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.
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
Are you trolling or do you actually believe that?
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.
The new law that is needed is the one that puts assholes like Pai in jail for what he's done.
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.
So you weren't able to make it through even the entire summary before chiming in?
The argument isn't whether or not a state can preempt federal authority, it's whether a federal agency that has claimed they specifically DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY can somehow also enjoin a State from exercising that authority. Completely opposite issue.
can the States preempt the authority of the FCC?
Have you read the bill? For the FCC to be granted standing as an injured party, they'd have to prove that THEY have authority over ISP contracts in Cali.
Also, this will NEVER make it to the SC, no matter which way it goes.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
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.
I get that you're having trouble dancing around the fact that the Republicans are proving themselves to be liars here on the whole "small government" thing but don't you think it's at least a real problem with visuals that this seems to belie Pai's own prior statements about states having the right to overturn his un-neutral, unethical rules if they so want? Or are you really okay with the fact that the whole party line is only internally logically consistent if you don't have a memory span that lasts longer than 48 hours?
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.
They have really good propaganda ...
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
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.
Which is why the California bill only applies to intrastate commerce (state contracts with ISPs). No ISP actually is required by law to do anything, but they won't get a state contract unless they do.
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!
The argument isn't whether or not a state can preempt federal authority, it's whether a federal agency that has claimed they specifically DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY can somehow also enjoin a State from exercising that authority. Completely opposite issue.
Almost there.
Congress has original authority which it has granted to *neither* the FCC *nor* the States. *Congress* is who have failed to act for many years even before Obama.
Hell, this entire NN uproar started because Democrats wanted NN but knew they couldn't get it through Congress and so had the FCC deem itself additional regulatory scope because reasons in an end-run around Congress to get what they wanted.
This whole ball of shit from the beginning is because Congress is too partisan and too chickenshit and cowardly on *both sides*, afraid to lose campaign money & votes to enact legislation to either deal with the issue directly (unlikely), create a new Federal agency and delegate it regulatory powers to deal with it (also unlikely) or to authorize an existing agency and delegate regulatory powers appropriately to deal with it like the FTC or FCC (one of those most likely).
Both sides need to stop these end-runs around the Constitution, due process, and checks & balances. Any gains you make will be fleeting, the next person/people can roll ir all right back and then do even worse to you. It only ends in a crisis of government, civil disorder, and social & economic chaos. Not a pleasant Tuesday for anyone except those who desire death, chaos, and destruction. My Tuesdays are booked, thanks all the same.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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'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.
How's life in the hypocrite lane?