Ajit Pai Helped Charter Kill Consumer-Protection Rules In Minnesota (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A court ruling that limits state regulation of cable company offerings was praised by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, who says the ruling supports his contention that the FCC can preempt state-level net neutrality rules. The new court ruling found that Minnesota's state government cannot regulate VoIP phone services offered by Charter and other cable companies because VoIP is an "information service" under federal law. Pai argues that the case is consistent with the FCC's attempt to preempt state-level net neutrality rules, in which the commission reclassified broadband as a Title I information service instead of a Title II telecommunications service.

The ruling was issued Friday by the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, following a lawsuit filed by Charter Communications against the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC). A three-judge panel ruled against Minnesota in a 2-1 vote -- the FCC had filed a brief supporting Charter's position in the case. "[F]ederal law for decades has recognized that states may not regulate information services," Pai said in response to the ruling. "The 8th Circuit's decision is important for reaffirming that well-established principle: '[A]ny state regulation of an information service conflicts with the federal policy of non-regulation' and is therefore preempted." Pai said the ruling "is wholly consistent with the approach the FCC has taken under Democratic and Republican Administrations over the last two decades, including in last year's Restoring Internet Freedom order." The commission says the reclassification should preempt any such attempts at regulating broadband at the state level.

Comments

Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this scumbag ever leave out an opportunity to screw customers?

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember: his name is a Shit Pie

so... no state rights

[Anonymous Coward]

i for one welcome... no ... fuck pai

Re: so... no state rights

[guruevi]

Wrong: the state wants to have its cake and eat it too.

By clinging to Obama-era "net neutrality" rules (which is a gross redefinition of what we here used to discuss was Net Neutrality - treat all packets the same regardless of origin) to make Internet a regulated "information service" (where the federal government can dictate who gets access to the service and under what conditions but the providers aren't required to roll out services) rather than a "telecommunication service" (where everyone should eventually get access but the provider is allowed to oversell and prioritize certain traffic).

In this case the state government cannot regulate VoIP as Title 2 because it chose to implement Internet (a prerequisite for VoIP) as Title 1.

Re: so... no state rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama-era net neutrality rules were to regulate internet as Title 2 telecommunication services buddy. Ajit Pai wants them to be Title 1 information services. You seem very confused about the whole situation, maybe you should stick to something you can understand.

Re: so... no state rights

[Anonymous Coward]

"maybe you should stick to something you can understand."

Maybe he's doing it on purpose, sowing disinformation and confusion to lower the public's will to fight for net neutrality.

Re: so... no state rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama hired Ajit Pai.

Re: so... no state rights

[Anonymous Coward]

He did so because he basically had to. Since they'd have to be approved by the (Republican controlled) Senate.
Also, he didn't hire him for the role of chairman
oh and also he was no longer President when Ajit Pai got his current role.

Re: so... no state rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama hired Ajit Pai.

So? Another attempt to misinform again. Well, because you don't like Obama doesn't mean you need to be an ignorance and stupid. Learn to get out of your tunnel vision a$$ (with your bias) and look around for more information. You are wrong big time. Especially when Obama appointed him, he was in NO WAY to have this much power now as a chairman. Who appointed him to be a chairman? Stop being an Idiot.

No shit the fuck you think they hired him for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Goofy desirap attempts didn't get him the job, sucking corporate cock and screwing the consumer got him the job. NOBODY SHOULD BE SURPRISED, the fuck did you think Trump hired him to do? He's a WHORE, duh.

Re:No shit the fuck you think they hired him for?

[serviscope_minor]

the fuck did you think Trump hired him to do?

Oh I thought it was Trump draining the swamp you know, draining it from the DC metro area right into the whitehouse.

I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[rsilvergun]

but that sort of implies the slightest attempt to hide what they're doing. Hell, this is what the voters wanted. Less regulation. Well, consumer protection rules are regulation folks. And we just got less of them.

I'm sure the savings will trickle down eventually...

Re:I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[ravenshrike]

Except this is regulation, specifically federal regulation preempting state regulation in a cross-border service. What's more, I can pretty much guarantee that this bit of regulation came about because the phone service companies lobbied for it since they didn't want the competition in a government protected space.

Re:I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[sdinfoserv]

Absolutely true! People voted for less regulation. Regulation also stops corporations from doing things against the pubic good in the name of profit - like polluting water, using cheap fire loving clothing on babies, MPG automotive requirements, and the list goes on.
And yes, regulations cost money and thus can kill some jobs. But you have to make a choice - do you want water you can drink, or a higher pay check?
The problem here is that those in charge (the pro-corporate profit over people, global warming denier types) while most Americans are distracted by the Trump circus, the GOP is busy shoving as many pro-corporate federal judges into office as possible. This changes the rules well beyond an election into future generations.

Re:I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[Opportunist]

Well, take a wild guess what will trickle down from a shit pile.

Re:I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[PopeRatzo]

Hell, this is what the voters wanted. Less regulation.

No, "the voters" don't understand regulation enough to have a reasoned opinion.

What "the voters" (and you know who you are) wanted was a president who would make it safe for them to say the N-word again. Let's stop bullshitting.

Re:I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[dog77]

Can someone point out what the consumer gains in this case by having the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission regulate the VOIP service?

By avoiding title 2, it seems like this avoids taxes and other requirements such as being forced to have 911 service. I don't have to pay an extra tax for streaming movies or television over IP, why do we want this to be different for phone over IP?

Re:I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, this is what the voters wanted. Less regulation.

No, "the voters" don't understand regulation enough to have a reasoned opinion.

What "the voters" (and you know who you are) wanted was a president who would make it safe for them to say the N-word again. Let's stop bullshitting.

So do tell me, when was the last time whites in the USA violently rioted and looted in the streets because a court decision didn't go their way? Did you know that whites are murdered by blacks about 12 times more often than the other way around? Check the FBI crime stats yourself. Yet this doesn't make the national news when it happens. Strange. It's as though there is an agenda. Much like when black males (well over 18 much of the time) commit crimes, the media describes them as "youths" and "teenagers". Odd.

If whites routinely did the same, I'd understand if other groups wanted to say things like "honkey" and "cracka". Really, I would.

Re:I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[PopeRatzo]

So do tell me, when was the last time whites in the USA violently rioted

You mean since Charlottesville?

Re: I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got it right. People should be directing anger at the telcos on this one.

Re: I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[ravenshrike]

Of the two most violent incidents at Charlottesville the one most closely resembling a violent riot was instigated when one of a group of BLM members tried to steal the flag of a bunch of racists and then another in the group attempted to bash in the head of the guy who wouldn't let go of the flag with a metal pipe. The response of said racists was to administer a curbstomping to the guy with the pipe. Certainly not nice, but neither were they rioting. The other incident was a guy trying to kill people with his car. While evil, not the activity one associates with a riot.

Re: I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[orlanz]

Here is a link to stats:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pu...

Seems like black-on-white crime is almost 6x more likely than white-on-black crime. And what do you know, there are 6x more white people than black people in the US. So intraracial violence seems proportionally the same for these two.

It's seems MOST violence is from the same race. BUT White people seem to attack other races more than black people. Hispanics DO appear worse, but it makes sense that a minority attacks other races more... considering the targets have low numbers of their race. Care to explain the White race's apparent unbalanced violence against others?

Additionally, even thou there are 6x more white people than black people, they only face 4x more violence! Even the Hispanics face less violence than blacks.

Numbers wise, white people are pretty darn safe. Their biggest threat is other white people.

Then you got to reassess these numbers by the feedback and biases within the justice system. Things like how blacks face harsher punishments than white people or aren't forgiven as quickly. Or how the jail time doesn't help them get ahead in society and further pulls their family into poverty, gangs, and crime. Then the numbers look even worse for white people.

Re: I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[PopeRatzo]

Of the two most violent incidents at Charlottesville the one most closely resembling a violent riot was instigated when one of a group of BLM members

First, you appear to be forgetting the fact that only two incidents led to charges (and convictions) and they were both violence perpetrated by white supremacists (see below).

https://www.thedailybeast.com/...

Second, go fuck yourself you nazi-defending piece of shit. Supplying you with a citation took about eight times more effort than you deserved.

Re: I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, about "James Fields".....How about that antifa-loving professor that admitted to brandishing his weapon at James Fields moments before James floored it to get away????

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/01/armed-antifa-professor-admits-chasing-charlottesville-driver-rifle-deadly-crash/

Re: I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[ravenshrike]

Hmmm, should I believe a daily beast article or video and high school physics class. Decisions decisions.

Re:I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[Anonymous Coward]

That's be a great informative description if the choices where "regulation" or "higher paycheck"

Unfortunately the options are usually closer to "regulation" or "no job" for most people, and maybe "more bonuses" for people at the top of the company.

Consider Trump's rollback of proper disposal of fill at coal mines.
How many people does it take to properly dispose of that fill? I mean some one has to drive the dump truck, some one has to operate the bulldozer, some one has to do the environmental analysis to determine where it can be safely discarded... 3 jobs that the coal companies no longer need to pay people for with the new "let it fall where it may" deregulation...

Now look at the MPG requirements, engineers need to build better engines for those, with them gone, no need for those engineers to get paid.
Fireproof baby clothing, no need for testers with flame throwers to try to cook baby mannequins without the regulation.

Basically regulation is a job creation tool... and while unemployment hasn't gone back up because of the lack of regulation (because any company worth anything knows that we are 2 years off from a presidential election where these things are all going to get overturned, and maybe even closer to the court cases where these things get overturned, and isn't going to change their policies and have to re-hire and re-train people to do what will be required again in 6-24 months.) the potential for it to happen if people get what they want permanently is massive.

Re: I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[fafalone]

Good god did you fail at basic math. The resource you cited indicates 540,873 attacks of black offender/white victim (14.7% of total); comparing to 40m black people in this country, gives 0.0134 attacks/person. There were 92,728 attacks with white offender/black victim, with 197m white non-hispanic (since the link also makes this differentiation). That's 0.0005 attacks/person. This is not even close to equal. Black people attack white people at 26.8x the rate white people attack black people, according to your own resource.

Re:I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why aren't I fifty points ahead of these fucking morons, you might ask?"

It's cool though, we all know your degree in male rectum studies makes you an expert, Shitzo.

Re: I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[orlanz]

1) 540,873/92,728 ~ 5.8x white vs black on cross race violence.
2) 197m/40m ~ 5x white vs black people population.

But on #2, I went with the US Census website which said 76.6% and 13.4% 2017 populations for white and black. That is ~5.7x. In 2010, it was just a little closer to 6. So I rounded both to 6. Conclusion: relative to population, both sides are equally violent to each other.

NOW, I totally disagree with your comparison of numbers. You are comparing cross race violence as a indicator of threat against the entire population. However, this throws out the primary threat in both races, which is inTERracial violence. White people are ~4x more likely to attack a white person than a black person. A black person is ~6x more likely to attack a black person than a white person. Your math is like comparing the race times of 2nd places that came in well after 1st.

As for whites being safer, there were 3.6m acts of violence against them and blacks had 0.8m acts. So 197m/3.6m is safer than 40m/0.8m. Per your numbers, they are pretty close. If you took the 2017 (249m & 43m) or 2010 census numbers, you will see whites are safer than blacks as an overall risk of violence... even though they are, in general, richer and better off in society. Conclusion: in general, its safer to be White or Hispanic than Black in the US.

BUT BACK TO YOUR POINT. That report also has a nice little chart (Pg4-Fig2) that compares black/white-on-black/white violence in relation to population. You will see that over a 22 YEAR PERIOD, same race violence is FAR more of a threat than cross race violence! In fact, the cross race violence between these two races over the last 19 YEARS is pretty much the same, with the lines even crossing.

MY POINT IS: Rather than waste time & resources discussing how blacks are more/less/same a threat to whites & vice verse, why don't we focus on the elephant in the room. Which is same race violence is too high! Lets hit that so we get the biggest bang for our buck, then we can waste the pennies on second place.

US Census: https://www.census.gov/quickfa...

Re: I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[PopeRatzo]

Hmmm, should I believe a daily beast article or video and high school physics class. Decisions decisions.

You've been around long enough to know that it's best not to challenge my citations. Don't like the Daily Beast article? OK.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

https://q13fox.com/2018/05/02/...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Or, you could just look it up yourself. You can look at the court record.

Re:I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe this lie was voted informative. Okay ratzo. Keep telling yourself he was voted in by uneducated, poor, racist people. When it helps him maintain office, you'll have yourself and everyone who voted this useless comment up to thank.

Re:I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time a white, un-armed Christian was shot in the back by cops.

When was the last time a white, un-armed Christian couldn't get a job because of the color of his skin.

Maybe they protest because they have reason to. Maybe they riot because of the hopelessness burned into them over a lifetime of being discriminated against.

Re:I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[PopeRatzo]

Keep telling yourself he was voted in by uneducated, poor, racist people.

I didn't say they were uneducated or poor.

Re: I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe theyâ(TM)re Swedish. The Day of the Rope draws nearer!

Re: I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[fafalone]

I fail to see how explicitly noting that I was discussing the mere 14.7% of attacks on whites that were by blacks is trying to indicate the threat against the whole population. All I was saying is that cross-race violence, a small percentage of total violation, is not equal, and is factual regardless of offended SJW moderators.
I do not disagree with your sentiment that intraracial violence is the far bigger issue, but it's not like that makes it any better, it pisses off the left to no end to talk about the greater danger intraracial violence poses over white and white cop violence to the black community.

Re: I'd like to call this regulatory capture

[ravenshrike]

I know what the court record is. It is also a very clear case of jury nullification, a concept which I've argued for before on this very site. You don't bring a heavy metal flashlight to a midmorning protest unless you're planning on using it as a weapon.

Republicans and states right

[Skuld-Chan]

Can shove that sentiment ;).

Re:Republicans and states right

[meglon]

They've never been about states rights other than if the states want to strip away federal constitutional rights from people. "Tyranny of the majority" is the GOP's middle name, right after "grabbing them by the pussy."

Re:Republicans and states right

[PopeRatzo]

"Tyranny of the majority" is the GOP's middle name,

Except they haven't been a majority at any time in the past 30 years.

No, you could say "tyranny of the minority" is the GOP's middle name. Or just shorten it to "tyranny".

Re:Republicans and states right

[meglon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) refers to an inherent weakness of majority rule in which the majority of an electorate can and does place its own interests above, and at the expense of, those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his famous 1859 book On Liberty.

Potentially, through tyranny of the majority, a disliked or unfavored ethnic, religious, political, social, or racial group may be deliberately targeted for oppression by the majority element acting through the democratic process

Tyranny of the majority is used commonly by conservatives to pass laws that infringe on sub-groups rights, whether directly or indirectly. Often when the courts throw out social conservative laws, the GOP screams "judicial overreach" when it's actually just the courts telling them they can't infringe on peoples rights.... that the tyranny of the majority will not stand. We've seen it with civil rights, interracial marriages, sodomy laws, same-sex marriage...they pass laws that infringe on peoples constitutional rights, and they do so more often than not through states because of the smaller voter bases. Conservatives want all their rights, but they don't want anyone else to have any.

Let your voice - I mean info service - be heard.

[fahrbot-bot]

... VoIP is an "information service" under federal law.

Then federal law is wrong.

Re:Let your voice - I mean info service - be heard

[Anonymous Coward]

"Then federal law is wrong." - How much is lobbying to change Federal law back to reasonable going to cost in corporate whore lap dances? Nobody can match the telco whores. Too much ass.

Re:Let your voice - I mean info service - be heard

[Anonymous Coward]

Then federal law is wrong.

So? Haven't you heard? Your opinion is worthless, but the opinions of megacorps are universal laws.

Know your place pleb.

Oh, one other thing. That whole "just because you can doesn't mean you should" was thrown out years ago along with your stupid consitution and bill of rights.

Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on! Hate him! Be outraged! Now look at these advertisements. 2018, and this is what news is now.

If It's One Thing Republicans DON'T Want

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the states self-governing!

It is known

[duke_cheetah2003]

We all already know Ajit Pai is a scum bag big ISP shill. We really don't need to hear it again.

Re:It is known

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but seeing you libtards whine again and again is worth it.

Maybe your people will be in power - someday. In the meantime we plan to fuck you over good.

Re:It is known

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a witch?

Re:It is known

[Pubstar]

In the meantime we plan to fuck you over good.

You mean fuck everyone over?

Re: It is known

[Anonymous Coward]

Poison tends to bite right back at you!

Re:It is known

[Anonymous Coward]

> You mean fuck everyone over?

NOPE! Corporations are people too.

Re:It is known

[Anonymous Coward]

bought and paid for, he does his job well

Re:It is known

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a fucking pimp, taking money to arrange for us to be screwed by big corps. For all you voting GOP, how's if feel to be volunteering to be his whore?

Re:It is known

[Trogre]

No, it needs to illustrated again and again. Every dodgy deal he makes needs to be thoroughly documented and publicized.

Until he is gone.

Re:It is known

[pots]

Not good enough. You don't solve the problem by getting rid of the lackey, you solve the problem by getting rid of the people who put him there.

I'm getting sick of saying this in every story about Ajit Pai, but: Ajit Pai is not the problem. There are no surprises here, he's doing exactly what he said he'd do when he was nominated. Congress is the problem.

Re:It is known

[Trogre]

Libtards? Libtards?!

This has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative, left vs right, vim vs emacs.

This is much more simple. Either you like The Internet, or you hate it.

I guess I know which side you're on.

Re:It is known

[Trogre]

Good, you've identified the problem.

Now, please outline exactly what you intend to do about it.

I'll wait.

Re:It is known

[pots]

Okay. Step 1: complain about it on the internet. This is the internet version of canvassing.

Step 2: complain about it to anyone else who will listen. This is the lazy version of canvassing.

Step 3: Hope that this is enough, because I'm not going to do canvassing for real.

Re:It is known

[Trogre]

Huh.

So, effectively nothing then.

Do you live in America?

Re:It is known

[pots]

People say that arguing does nothing, especially on the internet, but I don't think this is true. Arguing, or "discussing" if you're in polite company, is how we resist misinformation on a person-to-person basis. Apparently you're not a believer in the efficacy of canvassing, but for most people it's all that's available. Not all of us have a soapbox to stand on.

I mentioned above that I try to draw attention to the fact that Ajit Pai is not the real problem whenever he comes up in this sort of thread. I do this in the hope that maybe someone will read it, and maybe someone will say something like, "Oh yeah. He's a douche bag, but that's probably true." And in that way I can, to a very small degree, help to erode support for the people who put him where he is. I think that this is worthwhile, and not nothing.

States can still restrict right-of-way

[reg]

The states definitely have control over right-of-way on all land within the state. States can always remove pole/digging access from anyone that doesn't comply with Net Neutrality. If VoIP is an "information service" then a Title I company does not have a legal right to pole access if they are not providing a real dial tone on the copper.

Re:States can still restrict right-of-way

[Kohath]

Federal judges don't like cynical attempts at workarounds to their rulings. Just FYI.

Re:States can still restrict right-of-way

[Anonymous Coward]

The father of the federal judges that made the rule solved the VCR clock problem too.... with electrical tape.
Thank you, ignorant old men.

Re:States can still restrict right-of-way

[Anonymous Coward]

If the federal judges are too fucking ignorant to do their jobs correctly, then fuck em. Fuck em all with a toilet brush.

this is all a losing battle

[WindBourne]

I wish that techies would QUIT trying to force net neutrality. It will solve NOTHING. The far right wants to make it so that the companies that lobby them (i.e. bribes them) wins out.
As such, the ONLY way to win at this, is to push local govs to add fiber utilities. For most states, it means passing laws that allow this. Some states like Colorado have the law and just need to have local govs vote on it. What is interesting is that nearly all attempts have passed. So, if techs REALLY want to make difference, just target the cities in which net neutrality has been violated. Once businesses realize that they can lose all their customers and profits in an area, they will stop. In the mean time, by pushing local gov fiber, we gain with G speed and much lower costs.

Re:this is all a losing battle

[CaffeinatedBacon]

The far right wants to make it so that the companies that lobby them (i.e. bribes them) wins out.

As such, the ONLY way to win at this, is to push local govs to add fiber utilities.

Firstly, you need to go learn what ONLY means. You use it quite a lot but it obviously doesn't mean what you think it means.

Secondly, How does your ONLY solution help people with 'far right' local governments?

Re:this is all a losing battle

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is a simpler way to "win" here-- Eminent Domain.
I'm sure that is just what the far-right isn't imagining will happen, but, be careful, it is certainly within the rights of the state to do...

Re:this is all a losing battle

[WindBourne]

uh no. What exactly are they going to take? TP based DSL lines? Regular coax cable? The state/local gov/citizens would gain little to nothing. And ED is not used to force a regulation of NN on the phone/cable providers. Totally different concepts. ANd in general, if a local gov attempts to steal the lines, then the business will simply go to the courts and demand reparations for it, which is normally quite costly.

Instead of stealing or buying junk, it is better for the local gov to put in fiber. Do it legally, and let these companies continue to compete with their junk, slow speeds, high prices and attempt to fuck over the customers with controlling the network.

Re:this is all a losing battle

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly are they going to take?
Their licences.
Resell them, then you will know how much money you need to pay in compensation for the eminent domain.
Or just cancel them for breach of their licensees. Tell them so sorry, try playing within the rules next time.

Re:this is all a losing battle

[Anonymous Coward]

Or we could, you know, get net neutrality back.

Pai is just a symptom

[Anonymous Coward]

One needs to look for the root cause, which is the whole current Republican regime. It's corrupt from top to bottom.

They'll say – and more importantly, they'll do anything – to hold on to power. They'll gerrymander. They'll lie. They'll cheat. They'll steal. They'll stop at nothing.

Everyone who thinks voting is pointless. That their vote doesn't count. That nothing will change. Get the fuck out and vote in November. Kick these assholes out.

We can stop them. The power to do it is in the ballot box. Crawl over broken glass if you have to, but just go vote.

Re:Pai is just a symptom

[Anonymous Coward]

Our tribe against their tribe. Progressive my ass.

Re:Pai is just a symptom

[Anonymous Coward]

If the dems did even half the gerrymandering the republicans did then there would be no republican party. The republican party is significantly smaller than the democrat party

Re:Pai is just a symptom

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, do I want the thief or the murderer?

Re:Pai is just a symptom

[Anonymous Coward]

more places or more often. I simply said that they are as guilty

How can they be as guilty if they do it less often and in less places?

Re:Pai is just a symptom

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't bother, it's old Windbag. Logic will get you nowhere with him.

Re:Pai is just a symptom

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
Your country is full of assholes.

What a whore

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to watch him get fucked.

*COUGH*bologna*COUGH*

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Ajit Pai fantasy-porn from the left. It's about as realistic as most things that happen in porn.

Cue outrage or something?

[Kohath]

Law applied as written, according to ruling by Federal judges.

You wanted the law to be violated? You wanted Federal judges to disregard the law? You wanted the FCC Chairman to be on the losing side — arguing against what the correct legal interpretation turned out to be, according to judges?

Or what? What should everyone involved have done differently?

Re:Cue outrage or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

The law is semi ambiguous. As it is written though it specifically defines phone service as Title II, They're arguing that it's not phone service but something else entirely in part due to the requirement that users get their CPE from spectrum. This is exactly what we had trouble with back in the day when the phone company was broken up.

Re:Let your voice - I mean info service - be heard

[sdinfoserv]

That's the beauty of Democracy - don't like something, get YOUR representatives elected to change the law. The only way to get the corporate butt muntchers out Capital Hill is campaign finance reform - at the State level, across enough states to get changes voted in Nationally.
If you can't do that, it's plunders away.

State option ?

[Archfeld]

Ban charter from the state. Not sure it is legal or proper but it would sure feel good.

Re:Let your voice - I mean info service - be heard

[Opportunist]

And if he doesn't, just vote the OTHER corporate whore in next time, that's gonna change something.

Face it, this political system is pretty much like the Machine in Zak McCracken where you can of course pull the switch and make the power go from full to the left to full to the right, with exactly the same result. The main difference is that Zak feels dumb for doing it. Apparently he's smarter than most of the US population.

Can someone with a legal type mind please explain

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether there's a broader implications for Fourth Amendment searches? If the claim is that VoIP is not a communication, it's an information service, does that mean there's a lower threshold for intercepting VoIP calls?

Re:I hate it when they follow the law!

[Opportunist]

Hey, guess what, a shit pile is also posting on /.!

Then Don't Regulate, Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been the Feds excuse to infringe on states rights for a while now. Simply pass a law that says all ISPs have to pay a $1 million dollar state tax per customer. Then offer a tax rebate to any ISP that abides by Net Neutrality.

So... what's gonna happen in California?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like their new law will share the same fate

Re:So... what's gonna happen in California?

[HiThere]

Different circuit court, so perhaps not. Different details on the law, so perhaps not.

OTOH, it would be reasonable to prohibit use of public right of way (i.e. poles) to any company that did not adhere to net neutrality. Or a tax to subsidize other carriers that did provide it. Or lots of other possibilities. All there needs to be is the political will to do so, and the possibilities are nearly endless. This has been said before, long since: "The power to tax is the power to destroy.". The implication that this is always bad is unfounded...but it surely often is.

From My IANAL POV

[sconeu]

The ruling is plain wrong. It fails the duck test.

From a consumer standpoint, VOIP looks like POTS, walks like POTS and quacks like POTS. It should therefore be regulated like POTS.

Not to mention that many ISPs require killing your POTS if you want their broadband service.

hang em high

[Anonymous Coward]

Do it like in the olde days

He seems of dubious character

[Anonymous Coward]

how are these corporate whores allowed to continue?

It's a gray area

[sizzlinkitty]

Here's the kicker, VOIP services fall under what the government has started classifying as critical infrastructure. Some states have different rules than at the national level and as far as I know, they cannot be bypassed without the provider being hit with a multitude of fines. It sounds like MPUC needs to go at regulating VOIP as regulating critical infrastructure, that should solve their problem.

Re:Let your voice - I mean info service - be heard

[Anonymous Coward]

pick up your Charter telephone and call 911 ...its down. oh well for entertainment purposes only, our tech took down the node today at lunch because we didn't want to pay overtime for them to work during a maintenance window.

Its a cheap generic, not equivalent service. You have to rent batteries if the power goes down no phone either.

Yep competition has solved that pesky safety and liability issue... Love it... entertainment purposes only.

American is a plastic knock-off of a good idea

Re:You're off-topic BUT I caught that too... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: The REASON was SUPER-STUPID too - they didn't TURN No-Script ON @ all iirc - talk F'ing DUMB!

* It was seriously disgraceful - & I bet the folks @ Zerodium feel like ZEROS after that (I would).

APK

P.S.=> Seriously - if you're going to build software @ least MAKE IT WORK (especially IF/WHEN you're building it OFF of/OUT of/ONTOP of others ALREADY PROVEN WORKING work!)... apk

Says the amazingly talented programmer who somehow, through Herculean efforts, managed to produce a program that compiles a text file.

Says a do-NOTHING "ne'er-do-well" (you)

[Anonymous Coward]

Says a do-nothing UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous "ne'er-do-well" in YOU that's never done a thing (let alone something simple & effective I have others like & use by the 100's of 1,000's worldwide).

* ESPECIALLY A "JEALOUS Lil' Jowie" in YOU that CONSTANTLY STALKS ME too no less, lol - loser.

APK

P.S.=> TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN ON /. (especially about "your kind", lol)... apk

Re:Let your voice - I mean info service - be heard

[Anonymous Coward]

... smarter than most of the US population.

I haven't seen much of US campaigns but it seems that policies are not required: Just shout a few buzzwords and proclaim that voters will lose X if they vote for candiate/issue Y. Winning is guaranteed if X is a pure fabrication, not related to Y because voters don't ask questions.

What's needed in the USA is firstly, cultural conformity; despite proclamations of a nation indivisible, the USA is very divided. Secondly, every social/economic/moral issue is now politicized. One can't stop that but political parties and their PACs should be punished for defamation. Third, with the truth being optional in US society, voters need to question the sincerity of their informant or rabble-rouser. Fourth, voters need to lose the "fuck you, I got mine" attitude. This is why scare tactics work and in the USA, they work every time. Now, corporations have billions of dollars to find voter's weak-spot but voters need to ask "what will (not 'might') we gain" from a candidate/issue.

Re:Let your voice - I mean info service - be heard

[Opportunist]

The USA isn't divided. The morons on both sides are united in their hatred for each other over pretty much nothing, while anything in the middle has simply gotten apathetic because they noticed that a two party dictatorship still does not offer you any choice, so why bother pretending to choose something?

Today's two minute hate?

[dfenstrate]

What's with you people and Ajit Pai?

Q: Were the decisions correct as a matter of law? Does the law need to be changed?

A: Who cares! Let's demonize this guy! Maybe we can get his children threatened again! Perhaps someone will physically attack him!

May those who push this sort of personal attack be on the receiving end one day. Oh, wait, that does happen, because the left eats it's own. It just hasn't happened to YOU yet.

Retard APK is mad that he got destroyed

[Anonymous Coward]

APK is just mad that he lives in a dumpy duplex his mother left him when she fled back poland to live out her dream of a retirement free of her retarded man child of a son. He still needs a roommate at age 54 so that he can afford to pay the bills and eat.

Pai is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Constitution specifically lists what our federal government has authority over and explicitly states that everything else is reserved to our states and individuals.

There has been no amendment to the US Constitution to create the FCC, let alone give it special authority to interfere in internal matters of our States.

Pai has no legal authority here.

PS - The US didn't originally have perpetual companies either. Every company charter was written for limited time and companies had to prove their value to society or be disbanded. What happened? Companies learned to exploit the 14th Amendment (anti-slavery) to argue that they are people when it comes to rights but organizations when it comes to punishments.

Why don't you say WHO you are?

[Anonymous Coward]

My Mother left me nothing & in fact? I literally requested she write me out of her will (my Sis did the same) & she did. We asked she leave our nieces/nephews/children everything,

* You just can't stop lying, can you, loser OR see subject: Why are you HIDING from me? Got something to HIDE?? Yes.

APK

P.S.=> JEALOUS "Lil' Jowie" you pitiful DO-NOTHING "ne'er-do-well" who STALKS me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts? You have SERIOUS mental issues (as well as being a HORRIBLE liar)... apk

Re:Let your voice - I mean info service - be heard

[Anonymous Coward]

federal law is wrong

In other news, water is wet.

Re:Let your voice - I mean info service - be heard

[Anonymous Coward]

I concur - I would not consider VoIP to be an Information Service and if it is somehow be categorized as such, then I would say that the categorization methodology is just wrong whether it be mis-guided intent or misinformation or misunderstanding.

Just fucking die already Pai...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, for the betterment of this country, just fucking die Pai.

Re:Let your voice - I mean info service - be heard

[sdinfoserv]

Choice is still at the local level. You choose to vote for tax levies or against, them. You vote for a helmet law or against it. You vote for a bond issue or tax break to an arsewipe corporation in exchange for the promise of jobs, or you vote against it. Majority wins. If the majority are to ignorant to look long term, too poor to look beyond hand-to-mouth or just don't care, the fools win. sound familiar?

Re:Let your voice - I mean info service - be heard

[Opportunist]

And you really think that any of this changes anything? Hey, maybe next week we get to vote on whether the first lady's dress is going to be teal or brown when they go abroad and sign away some more jobs to the benefit of some large corporations.

What we'd need to be able to decide about is whether those damn jobs go overseas!