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

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: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

[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: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.

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

[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.