Net Neutrality Is Dead As A Doornail Under Trump 2.0
from the I-hope-you-like-being-ripped-off-by-Comcast dept
While the concept has been endlessly demonized by right wing media (working hand in moist hand with shitty companies like AT&T and Comcast), net neutrality was always well intentioned. It was, in essence, some inconsistent, rarely enforced rules to try and prevent regional broadband monopolies from abusing their regional broadband monopolies to rip off consumers and harm competition.
The idea was portrayed as some sort of diabolical, extremist bogeyman by your shitty local cable company and Republicans. It wasn’t as good as a “fix” for broken U.S. broadband markets as taking direct aim at telecom monopoly power with serious antitrust reform, but in a country where Congress is literally too corrupt to pass the most basic of meaningful reforms, it was one of the only options on the table.
But the focus on net neutrality specifically has proven to be a bit of a distraction from the real fight: whether or not you think the government has a responsibility to protect the public and markets from massive, predatory telecom monopolies bone-grafted to our intelligence gathering systems.
Time and time again, Republicans (and some Democrats), working hand in hand with telecom industry lobbyists, decided that the best approach is to let a company like Comcast or AT&T not only do whatever it wants, but dictate the entire contours of federal and state telecom policy. That means banning community broadband. That means ripping off the poor. That means no coherent consumer protection. No real merger review. Lots of tax cuts and subsidies in exchange for doing nothing.
You know, for freedom. And innovation. And “free markets.”
The result has historically been U.S. consumers paying some of the highest prices in the developed world for patchy, slow broadband with some of the worst customer service of any industry in America (quite a feat). And when the government tries to do absolutely anything differently, Republicans, some centrist Democrats, the courts, and a corporate press treat it as an act of radical overreach.
Your Dead Aunt Opposed Net Neutrality
You might recall that the FCC’s 2015 net neutrality rules were stripped away in 2017 during Trump’s first term, when his agency, led by Ajit Pai and Brendan Carr, turned a blind eye as telecom giants used fake and dead people to pretend eliminating the rules had public support (it didn’t, net neutrality protections actually have very broad, bipartisan support across a majority of the electorate).
The rules were restored again this year by the Biden FCC, only to be immediately put on ice by the Trumplican-stocked 5th Circuit, 6th Circuit, and Supreme Court — which are trying to declare (quite successfully) that all consumer protection is basically now illegal (I wish I was being hyperbolic).
Even if the courts don’t crush the FCC’s attempted restoration of the rules, Trump’s appointment of Brendan Carr to the FCC is all but certain to deliver a killing blow to federal net neutrality protections. And not just net neutrality: Carr’s guaranteed to put an end to all consumer protection, whether it involves policing usage caps, stopping racism in fiber deployment, keeping your cable company from ripping you off, or holding your wireless provider semi-accountable for spying on your every movement.
Again, the conversation gets fixated on “net neutrality,” but this is really a debate about whether the federal government plays a role in protecting markets and consumers from giant, lumbering monopolies dead set on using their size and leverage to rip you off and quash competition. The feds never did a particularly good job on this front, but at least there was, as with net neutrality, a fleeting effort.
Any Pretense Of Giving A Shit Is Dead Now
Not all is lost: Trump’s 2017 net neutrality repeal not only tried to block the FCC from broadband consumer protection, they tried to ban states from protecting consumers or passing their own state-level net neutrality rules. But courts have repeatedly ruled that if the federal government abdicates its responsibilities on consumer protection, they can’t step in and tell states what to do.
The problem: once the unholy alliance of authoritarianism and corporate power get done corrupting Congress and federal regulators (with the help of a Supreme Court and both houses of Congress), where exactly do you think they’re going to direct their vast resources and legal attention? State rights (so seemingly precious to Republican ideology once upon a time), of course.
With the planned Trumpist dismantling of federal governance, the fights over consumer protection, immigration, environmental law, public safety, etc., will be heading to the state level and clogging the courts in historic fashion. Anybody who thinks even well-resourced states like California and Washington will have the time and resources for wonky net neutrality policy battles are probably clowning themselves.
So for now, the battle over net neutrality — and any sort of consistent federal consumer protection standards — are dead as a doornail. Thanks to voters deluded and misinformed into believing they were voting for populist reform or getting an upgrade to the mean old status quo.
That’s not to say people shouldn’t stop fighting. Though they will need to pick the most efficient targets. The key one in telecom being consolidated telecom monopoly power. There’s a huge grass roots U.S. movement toward highly-localized, community owned and operated community owned broadband networks; and if you’re looking for a place where you can help, supporting them is a great start.
States may not pick net neutrality fights they can’t win, but they won’t give up on broadband and wireless consumer protection entirely. They’ll just be sporadic, be more hesitant than ever, and take longer than ever due to a court system flooded with well-funded challenges to any effort to hold corporations accountable across every industry that touches every last aspect of your daily life.
There are a lot of hard lessons coming (and not just for Trumpers) about the importance of a coherent, federal, regulatory state. Hopefully those lessons come in handy during the attempt to rebuild functioning federal governance, assuming this hot mess of an oligarchic kakistocracy makes it out the other side of this tunnel of violent idiocy intact.
Filed Under: authoritarian, broadband, consumers, corruption, fcc, supreme court, telecom


Comments on “Net Neutrality Is Dead As A Doornail Under Trump 2.0”
Everything is dead under trump
Re:
Especially minorities. Just sayin’.
Re:
Everything is dead if WW3 happens
Re: Re:
Which is more likely under Trump. Just sayin’.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
stop with the doom speak
Re: Re: Re:2
Ok.
I am happy that our federal government is being populated with tv celebrity has beens, this will certainly result in a much better world. They will conquer all the worlds problems on day one! Everything will be fixed and everyone will be happy.
Is this ok for you, does it make your day better in any way?
/bullshit
Re: Re: Re:2
fuck off andrea
Re: Re: Re:3
Who the heck is Andrea?
Re: Re: Re:4
A prolific concern troll.
Re: Re: Re:2
Actually, the WW III references are generally brought in by MAGA types.
They’re basically claiming that the Dems/”left” support of Ukraine against the Russian invasion is reckless escalation that will likely sooner or later provoke (“force”) Russia to retaliate using nuclear weapons (“in self-defense” against “NATO expansion”) — but that Trump in his wisdom and deep understanding of real-politik and moral firmness will easily resolve this conflict fairly and peacefully.
It’s not “doom-speak” to point out that in reality, Trump will ultimately make things worse, rather than better — including in particular the global geo-political situations that his fans think Trump will magically solve with trivial ease.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Uhh...
And how is trump gonna make things worse, geopolitically?
No offense, just asking.
Re: Re: Re:4
Since donald is somehow tied into the whole Ukraine being invaded by Russia thing .. I guess one could refer to that as being geo-political?
Re: Re: Re:5
I guess, but isn’t he promising to end the war in 24 hours when he takes office?
Then again, I don’t know.🤷
Re: Re: Re:6
You believe that?
Re: Re: Re:6
No, he promised to end it in 24 hours after becoming the president-elect. He has already broken that promise, obviously
Re: Re: Re:7
Hey, he didn’t say immediately after the election, though if he did?
Blame him for not taking into consideration that there’s a date for inauguration.
Re: Re: Re:6
Ending the war in 24 hours involves giving Russia everything it wants, thus encouraging it to continue its aggression. Trump will try to pull as much funding from our allies as possible. That will destabilize some countries and contribute to an escalation of regional conflicts that are bad for our economy because we live in an international world where a war in a particular region can limit the resources we can import from there or the markets we can export to.
Re: Re: Re:7
Ending a war in twenty four hours is a ridiculous thing to say one can do. But then Donald is not known for his intelligence.
The war continues even if no one is firing weapons. There will continue to be famine, disease, and countless tragedy. Who is going to do anything to stop the inevitable?
Will Russia continue with their planned genocide of the Ukrainian people? idk. Donald will not stop that either.
Re: Re: Re:6
“he promising to end the war in 24 hours ”
He can not remember what he said twenty four minutes ago, and he is gonna do what now?
Re: Re: Re:4
The rest of the world leaders have already noticed the impending end of Pax Americana. Somebody’s going to fill that vacuum on the world stage. And by “somebody,” I mean Putin and Xi.
Re: Re: Re:5
What vacuum?
An imperialist goes away and then there is a vacuum?
That is what an imperialist would say.
Re: Re: Re:2
👍
Re: Re: Re:3
👌 = you.
We need a FEDERAL net neutrality act
Such important stuff shouldn’t be left to whims of some government agency, it needs to be enshrined into the law properly.
Re: We need a FEDERAL net neutrality act
Wouldn’t that be nice.
In a well-run place that’s exactly what would happen. But with the corruption that already exists in Congress?
Hey, if anybody can think of a way to make it happen, please let us know. But, forgive me, I’m not holding out much hope right now.
Re: Re:
If US politics weren’t so corrupted, such Net Neutrality legislation would pass easily — but in that case, that legislation wouldn’t be needed either.
And existing good laws can be undone or over-ridden by Congress, too — so see above.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
You gotta have something to protect that needs regulation before it can work or even be an idea. NN is a made up claim.
Re: Re: Re:2
Net Neutrality is a claim?
What is this claim?
I thought it was a suggestion that the internet not become just another mechanism for greed and corruption.
Re: Re: Re:2
Net neutrality is actually the thing that existed without laws being required to protect it before laws favoring monopolistic ISPs were enacted, actually.
Re:
Too many conservatives for that to happen. The game is to build things as nice as we can while trying to keep them from dragging us back to the 1500s.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: HA!
Well you would actually have to have a rule/law that would NOT be written by Cogent Communications and Netflix because the have bad peering deals and refuse to pay their bills. And You have those who claim the internet will fall apart without the fake laws- even though the Internet has been running the same way for over 20 years with OUT any issues. SMH
The only thing that happens is you and goons want to regulate something and get that 13% USF to spend on BS to claim you’re protected. Give it up.
Re: Re:
That’s pathetic. You either know absolutely fuck-all about the internet beyond your selection of maga/fascist brine, or you might actually be a dishcloth, by the looks of things.
Which is it?
Re: Re: Re:
TIL: Protesting bills like KOSA makes one a MAGAt. Time to support KOSA then?
Re: Re:
Which telco paid you to spew that horseshit?
It doesn’t matter. None of this matters. You can’t convince people. They don’t want to be convinced. They want… whatever is happening and is going to happen. They want it with open eyes and willful hearts.
There’s no avoiding the shitstorm. The only consideration I think is prudent is getting a good umbrella.
Re:
Having talked with a number of people who voted for Trump because they thought he was the lesser evil, and given that the final popular vote result was barely for Trump: they will be convinced when it hits their wallets and healthcare. So will a lot of MAGAts, actually.
The shit storm will happen, though.
Re: Re:
But it will be blamed on Biden and trans people.
Re: Re: Re:
And immigrants. Don’t forget the immigrants.
Re: Re:
If Trump and his goons are even half as incompetent as they appear, we’ll have a lot of voters feeling buyer’s remorse before the midterms.
Re: Re: Re:
You’re assuming they can admit they made a mistake.
Trump will blame NATO, and by the time midterms roll around, his homeless supporters will be lining up to vote us out of NATO.
Re: Re: Re:2
Well, Trump’s pal Putin certainly blames NATO for his decision to continue with his plan for the complete annexation of Ukraine, and Ukraine were nowhere close to joining NATO when Russia launched its full-scale invasion.
Re: Re: Re:
If there’s one saving grace to Trump, it’s that he is wholly incompetent and he surrounds himself with incompetents. I don’t expect any of the “big ideas” of his or his cronies to actually come to fruition. I do expect four years of constant chaos and mismanagement.
Trump is driving the car, but he’s not a good enough driver to maliciously create a wreck that will kill everyone onboard. He is, however, completely baked off his gourd behind the wheel and is driven by alternatively malicious and idiotic impulses.
Re: Re: Re:2
All his ideas are to break shit and pocket everything he can in the chaos. We’re entering 90s Russia territory.
Re: Re: Re:2
This time around, his enablers understand the situation better, and have planned better, to achieve their goals — Trump is not the cause of the current state of affairs, but a symptom.
The people behind the political machinery that the ideological/religious fundamentalist/ultra-wealthy coalition built up over several decades, and that Trump exploited to achieve office, still support him (even though they despise him) — because Trump makes an excellent, attention-grabbing, charismatic figurehead at the front, while they actually run the ship and steer it in the direction they want to go.
It’s a fundamental mistake to think that Trump’s second term can be expected go like his first one did. Much thought and planning has gone into sidelining and negating those elements of American political process that hindered them last time, and substituting them more amenable or controllable replacements, at the level where the real work actually gets done.
Re: Re:
but he was already president though
Re: Re:
You’re joking, right? Republicans have been hitting their wallets my entire adult life. Every time, they find a way to blame Democrats. Every. Single. Time.
Re: Re:
They’ll blame minorities like they always have.
Stop being delusional. You are never going to reach them.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I hope Bode is right about this one. “Net Neutrality” has been on life support for far too long and it’s time to push the plunger on it.
Re:
I hope you get what you want.
I pray you’ll understand what you get.
I suspect you’ll hate the consequences of what you get.
I bet you’ll whine about those consequences.
I doubt you’ll learn anything from the experience.
I know you’ll still vote against your best interests.
Re: Re:
Little Cupcakes:
Stephen T. Stone:
Very telling.
Re: Re: Re:
You might want to remember that victory has a price. I hope they get what they want only in the sense that I hope they feel the consequences of getting exactly what they asked for and wonder why the fuck they asked for it in the first place. Consequences can be educational; whether a Trumpist can learn from those consequences is a whole other matter.
Re: Re: Re:2
Republicans are happy to live in squalor as long as a) some brown person somewhere is living far worse, and b) their wealthy masters become more wealthy.
Re: Re: Re:3
That doesn’t make much sense at all. I’ve been assured repeatedly that they’re only voting for Nazis out of “economic anxiety.”
Re: Re: Re:2
So you’re willing to have the Internet in the US enshittified just to teach a MAGAt a lesson despite the fact that (as per a comment on another post) you don’t believe they are capable of learning anything? Let’s see how that one pans out when the leopards come for your face.
Re: Re: Re:
Whoosh!
Re:
Said no human, ever.
Well, if you see internet as a fundamental right like water or education, net neutrality is mandatory.
But, if you’re a rich, you can see internet just as water and education, where you paid more for better service, like a 100k$/year school or a $5 water bottle.
And rich people are even willing to pay much more just to feel superior to others. And the next US President needs to feel superior to others.
Re:
A problem is that rich people tend to be not well educated in the realities of the world today. For example, Donald thinks that one needs to present identification at the grocery store in order to purchase groceries. The dude has never been in a grocery store buying groceries – obviously. And yet these ill informed crusaders have decided that they know everything and the educated people should shutup.
Many rich folk waste their money on the most ridiculous shit. Super boats are stupid but a multi million dollar banana stuck on a wall with duct tape is possibly the winner of the stupid award of the week. And they brag about it at their cocktail parties.
Re: Re:
“It’s one banana, Michael. What could it cost, ten dollars?”
Re: Re: Re:
Very recently, Joe Scarborough “It’s a pound of butter, whats it cost $3?”
Re: Re: Re:2
The average price for a pound of butter is just over $3*, actually, so Joe Scarborough wasn’t wrong.
*Source
Re: Re: Re:3
I don’t live in the states and went by what his wife said, which was $6.5 or 7 / lb
Makes me wonder how they determine average.
Price per store; state; brand; every lb sold?
Re: Re: Re:4
Since the average is based on what consumers pay, it will be pre-tax price per state.
Re: Re: Re:
And then when maga does actually visit a grocery store, they are wearing invisible blinders or something because they completely miss the price markers plainly displayed right in front of the eggs.
J.D. Vance attempted to point out high prices in a recent campaign stunt at a grocery store, only to be caught with egg on his face
https://www.yahoo.com/news/j-d-vance-caught-lying-151334443.html
Re: Re:
They do that because they can and they have nothing else they can think of to do with it. Otherwise what would they do with the money? Give it to people who could use it for something practical? That would be anti-capitalist.
Re: Re: Re:
“they have nothing else they can think of to do with it.”
Could’ve been Batman …
Re:
I few years ago I learned that the rich have their own, prestige brands of things like (for example) refrigerators and ranges.
The significant thing about these appliances is that they aren’t actually any better quality or reliability (may even be worse) than the equivalent items the rest of us get from Sears or Home Depot — but they are significantly more expensive — so the only actual benefit they convey is to subtly let their equally well off visitors see that they are of the same class, without appearing to blatantly flaunt their higher position to less wealthy, unaware lower class acquaintances, who likely never even see these brands in their own shopping venues.
One more crisis for the pile.
Is it me or has the right’s decades-long undermining of all institutions been its own kind of flooding the zone with shit.
Healthcare, education, worker rights, customer rights, environment protection, infrastructure, science… when so much trust has already been corroded away and so much is already pretty enshitified, it’s not surprising the average American can’t give a shit about much of anything but their own most immediate concerns and say fuck everyone else… and the more alien they are to my life, the harder they can get fucked…
maga, indeed.
Re:
The only reason they’ve gotten where they are is the decades spent undermining public education, and forcibly injecting Jesus humping in lieu of any actual knowledge or skillset. Combined with the no-holds-barred insanity that is their equating fact and opinion and you’ve ensured millions and millions and millions can no longer even parse the very words used to condemn them to their current state of pliable, compliant, and frothing at the mouth.
Reversing this will take re-educating an entire generation, at minimum. Good luck. I can only see this ending with America manifest-destinying its way into an early grave to the sounds of rapturous applause from within.
Re:
Don’t forget that any attempt to put a stop to it was met with finger-wagging by supposedly-intelligent people who believe that if we actually used any political power to try and stop it, it would heave led to a dystopia or some other such slippery-slope fallacy, and it would make us just as bad as the people who want to kill us.
The Onion summarized perfectly what happened to the US:
“America defeats America.”
I just hope the EU realises — soon — that way, way too much of the internet’s backbone is housed over yonder, and that it will need to chance, given the US can no longer be counted on not to renege on anything at any time, for any reason.
I’d pay very nearly any damn tax if it meant my data didn’t pass through the US on its way to anywhere but the US, for exactly the same reasons I don’t want my data captured by Chinese servers.
There are a lot of very worried network engineers...
…who are anticipating that the Trump regime will attempt to force radical changes in how Internet traffic handled, including tampering with the RIR (which in this case is ARIN). There are ongoing discussions (some public, some private) over how to detect and mitigate the damage resulting from such meddling.
This is a very big deal, because screwing with the RIR can break a lot of things very badly very quickly. Nobody with any sense or judgment would even consider doing this, but of course those qualities are completely lacking among the Trumpists, who only care about (a) worshipping their demented leader and (b) hurting as many women, minorities, LGBTQ folks, immigrants, etc. as they possibly can.
I miss Jon Postel dearly (and if you don’t recognize that name: you should) but I’m grateful he didn’t live to see this day.
Re:
We’ll just send in Elon, he simply yanks power cords indiscriminately on entire racks just for giggles, I’m sure he will fix everything just fine.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
This story again?
The moment he won I knew it was dead.
Re:
The House…the Senate…and the PRESIDENCY!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
According to people like Mike Masnick, this government power would be bad. So we should be happy that Net Neutrality is dead; Republicans can’t use it so that’s good, right?
Re:
Where in the article does Mike say “Net Neutrality is bad”?
Re:
[citation needed]
Remember when?
Remember years ago when a person whose name rhymes with ‘Gnarl Mode’ false-flagged himself in the FCC comment database to gin up net neutrality outrage?
Pepperidge Farms remembers.
Re:
Yes. Found it!
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1042876702862
As far as I concern he is a piece of work. Pretending to post faux opposition on the other side to get attention.
Re:
Are you admitting you’re the bot that impersonated Bode?