What does a Trump presidency mean for tech?

[1979Shocker]

https://www.cnet.com/news/what-does-a-trump-presidency-mean-for-tech/?ftag=CAD090e536&bhid=21042686863169711580416312082555

The eight-year bromance between Barack Obama -- who appointed the first chief technology officer for the US -- and the tech industry is ending. Now what?

That's the question the tech industry has been asking since a real-estate mogul turned reality star, with a spotty reputation with tech, was voted in as 45th president of the United States.

President Obama, a self proclaimed geek and Trekkie, was the most tech-focused president in modern history, committing billions of dollars to support initiatives to spur tech innovation, improve education and encourage exploration and discovery. Unlike Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump said very little during the campaign about where he stands on most tech-related issues -- though he did call for a boycott of Apple products over the company's stance on privacy in its fight with the FBI

[MoValley John]

I think we need to find more articles on how Trump is going to screw up other sectors of industry.

[MoValley John]

I did not vote for Trump. That said, I'm not fearful.

On the flipside, I kind of like worrysome handwringing.

[CBB_Fan]

It means a likely end to net neutrality. Which has been terribly explained by both sides unfortunately. For those that don't know, Internet Service Providers want to make a tiered internet system. Right now, you purchase internet service and you get whatever speed you pay for to every single site. If you pay for a service 10 MB/s from Verizon or Cox or Comcast, you should get 10 MB/s or so no matter what your browse or where you guy.

Large ISPs don't like that.

They want a subscription service, like cable. Instead of getting every "channel" for free you would have to buy bundles, and the speed to each "channel" could be set based on the company. Their version of Netflix with 10 shows and 3 movies? Super high speed. Netflix itself? Unwatchable. This stops free-market forces from lowering prices, as companies can simply stop their customers from shopping outside their ecosystem. Using Netflix again, maybe Verizon wants to start a streaming service but can't realistically compete with the better ran, larger library Netflix. If they offer an inferior, high priced product now they lose money. But if they can stop customers from using Netflix by refusing to offer good connection to its streams? Profit!

This is simply anti-consumer. Take this forum for instance. Maybe Cox will have a sports-package for an extra $10 a month that lets you view ESPN, Fox, etc. Without it, no Shockernet. Or maybe they'll have a sports package with NFL and NBA stuff, but Shockernet is bundled with Comcast which isn't in your neighborhood. Don't worry though, for $10 more dollars you can unlock premium channels from another provider!

It also screws small businesses. Run a Mom&Pop shop with a small web page showing what you sell? It will cost $1000 a month to buy a sponsored content license from your local provider, so people can even see your website.

Donald Trump has absolutely no understanding of net neutrality; indeed he seems to believe it is the opposite of what it actually is and has something to do with the Fairness Doctrine. He has pledged to get rid of it and other regulations stopping bad practices by Internet Service Providers.

Basically, under current law it is illegal for Internet providers such as Comcast and AT&T to put up barriers to the websites consumers want to reach, and they cannot demand special payments from website operators just so that the sites' content can reach Internet users. Trump wants to get rid of this.

[MoValley John]

Ban Apple!

[shocka khan]

It means a likely end to net neutrality. Which has been terribly explained by both sides unfortunately. For those that don't know, Internet Service Providers want to make a tiered internet system. Right now, you purchase internet service and you get whatever speed you pay for to every single site. If you pay for a service 10 MB/s from Verizon or Cox or Comcast, you should get 10 MB/s or so no matter what your browse or where you guy.

Large ISPs don't like that.

They want a subscription service, like cable. Instead of getting every "channel" for free you would have to buy bundles, and the speed to each "channel" could be set based on the company. Their version of Netflix with 10 shows and 3 movies? Super high speed. Netflix itself? Unwatchable. This stops free-market forces from lowering prices, as companies can simply stop their customers from shopping outside their ecosystem. Using Netflix again, maybe Verizon wants to start a streaming service but can't realistically compete with the better ran, larger library Netflix. If they offer an inferior, high priced product now they lose money. But if they can stop customers from using Netflix by refusing to offer good connection to its streams? Profit!

This is simply anti-consumer. Take this forum for instance. Maybe Cox will have a sports-package for an extra $10 a month that lets you view ESPN, Fox, etc. Without it, no Shockernet. Or maybe they'll have a sports package with NFL and NBA stuff, but Shockernet is bundled with Comcast which isn't in your neighborhood. Don't worry though, for $10 more dollars you can unlock premium channels from another provider!

It also screws small businesses. Run a Mom&Pop shop with a small web page showing what you sell? It will cost $1000 a month to buy a sponsored content license from your local provider, so people can even see your website.

Donald Trump has absolutely no understanding of net neutrality; indeed he seems to believe it is the opposite of what it actually is and has something to do with the Fairness Doctrine. He has pledged to get rid of it and other regulations stopping bad practices by Internet Service Providers.

Basically, under current law it is illegal for Internet providers such as Comcast and AT&T to put up barriers to the websites consumers want to reach, and they cannot demand special payments from website operators just so that the sites' content can reach Internet users. Trump wants to get rid of this.

I've also seen our various republican congress-critters make statements that cause me to believe that the moratorium for repatriating 'stranded' profits from other countries will be lifted.

The last time this was done, we were promised that there would be more jobs for Americans. Instead, the pace of off-shoring picked up as the repatriated profits were then invested in projects in those off-shore countries and contributed to job losses.

By the way, this is something the tech industry wants very badly.

We will see if Trump will put the hammer down on some of these trade deals. If he does, I'm not against allowing industry to repatriate their stranded profits. If he doesn't and we lose even more manufacturing/tech jobs, he will have a very difficult time explaining this to all the folks in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan who voted for him thinking he will do more to prevent companies from off-shoring jobs.

By the way, and I think this may be an interesting tidbit: Apple is the biggest tax avoider of all the companies in the United States. If Trump does not like Apple and Trump doesn't like all those Apple jobs that have moved to Foxconn factories in China, exactly what, if anything, will he be able to do about it? The EU has already skinned Apple's butt pretty good over the tax avoidance scam they cooked up in Europe.

[Cdizzle]

Apple will be just fine, so long as they never get into the music industry.

[MoValley John]

I just want Trump to give everyone a 90" TV with 8 hdmi ports. Then, I will vote for his reelection.

[Kung Wu]

I just want Trump to give everyone a 90" TV with 8 hdmi ports. Then, I will vote for his reelection.

Everyone or every household?

[MoValley John]

Everyone or every household?

Everyone. I need seven, thank you.

[Kung Wu]

Everyone. I need seven, thank you.

Children? Infants? Unborn fetuses?

[MoValley John]

Children? Infants? Unborn fetuses?

I believe all fetuses should get a big screen, if you are human life, you get one, but there has to be some compromise. Liberals don't grant human rights to babies until they have completely left the uterus, so while I think every person should get a TV, for the good of me getting my way, I'd be willing to screw over the unborn, everybody else does.

[MoValley John]

So..... I'm in the gameroom and I get done casting Sling. Chromecast casts this wallpaper.

20161112_201403.jpg

Is it bad that I want to shoot my TV?

[Cdizzle]

So..... I'm in the gameroom and I get done casting Sling. Chromecast casts this wallpaper.



Is it bad that I want to shoot my TV?

Let us know if you still get the red mist experience.