCC’s repeal of so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules now official – June 11, 2018
U.S. Senate democrats stage a phony vote on so-called ‘net neutrality’ – May 16, 2018
U.S. FCC reversal of so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules expected to be published Thursday – February 20, 2018
NARUC regulators respond to scrapping of so-called ‘net neutrality’ regulations by U.S. FCC – December 15, 2017
Republican senator calls on U.S. Congress to pass ‘net neutrality’ legislation – December 12, 2017
Millions of people post ‘net neutrality’ comments on FCC docket; many are fake – December 12, 2017
U.S. FCC rejects calls to delay vote to repeal so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – December 5, 2017
Dear Aunt Sadie, please step back from the so-called ‘net neutrality’ ledge – November 27, 2017
U.S. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: Killing Obama-era rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ will set the internet free – November 22, 2017
U.S. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: How the FCC can save the open internet – November 21, 2017
U.S. FCC plans total repeal of Obama-era rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 21, 2017
U.S. FCC plans December vote to kill so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – November 16, 2017
Apple’s call for ‘strong’ net neutrality rules is a hint about the future of its business – September 1, 2017
Apple breaks their silence on ‘net neutrality,’ remains open to alternative sources of legal authority – August 31, 2017
Trump administration gives thumbs up to overturning FCC’s rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ – July 19, 2017
]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

44 Comments

      1. Specifics? How about, most seriously, the effort to link things that aren’t logically connected.

        (1) “Net Neutrality” is not, and never was, about regulating the internal policies of internet clients, only the policies of internet providers. The two domains are not the same.

        If I don’t want to use Facebook or Twitter (and I don’t), I can use something else. They dominate their markets, obviously, but they aren’t monopolies.

        In my home town, if I don’t want to use the cable monopoly for high speed internet, I’m out of luck. If that is true in a tech-savvy metro area that contains several of the fastest-growing cities in America, what is it like in a rural area?

        The argument is–I think–that it is somehow logically inconsistent for the government to treat internet providers like Comcast and Spectrum as common carriers without also treating internet clients like Facebook and Twitter as common carriers. If Comcast can be prohibited from discriminating against non-NBC shows, then Facebook must be prohibited from discriminating against Forbes-friendly content. Conversely, if you aren’t willing to force Google to run content it finds objectionable, you can’t object to allowing Comcast to block the websites for ABC, CBS, and FOX.

        That isn’t just a slippery slope; it is a hole in thin ice. It is allowing the government to directly dictate content in the privately-owned media. First Amendment, anybody? If the government can do that, why can’t it prohibit NBC from broadcasting non-FCC-friendly content? Why can’t it dictate content on other internet clients, like your personal website? Why can’t it require tweets to undergo vetting by the Ministry of Truth? There might be political obstacles to doing those things, but this article argues that there should be no legal barriers to doing so.

        To shift the context: because the law says that the roads in your home town are available to both Walmart and Target trucks without discrimination, Target and Walmart stores should also be forced to allow open access to their shelf space by anybody who wants to sell his stuff there. See any problems with that?

        Because the newsstand in a publicly funded building can’t discriminate between conservative and liberal publications based solely on political content, the publications sold on that newsstand, like Forbes, should also be forced to print articles by anybody who wants to use their “platform.” I’m sure that Senator Warren will enjoy her new “right” to force the Wall Street Journal to print her message.

        (2) The appeal to tribal warfare is a similar red herring. This isn’t about Republicans vs. Democrats or Conservatives vs. Liberals. It isn’t just Democrats “who would rather protect big tech monopolies than protect consumers.” There are some Republicans who feel the same way, if only about different big tech monopolies. Most Republicans favor government regulation when it is needed to guarantee free markets. (Is the word “tariffs” familiar?)

        There are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who want to curb Google, Facebook, and Twitter (and plenty who don’t). There are people on both sides of the aisle that want to guarantee that ISPs cannot block their users from equal access to all sources of internet data (and plenty who don’t).

        (3) I’m not even getting into the complete logical disconnect between the “Trump Policy” on international trade and the FCC policy on equal access to the Internet. One involves government intervention in free markets, while the other rejects that approach. That whole argument is just to put “Trump” in the headline to draw clicks. Which it obviously has.

            1. Please, to label and disparage is weak, weak, weak. Using emoticons makes it even weaker. Back off of your partisan basis for everything that you post, and I will take you more seriously.

        1. “To shift the context: because the law says that the roads in your home town are available to both Walmart and Target trucks”

          Universal law in the U.S. roads are paid by trucker taxes and regular taxpayers to fund infrastructure, duh?

          “without discrimination, Target and Walmart stores should also be forced to allow open access to their shelf space by anybody who wants to sell his stuff there. See any problems with that?”

          MAJOR problems with that you do not understand. Private companies that own the store shelves cannot be forced to stock anything they don’t want to, hello?

          “Because the newsstand in a publicly funded building can’t discriminate between conservative and liberal publications based solely on political content, the publications sold on that newsstand,”

          Please name the publicly funded building and the private contractor newsstand business. And when you do are you saying a publicly funded building can dictate what products a private small business can sell?

          “like Forbes, should also be forced to print articles by anybody who wants to use their “platform.” I’m sure that Senator Warren will enjoy her new “right” to force the Wall Street Journal to print her message.”

          AGAIN, major problems with that you do not understand. Private companies that own the newspapers and magazines cannot be FORCED to print anything they don’t want to. EVER HEAR OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS?

          Surprised your personal politics are so ignorant of business rights and constitutional rights. But then again, you are championing the lunatic liberal Senator Warren. How “straight white male conservative” of you once again …

          1. It’s kind of funny that it is you that didn’t understand what TxUser wrote. TxUser did not say private companies should be forced to open their shelves to anyone, or that Forbes should be forced to print articles from anyone. You’re kind of dumb aren’t you?

            1. Totally agree w you, dude ! He does not even know the difference between an ‘avatar’ and a ‘screen name’. Even after it has been pointed out to him multiple times …and even when he could look it up.

            2. Hey brainless banned CX, you now created four different avatar screen names on this tread to cover your pathetic tracks. The SICK part is, besides the DECEPTION, you feel good about it and are talking to yourself, wow …

          2. Until today, GeoB, I thought osmium was the densest naturally occurring substance.

            For once, I agree with you completely: the Government shouldn’t be dictating inventory to retail businesses or content to the press. Doing so would not only be immoral and illegal, but probably unconstitutional.

            So, why—in the name of all that is holy—do you think that it is just fine for the Government to dictate what Facebook and Twitter must publish on their privately-owned websites? My point (and it was hardly subtle) is that the two situations are morally and legally indistinguishable.

            As you put it so elegantly, “Private companies … cannot be FORCED to print anything they don’t want to. EVER HEAR OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS?”

            Yet you can’t say enough nice things about an article that quite specifically demands that Big Brother needs to crack down on companies that exercise their First Amendment right to say things with which you or Forbes disagree.

            1. “Until today, GeoB, I thought osmium was the densest naturally occurring substance.”

              What is your point? Are you cowardly and have to infer I am “dense” without directly calling me out? I have more respect for someone who lays it DIRECTLY on the line.

              “So, why—in the name of all that is holy—do you think that it is just fine for the Government to dictate what Facebook and Twitter must publish on their privately-owned websites?”

              Go back and read my post, I NEVER SAID THAT! I only pointed out several errors in your post, sheesh.

              This is exactly why we cannot agree. I don’t appreciate you putting thoughts in my head or words in my mouth. I can recognize your worded BAIT a million miles away.

              To your credit though, you do offer insightful opinions at times I agree with when you are honest and not playing partisan games …

          3. “He both implied it and stated it. Yeah, you are funny ”

            No, he implied and stated the opposite. You are very dense. Read his post again very carefully. Maybe the light bulb will go off.

      1. Who rated this down? Seriously? We all know that there is no real competition in internet providers. Hence the need for net neutrality. Who is ok with comcast making decisions about your internet? When has comcast (or any of the big providers) ever made a decision good for consumers?

          1. As I have mentioned before, I live in a metro area that includes the 11th largest city in America and 3 of the 10 fastest growing. A lot of my neighbors work for Apple, IBM, or Samsung. The main downtown switch for our incumbent telco is a mile from my house. I cannot get “high speed Internet” at my location from anybody but the cable TV company, even if you consider 9 Mb/sec as high speed.

            Which is to say, there is no real competition in much of the USA.

            1. “Well, it seems your area is not worth profit or competition.”

              That’s my point. If a subdivision full of high-tech workers living in $300,000+ homes isn’t worth while for the local phone company to extend its fiber a thousand feet so it can compete with the cable company’s coax monopoly, what makes you think that there is meaningful competition in Appalachia?

      1. I refer you to TxUsers excellent post, he still has patience for this, whereas I no longer do; hence by succinct usage of the term Bullshit which was deliberate and intentional. If you knew enough about the issue at hand, and the law, that would be your reaction as well. Please see TxUser’s post, read it, ingest it, and don’t post something deliberately misunderstood in response like GeoB did, and normally does. (I got into a discussion about how polls work once with him and it was one of the single most frustrating conversations of my entire life). The article is Bullshit, it needs no further description and deserves none.

    1. The example in the linked article is a fight between Google and Amazon. While it is true that that both companies hurt consumers, it is still totally different then an ISP preventing willing transmitters and receivers from communicating.

      So it is still Bullhorse shit.

      1. They block conservatives from bothering people who don’t want to hear their crap. Again, that is not the same as keeping willing buyers and sellers from communicating on a network the buyer paid for. (You didn’t pay for Facebook and Twitter, you know.)

  1. President Obama could have actually tried to do Net Neutrality instead of using it as an excuse to bring government control to the Internet. Net Neutrality is a very simple concept and can be expressed in a paragraph, no more than a page. Instead we got 400 pages of innocuous turn of the century crap. The vast majority of it was inexplicably irrelevant to the Internet.

    RIP Net Neutrality. Obama killed ya.

    In contrast, look at The Secure Data Act.

    “…The bipartisan Secure Data Act would stop any government agency or court order from forcing a company to build backdoors into encrypted devices and communications…” Created because, as MDN regularly points out, there is no such thing as a secure backdoor, it is only two pages of giant plain English text. It is bipartisan. Had Obama taken this approach instead of going for an ObamaNet, we’d have Net Neutrality.

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/05/secure-data-act-would-stop-backdoors

  2. Article is just fine … but I can see why it makes libs, progressives and dems mad and uncomfortable. Best entertainment I have had in years, watching all the exploding heads day after day. Trump thrives and feasts on assbaby libs.

Reader Feedback

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