Slashdot Mirror
Ajit Pai Calls California's Net Neutrality Rules 'Illegal' (arstechnica.com)
On Friday, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai called California's net neutrality bill "illegal," saying it "poses a risk to the rest of the country." The bill recently passed California's state Assembly and now awaits the signature of Governor Jerry Brown.
In response to Pai's speech, Scott Wiener, California's Senator who authored the bill, said they are "necessary and legal because Chairman Pai abdicated his responsibility to ensure an open internet." "Unlike Pai's FCC, California isn't run by the big telecom and cable companies," Wiener also said. "Pai can take whatever potshots at California he wants. The reality is that California is the world's innovation capital, and unlike the crony capitalism promoted by the Trump administration, California understands exactly what it takes to foster an open innovation economy with a level playing field." Ars Technica reports: Pai targeted the California rules in a speech at the Maine Heritage Policy Center. Pai derided what he called "nanny-state California legislators," and said: "The broader problem is that California's micromanagement poses a risk to the rest of the country. After all, broadband is an interstate service; Internet traffic doesn't recognize state lines. It follows that only the federal government can set regulatory policy in this area. For if individual states like California regulate the Internet, this will directly impact citizens in other states. Among other reasons, this is why efforts like California's are illegal. In fact, just last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reaffirmed the well-established law that state regulation of information services is preempted by federal law. Last December, the FCC made clear that broadband is just such an information service."
In response to Pai's speech, Scott Wiener, California's Senator who authored the bill, said they are "necessary and legal because Chairman Pai abdicated his responsibility to ensure an open internet." "Unlike Pai's FCC, California isn't run by the big telecom and cable companies," Wiener also said. "Pai can take whatever potshots at California he wants. The reality is that California is the world's innovation capital, and unlike the crony capitalism promoted by the Trump administration, California understands exactly what it takes to foster an open innovation economy with a level playing field." Ars Technica reports: Pai targeted the California rules in a speech at the Maine Heritage Policy Center. Pai derided what he called "nanny-state California legislators," and said: "The broader problem is that California's micromanagement poses a risk to the rest of the country. After all, broadband is an interstate service; Internet traffic doesn't recognize state lines. It follows that only the federal government can set regulatory policy in this area. For if individual states like California regulate the Internet, this will directly impact citizens in other states. Among other reasons, this is why efforts like California's are illegal. In fact, just last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reaffirmed the well-established law that state regulation of information services is preempted by federal law. Last December, the FCC made clear that broadband is just such an information service."
Ajit Pai is a stooge for Big Telecom. Government should not advocate for large business and enterprises but for individual people.
What a creep.
if big telecom has Pai in it's pocket or not. What matters is can the States preempt the authority of the FCC here. And I'm pretty sure they cannot.
Regardless this will eventually go before a Republican packed Supreme Court. It will be struck down. And yes, I'm calling the Republicans out on this. The Dems were busy with the ACA last time they held the government and spent their political capital on stuff like per-existing conditions. The Republicans, for their part, are the party of small government and minimal regulations. This is the party that gave us the slogan, "Government's not the solution, it's the problem".
This is what we voted for folks. If you want a government that takes an active role in, well, governing, then you have to vote people into office who believe it can do that. I think I've said this before, but you can't have a functioning government for only the one or two issues that matter to you personally. Well, not unless you're very, very rich.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Laws he doesn't like are "illegal." It starts at the top, Pai is simply taking a cue from the head of the executive branch.
Next up, news outlets he doesn't like are declared "fake."
Lose = not win
but I think that guy might be in the back pocket of big business. Big chocolate and peanut buttercup mug business.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
Last December, the FCC
Not their job. Congress makes laws.
made clear that broadband is just such an information service.
Telecommunications carrier. Google and Netflix are information services. AT&T, Verizon and Comcast just move it from point A to B.
Have gnu, will travel.
Is this peak autism?
There does seem to be an inexhaustible supply of it.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
It recognises them the same as it recognises the countries borders.
If it's outside a states jurisdiction, it's outside the federal jurisdiction too.
I don't believe this. I actually agree with the California legislature. I feel like I should turn in my man card or something.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Ajit strikes me as the sort of person who would shit in a public pool, then spend the rest of his week filing a lawsuit against the pool for unsanitary conditions.
Hey, down with the federal government! It is states rights.
Unless it is something I disagree or will anger my donors, then it's illegal!
Trump being out of office and pieces of shit like Ajit Pai being FIRED and replaced with a relatively non-corrupt appointee all just can't come fast enough.
I think we can all safely say that Ajit Pai will be mostly remembered as someone who ran the FCC in a pretty horrible manner. I don't think fifty years from now anyone will have any kind of fond memory of his tenure at the FCC, even less his leadership.
One, really big defining feature has been his lack of care for any kind of input outside his own and his acknowledged circle. Pai has mostly taken critics and professionals who have criticized him and mostly mocked them. It's one thing to indicate that you do not agree and pass ruling, it is entirely a different thing to show the level of contempt Pai has had for the public at large. Considering past FCC Chairs, Pai has been the most antagonistic to the public since the FCC's inception.
I think this is the biggest thing about Pai's tenure, his complete lack of care for the public. Every argument made thus far from Pai's FCC has been, "this will be good for business" and while I have yet to see that in effect, all of that aside, the public is mostly whom the chair should be acting in the interest for. Arguments should begin and end there and for goodness sake, shouldn't be the target of agitation in a public stage. We get it Pai, you believe everyone is an idiot who isn't you, but that happens in your home/your head. Openly acting out frustration is a clear sign that perhaps you weren't cut out for civil service.
And that is what I feel Pai will be most remembered for. Long after everyone here has turned to dust, Pai's name in FCC history will be mostly associated with what FCC Chairs ought not to do with respects to the citizens of this country. And that might not have registered with him or perhaps he is content/not caring with the tragedy of what it is, that the majority of his professional life can be summed up with whatever you do, don't do it like Ajit Pai. Even if it does win over whatever in business, which I highly doubt, simply his hostile treatment of those who criticizes him puts him into a ranking unlike any who have come before him, and perhaps any who comes after him.
They call him the shill but ignore that every democrat he is defending is on corporate payroll as well.
Pai: "The broader problem is that California's micromanagement poses a risk to the rest of the country. For if individual states like California regulate the Internet, this will directly impact citizens in other states."
Kissinger would approve.
- js.
You assume a lot in that sentence.
Now even our sitting president won't respect the laws. How do you expect anyone else to behave like an adult with that type of example to follow?
The president who appointed him. You can't like one guy and dislike the other. "Drain the swamp" by making the water deeper?
Go read the constitution. Go read the constitutions of the states. Check which states have economic leverage. Then tell me Federal Law supersedes State Law. Period. I say you're full of it. Prove me wrong. States' Rights. States' Rights. States' Rights!
You know what gives States Rights? Economic Leverage. Who has it? Who doesn't? If you're answer to the former is Red States in central and southern states, you'd be wrong. California has enormous economic influence. If you think they can't flex those muscles, you are naive to say the least.
The Republicans have proven that they cannot govern. They have been taken over by kooks - like the Evangelical Christians (a bunch of morons) and the billionaires who use the support of those useful idiots to push through their agenda.
I think most members of the Republican base are just so misinformed and refuse to believe any facts, that they are just voting cannon fodder. Look at what's happening to the fly-over states. Trump is their boy but he is fucking them - and they are STILL supporting him!
We're supposed to respect the other side, but it's real hard when the other side is just delusional and living in a fantasy bubble.
I can't complain too much, though. The Republican shenanigans during the Obama years have lined my pockets; which I throw into the faces of every "conservative" I know.
Keeping the FCC from regulating Internet is what ensures an open internet.
There are two definitions of open being used. There is open, as in every site and person has relatively equal access to the internet. They're not restricted by what their ISP tells them they can/can't have, or at what price point and speeds they get it. This is what net neutrality is about. Then, there is open as in the ISPs and other major companies are open to exploit it and its users for as much money as they can. This is what Pai and the FCC are currently all about.
When dealing with monopolies and duopolies, it's impossible for the free market to regulate itself. Government has to step in to maintain a level of fairness.
GOP only favors States' Rights when the Democrats are in power, just like "fiscal discipline".
In practice, GOP is in the back pockets of corporations. Well, both parties are, to be fair (though not to the same degree.) We are more plutocracy than democracy. Campaign donations are legalized bribery and should be capped, but the GOP courts ended most capping, arguing more or less that such bribery is "free speech" and that corporations should have most of the same rights as humans.
It does look like we are on a slippery slope whereby the richer the rich get, the more money they have to bribe to keep getting richer in a feedback cycle. The increasing inequality is objective evidence of such a cycle. Beware, though, history shows it may end badly.
Table-ized A.I.
Didn't realize Hawaii seceded from the US. When did that happen?
"The broader problem is that California's micromanagement poses a risk to the rest of the country. After all, broadband is an interstate service; Internet traffic doesn't recognize state lines. It follows that only the federal government can set regulatory policy in this area."
The broader problem is Ajit Pai.
Internet traffic doesn't recognise Country boundaries either. It follows that only a World Government can set regulatory policy in this area.
Fran
:):):)
1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!
they're mutually exclusive. The Feds don't have authority, but neither do the states. The Feds lack authority because there is no explicit law saying they have authority. The states lack authority because of the commerce clause. This is all logically consistent. Want Net Neutrality? Pass a law. Though a Republican run Congress. Good luck with that.
When you're starting from your conclusion and working your way backwards it's easy-peasy to make it all work. When you've got control of all branches of government plus the media you can make it stick.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I mean, this guy really sucks and sucks until he gets every last drop.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
There is no doubt in my mind that Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives the FCC the authority to regulate broadband. You could even argue that means the FCC has jurisdiction, and I would also agree that is very likely (almost certain!).
But what you overlook is that non-exclusive jurisdiction is possible, and California legislature and courts could adjudicate on these matters. I think California will be able to attempt to enforce net neutrality like rules for a time, and we'll see later if higher courts settle the arguably unsettled status of this issue. If it was settled in favor of the FCC, it could very well be a Commerce Clause issue, but not necessarily so.
I think it would be damning if 9th Circuit saw a case for this and ruled against California. That would be the end of it. But I think that is incredibly unlikely given the 9th Circuit's track record on populist and high profile cases. Would SCOTUS even hear such a case after the 9th Circuit ruled on it? possible, but maybe not. Would this first go somewhere other than the 9th? seems very unlikely.
(all speculation. I have no crystal ball!)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
>In short, isn't it better to let states decide what they want to do rather than let the federal government dictate everything?
Until Wal-Mart phamacies in Arkansas are allowed to sell bulk generic opiates to anyone who presents a valid and up to date out of state drivers license. I hope something happens where you are exposed to some states rights.
There are towns in the US, usually fairly peaceful places. But they're as corrupt as anywhere, the people running these small governments are mafias that steal and murder as much as they want but generally do a good job of keeping the peace and maintaining a tight monopoly on violence and disorder. They would of course love to do anything they can to reduce the influence of larger powers.
I hope you run into some town, nice and tired, late at night, get pulled over, and then they finally let you drive out of town early noon the next day after dicking around with you for laughs all night. Just for me please scream "I LOVE STATES RIGHTS I RESPECT UR RIGHTS!" when you're locked naked in a cold running shower until "they're ready to process you"
The reality is that you're either terribly confused, or have a vested interest in allowing ISPs to run roughshod all over their customers. Net neutrality has nothing to do with creating or enforcing the monopolies. It has no impact on whether there is market competition for ISPs. It has nothing to do with propping up major content providers. It only exists as a preventative measure, to keep the ISPs from having too much power over their customers given their status as a monopoly/duopoly.
ISPs should be a common carrier. I'm not talking about classification, that would be another argument, but method of operation. They exist solely to connect you to what you want online. They have every right to charge you for the service they provide, based on how much data you use and/or how fast the data can flow. They should have no control over what sites/services you use online, or the speeds of those sites/services in relation to any other.
You brought up monopolies, not me.
Yet you want to deny them that right when the customer is called "Google" or "Netflix".
I remember when they were; it sucked. Badly. Obviously, you're too young to remember.
Go fuck your shoe, Ajit Pai.
ç
"The broader problem is that California's micromanagement poses a risk to the rest of the country. After all, broadband is an interstate service; Internet traffic doesn't recognize state lines. It follows that only the federal government can set regulatory policy in this area." Last I checked, the internet is a GLOBAL service, and much of California traffic may be dealing with networks in entirely different countries, under a wide variety of legal norms. Yet the internet doesn't break because of that. If the internet works just fine between New York and Tokyo and Beijing and Moscow and Frankfurt, San Francisco ISPs operating under slightly different rules than New York just doesn't matter.
You're right: This is an issue which Congress should have addressed. Maybe they'd come down in favor of neutrality, maybe not, but either way the legal situation would be clear. But congress has not acted - first because this new interwebs thing was a novelty they did not understand, and when it grew too big to ignore they still did not act because they were paralysed by partisan bickering. So we have this rather ugly arrangement in which the FCC is doing the job with somewhat dubious legal authority, and a tendency to completely reverse positions overnight when someone new is appointed to run it. It's an ugly and impractical situation, but it's what we're stuck with right now.
"After all, broadband is an interstate service; Internet traffic doesn't recognize state lines."
and it doesn't recognize countires either. well, i guess we're all 'illegal'.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Well, well, well. So state rights and small, local gubmints are good till they ain't. And big gubmint is bad until it tries to control someone's uterus or stifle net neutrality. Who didn't see this one coming?
> Yet you want to deny them that right when the customer is called "Google" or "Netflix"
Netflix/Google aren't the "customer" of the ISP in question. The actual customer of Netflix/Google is the *customer* of the ISP. The ISP is just standing in the middle demanding more money from companies that aren't their customers in order to actually deliver the packets their paying customers requested.
It's like the owner of an apartment building making a deal with Pizza Hut, their delivery guys get in free to drop off pizzas to the residents, but the doorman demands $10 from the Papa John's delivery guy or he won't let him in... Nothing but corporate greed to see here.
No, they are a customer of a different ISP, and that other ISP then peers with the ISP that you are a customer of. So, they have a contract with their ISP, you have a contract with your ISP, and the two ISPs have a contract with each other. All of these are voluntary, and all of these balance out the costs and values of the different market participants correctly.
And the owner of the apartment building can simply fire the doorman. So, based on your own example, there is no need for government regulation.
> And the owner of the apartment building can simply fire the doorman Admitedly, it’s not a perfect example. As if a resident of that building didn’t like the owner’s policies, they could easily move to one of no doubt dozens of other competing buildings in that area. As opposed to the customer of an ISP, who at best might have two choices, and quite possibly only one, and both are monopolies with captive audiences. And why would the owner fire the doorman who is implementing the policies he wants? That would be like the ISPs no longer giving bribes to the FCC when they’re so perfectly serving their agenda...
How's life in the hypocrite lane?
petition2congress.com/20010/expel-brahmin-from-usa/
Casteism