[MichaelBurge]

I don't think Trump cares much about net neutrality in particular, but it wouldn't surprise me if he abolished or severely cut back the FCC.

The big deal to me is mostly the last-mile infrastructure, which is more of a local/state issue anyways. If the telecom companies mostly handled the backbone, losing the government enforcement doesn't even seem that bad.

Regardless of what happens at the federal level, California and New York are completely controlled by Democrats, so HN commenters should find it relatively easy to push through state net neutrality laws. And bigger companies like Netflix can probably bribe the smaller states by promising to set up a call center in Montana or something in exchange for net neutrality laws in that state.

Frankly, this current system where an unelected official gets to pick and choose the scope of his agency is a bit silly. I wouldn't mind if the whole agency is cut out, if its scope changes so wildly depending on who's President.

[shmerl]

The irony is, places mostly controlled by Republicans will be bitten the most by weaker FCC. They are already plagued by lazy and sleepy monopolists and corrupted local laws written by them that prevent municipal networks and result in overpriced and underpowered Internet. Without FCC it will only get worse. So those who chose that will taste their own medicine.

[colejohnson66]

I thought rich people were given exceptional QoS so they don't complain about it to the media. Not to mention: they're rich; They don't really care how much their internet costs so long as it works.

[shmerl]

If rich people live in the area with bad Internet, there isn't much they can do about it (except moving to a different place). And today practically everyone cares, both rich and poor. Internet is an essential utility.