Set-top reform '95% dead' at FCC with Trump taking office, analyst says.
Postcards from the edge. It just keeps getting better and better.
Postcards from the edge. It just keeps getting better and better.
Pretty much any regulatory rule change at this point in Obama's presidency is dead. To try and enact a rule change now is to risk having it vetoed by Congress and effectively having an injunction on future actions in the same vein (until Congress reverses itself) .Set-top reform '95% dead' at FCC with Trump taking office, analyst says.
Postcards from the edge. It just keeps getting better and better.
Under a seldom used law, the next Congress could quickly overturn more than 100 major regulations recently finalized by the Obama administration, including rules that aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect sensitive environments from energy development, improve nutrition labels on food products, and regulate electronic cigarettes.
And once Congress has acted to reject a regulation, federal agencies are barred from reissuing “substantially similar” rules unless lawmakers allow it. That draconian possibility – allowed under the 1996 Congressional Review Act (CRA) – has set off alarm bells among numerous interest groups, including environmental, labor and public health organizations.
The CRA was crafted by former Representative Newt Gingrich (R-GA) – now a major supporter of President-elect Donald Trump – and his anti-regulation Republican allies in the 1990s. It aims to prevent outgoing administrations from pushing through so-called “midnight regulations” – rules finalized in the last months of a presidency -- by giving Congress 60 days to review new rules (days only count while Congress is in session). If a simple majority of lawmakers in both the Senate and House of Representatives votes to reject a rule, and the president signs the resolution, the rule is vacated. And the agency isn’t allowed to try again to write a similar rule unless lawmakers approve.
These small footnotes are one of the greatest parts of the Trump victory. Little known, little seen, but huge in long lasting political effect.Pretty much any regulatory rule change at this point in Obama's presidency is dead. To try and enact a rule change now is to risk having it vetoed by Congress and effectively having an injunction on future actions in the same vein (until Congress reverses itself) .
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...-could-quickly-erase-scores-major-regulations
Was it worth giving up this set-top reform legislation for the experiences of mocking white middle-America? Actions have consequences.
"We don't know what Trump thinks about set-top boxes," Lewis said.
Is that question directed towards me? You likely would get a better answer asking that to someone who voted for Trump. All I can do is speculate on other people's thoughts.was it worth voting for Trump to destroy this legislation? actions do have consequences.
Was it worth giving up this set-top reform legislation for the experiences of mocking white middle-America? Actions have consequences.
Good point.I just don't understand why the FCC doesn't say Cable guys you need to give customers an option to buy their boxes at a reasonable retail markup.
Doesn't solve everything but its simple and addresses most of the problem.
Silly me, but I blame Trump voters (and the rigged electoral college system ) for Trump's win. You get the government you vote for.Well, when you make the election all about labeling others racists, misogynists, bigots, homophobes, & xenophobes, there's little room left over to actually dive into the other issues that are important to you.
My suggestion is next election cycle demand the Democrats run a campaign focused on issues.
Good point.
Your analysis reminded me of a network NFL broadcaster before a game last year explaining his key to the game (no joke) "The team that will be victorious today will be the team that can score more points than their opponent."Silly me, but I blame Trump voters for Trump's win.
I remember that one.Your analysis reminded me of a network NFL broadcaster before a game last year explaining his key to the game (no joke) "The team that will be victorious today will be the team that can score more points than their opponent."
Well, when you make the election all about labeling others racists, misogynists, bigots, homophobes, & xenophobes, there's little room left over to actually dive into the other issues that are important to you.
My suggestion is next election cycle demand the Democrats run a campaign focused on issues.
Competition from where? Who is going to start laying new cable everywhere? How will they get the permits to do so?This is one of the downsides of a Trump presidency, the FCC was on the right path and now they are not going to be able to do the job anymore.
None of that would be necessary if there was competition among cable / internet providers. Real competition would eliminate a lot of the crap we as consumers have to put up with.... but as it stands there is no competition so we need the FCC to help, but my guess is Trump is not going to be on board with that.
No, I just find it ridiculous that the people who voted for Trump are trying to blame his victory on the people who didn't vote for him. Trump supporters need to own their votes.Your analysis reminded me of a network NFL broadcaster before a game last year explaining his key to the game (no joke) "The team that will be victorious today will be the team that can score more points than their opponent."
"Trump won because people voted for Trump."
What? Trump loves the media. He would die without them. Getting his name in the news proves he's alive.I just thought it's probably likely to continue since Trump hates the media and media companies. He'll do it just to piss them off.