Axios

Comcast's NBCUniversal invested $500 million in Snap's IPO yesterday as part of a "strategic investment partnership," reports CNBC. Snap doesn't appear to have allocated shares of the company to any other strategic partner, which would make NBCU the only U.S. media company with a stake.

NBCUniversal has also allegedly been reaching out to Snap CEO Evan Spiegel for the past year, and has agreed to hold its current shares for at least a year.

Why this matters: NBCU's investment signals an important vote of confidence in Snap's $28 billion IPO, a pricy valuation which many companies have questioned if it will last. It also indicates that NBCU is forging ahead with its investments into a series of digital media assets — including $400 million in Buzzfeed and $200 million in Vox. As CNBC points out, NBC has spent about $1.5 billion on digital assets in the past year and a half.

Note: NBC is an investor in Axios and Andy Lack is a member of the Axios board.

Trump has criticized wind-power, cast doubts on solar power's cost effectiveness, and promised on the campaign trail he would bring back coal jobs. But Trump is unlikely to touch the tax credits that subsidize investments and production in solar and wind power. Here's why that makes sense:

Carl Icahn, Donald Trump's special advisor for deregulatory efforts, has successfully pushed the ethanol lobby to adopt a regulatory change that it opposed, but which will save his refinery company more than $200 million annually, according to The Intercept.

The renewable fuel standard will now require wholesalers — instead of refiners — to produce gasoline with a minimum volume of renewable sources. The previous regulation cost Icahn's company, CVR Energy, millions last year since it doesn't have the capabilities to blend ethanol to meet the minimum, and instead had to buy renewable fuel credits.

Stock markets have gone bananas since election day, with the S&P 500 rising almost 11% — investors are loving Donald Trump's mostly business-friendly vision for the country.

Data: The Leuthold Group; Chart: Lazaro Gamio / Axios

But according to Douglas Ramsay, Chief Investment Officer of The Leuthold Group, Trump Administration officials will come to regret gloating about the market's performance. That's because Trump enters the White House during one of the most richly valued stock markets in U.S. history. The last president to come in at such valuations was George W. Bush, and the dot-com bubble burst soon afterward. Bill Clinton began his second term in a more overvalued stock market in 1997, and exited unscathed. But if his timing were different by just a year, he would have been blamed for the early-aughts market crash.

(First sentence corrected to say stocks have risen almost 11%.)

Two years ago this week, the FCC adopted net neutrality rules that protect an open and unfettered Internet. Net neutrality is the principle that the big media companies that provide internet access should not be able to pick winners and losers.

Most importantly, after two previous attempts to enforce net neutrality failed in court, the FCC grounded its rules in the strongest legal authority. It did so by ruling that broadband is a "telecommunications service" under Title II of the Communications Act. Title II is the portion of the law that gives the FCC power to protect consumers from, among other things, fraudulent billing, privacy violations and price gouging. Last June, a federal court upheld those rules, making net neutrality the law of the land.

Unfortunately, current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has announced his intention to take a "weed whacker" to the rules and to the legal authority on which they are based. More recently, he said, "I favor net neutrality, but I oppose Title II." This should fool no one — there's no net neutrality without clear FCC authority to protect consumers and competition in the broadband market. Right now, that authority is vested in Title II.

Everyone in this country passionately supports an open internet. Free speech — online and off — is at the center of our democratic way of life. For this reason, Americans have always enjoyed an open internet — long before regulators decided they had to "save the internet" by turning it into a utility.

In many respects, the so-called Title II debate reflects everything voters most resent about Washington: Fear-mongering, Armageddon-style arguments with a dubious connection to the facts.

The central fact of this debate is its true subject: This policy battle is not about whether we safeguard an open internet. It's about how we go about doing so.