If people are against this en masse -- he won't touch it. My guess is he backs down or takes a neutral stance, just like Wheeler did on net neutrality, and like Obama did on encryption.
I mean, you know behind the scenes they're trying like hell to get rid of net neutrality, but they can't do that in the face of a public outcry.
This is one issue that is not red/blue. The hackery of Trump's campaign operated through the open internet, and I think the tech crowd on both sides of the aisle realize that removing net neutrality would just enrich the ISPs and would do nothing to improve our internet speeds or access to diverse content.
Wheeler did not take a neutral stance. He was always for net neutrality. Some people were confused on that point because after the courts tossed out the Open Internet Order of 2010, Wheeler's first proposed replacement was weaker. In particular, it would have allowed paid "fast lanes".
It was weaker not because he preferred weaker net neutrality, but rather because he wanted to try to save net neutrality using the same legal authority that the 2010 order used, if he could. That would be very likely to survive further judicial scrutiny, and also not to draw to much Congressional ire.
But from the start he said he was open to reclassifying ISPs as Title II common carriers in order to make a new order that was stronger than the 2010. The public comments were overwhelmingly in favor of that, and that's what he went with.
People also get confused about Wheeler's intentions because he was once head of the main cable trade association, and later head of the main cellular/wireless trade association. What is often overlooked is that at those times, those industries were young, small, and trying to compete against big established players (broadcast networks in the case of cable, the big telephone companies in the case of cellular/wireless). Fighting for cable and wireless was the pro-consumer, pro-competition side at the time.
In Wheeler's own words:
Wheeler> You have to think about what I was lobbying for. The cable industry at that point in time was fighting being put out of business by this agency at the request of the broadcasters. Broadcasters wanted to shut down the cable companies. They didn't want to give them access to programming because they didn’t want the content in the market, the competition in the market. And so I joined a crusade—we called it ‘plant a flower in the vast wasteland’—to have choice for Americans in what they see on television.
See this interview if you want to understand Wheeler:
https://arstechnica.com/business/2016/03/how-a-former-lobbyi...
I didn't mean to say he did. The president is the only one who can wait and see what the public thinks before speaking. Everyone else has to act in order to test the waters for the President.
> Wheeler's first proposed replacement was weaker. In particular, it would have allowed paid "fast lanes".
Yeah, that's not net neutrality at all. Title II classification was good and overall Wheeler kept the internet open. But, fast lanes don't have any place in a neutral internet.
Opening up ANOTHER front for republicans, prior to the midterms should, actually, be quite upsetting. These are not the sorts of numbers the majority party wants to have before a midterm election.
(I did have a few hopes for his Presidency when he was campaigning; most of those have evaporated as he's turning out to be every bit the warmonger people feared, instead of a non-interventionist).
But: "a certain sector" indeed! You mean "the American people", I think. What would you think if someone described Obama's election in the same fashion?
I meant the words "a certain sector". Many of the people who voted for Trump did not want to gut net neutrality. I was pointing out that when a sector of society votes for X, their elected official can also do Y and Z. This is the representative democracy system, which I think has major flaws.
Yes. Basically, FDR was competent. Trump isn't. I'm still not sure which is worse, given it's competence at achieving goals with which I disagree.
> This is the representative democracy system, which I think has major flaws.
Also agreed. What do you think of sortition as a replacement?
A certain sector of society elects Donald Trump, who appoints the new FCC chair, and they'll do whatever they want within legal possibilities. Do you really think the sector of society which most cares about this rule change will affect the outcome with comments? They will no more do so than scientists will affect the budget of the EPA with comments.