Ajit Pai Calls California's Net Neutrality Rules 'Illegal' (arstechnica.com) 285
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."
We all know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We all know (Score:5, Insightful)
As a member of the Republican administration, shouldn't Ajit Pai be happy that California is executing it's State's Rights to enact their own state specific legislation?
I mean... State's Rights is still part of the Republican platform, right? Or, has that been replaced by "whatever the highest Corporate bidder wants"?
Re:We all know (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't really have a plan for any really big states calling his bluff on that.
Re:We all know (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't really have a plan for any really big states calling his bluff on that.
Rather pathetic that a representative for a democracy didn't plan on democracy happening.
Re:We all know (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't really have a plan for any really big states calling his bluff on that.
Rather pathetic that a representative for a democracy didn't plan on democracy happening.
He's a Republican, not a representative for democracy.
Re:We all know (Score:4, Insightful)
This is unfortunately very poignant.
Re:We all know (Score:5, Insightful)
Federal Laws supersede State laws.
That's not how this works. Because any company following the California law would also be meeting the minimum requirements of federal law. And if you've looked at the bill, the state simply won't contract with an ISP that violates the principles of net neutrality. So they are enforcing it by means of intrastate commerce, which is fully within their jurisdiction.
Not at all true. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not at all true. (Score:4, Interesting)
As a person from the south, I sure am happy we have California to get something like this done. Thank you Cali!!!
Re:We all know (Score:5, Informative)
Federal Laws supersede State laws.
Period.
That is a tremendous oversimplification of the situation.
On some manners there is Federal jurisdiction; On some manners there is Local jurisdiction; On some manners there is joint Federal and Local jurisdiction.
In regards to Utility Companies (such as Broadband providers) operating within a state --- there is Federal and Local Jurisdiction. The companies have to obey federal regulations to operate in the US --- and in addition to obeying the federal regulations, they have to obey state laws to be allowed to build and operate the business within the state.
For example: If they disobey a state law that says they must respect network neutrality --- then the state could cancel their state telecom license - force them to sell their franchises off to a competitor and stop doing business within the state.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal enough source for you?
If a state law gives people more rights than a federal law, the state law is legally supposed to prevail. This means state law will always supersede federal law when the person in question stands to gain more from the state law, right? Wrong. The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains whatâ(TM)s kno
Re: (Score:2)
But is this a case of conflicting legislation, or it it a case of more stringent state laws?
For example in cases of safety the federal government can require that an item like electrical cable meet a set of minimum specs. A state can require a tighter set of specs be used in structures in their state. The state law does not contradict the federal. It just requires more stringent specs. This is entirely legal and happens all the time.
What the state cannot do is mandate that less stringent specs be used for e
Re: (Score:3)
IE: there isn't any law for California to break by enforcing net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Spectrum is based in Connecticut. How does California assume it can force an out-of-State company to change its behavior?
Charter/Spectrum has "major nexus" in California, therefore: they are required to obey all state laws regarding business operation within California at least regarding their California customers, including paying any state-imposed taxes on their business affairs in California: An interesting idea is instead of mandating network neutrality, the state could set a 100% revenue tax o
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We all know (Score:4, Insightful)
Federal Laws supersede State laws.
Period.
No it doesn't. In fact, there is literally an article of the Bill of Rights that says otherwise [wikipedia.org]. Federal law only trumps state on on issues that are delegated by the US Constitution to the federal government.
Mind you, the political parties on both sides of the aisle have spent the past 2 hundreds years expanding what was "given" to the federal government by the US Constitution, because it's always convenient to have more power when your party holds the reigns (and once power is given to the government it never gets taken away again, short of a revolution), so we'll have to see how the courts end up ruling in this case, but a common sense interpretation of the Constitution would say that California is absolutely within their rights to do exactly what they've done.
Re: (Score:2)
Federal law only trumps state on on issues that are delegated by the US Constitution to the federal government.
I believe this will be a test of the reach of the FCC's jurisdiction. I think conservative judges would not legislate from the bench and lean towards the Constitution as written, but could interpreter relevant legislation in favor of a stronger federal government. I think liberal judges would lean in favor of California. Either way seems likely to me that Ajit Pai will lose against California. The legislature might strike back and make it clearer where the FCC ends and states begin. Disclaimer: and maybe it
Re: (Score:3)
It's certainly an amusing contradiction and demonstrates his ineptitude. But I don't think what appointed agency directors say carry all that much legal weight with courts. Especially if they tend to publicly waffle on nearly anything as a matter of political convenience.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ajit Pal doesn't make law. He makes policies for the FCC. Even then, Federal law only trumps State law when the Federal law is constitutional (i.e. when it is a power granted to the Federal government by the constitution).
Re:We all know (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nothing to sue. This doesn't apply to interstate commerce, so that doesn't apply. There is no Federal law or constitutional requirement requiring state governments to do business with certain corporations over other corporations.
This law will stand and will end up being a model for the rest of the country. At this point, we can just wait out this degenerate administration. Other states are doing the same thing. Other nations are doing the same thing. They know this administration is a leaky boat and they're not going to make any long-term deals with these people.
Re: (Score:2)
Which laws are these? The FCC is not a legislative body, instead it creates regulations. It's an iffy line between the two. However this is moot, because the FCC said that it is NOT regulating and abdicated responsibility to the FTC.
For example here, the EPA never said "you must emit this percentage of hydrocarbons from autos, no more and no less", and so it was generally agreed with multiple administrations that states were allowed to to be stricter than the EPA requirements. That is, they meet the req
Re: (Score:3)
If it was so simple and the California law could be trivially overturned, why did the big telecom companies spend so much time and money trying to defeat this bill? Clearly there's a margin of doubt here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As a member of the Republican administration, shouldn't Ajit Pai be happy that California is executing it's State's Rights to enact their own state specific legislation?
I mean... State's Rights is still part of the Republican platform, right?
It was there in 2016 when Pai's boss was elected.
The Tenth Amendment: Federalism as the Foundation of Personal Liberty Federalism is a cornerstone of our constitutional system. Every violation of state sovereignty by federal officials is not merely a transgression of one unit of government against another; it is an assault on the liberties of individual Americans. Hence the promise of the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution gives the federal government very few powers, and they are specifically enumerated; the states and the people retain authority over all unenumerated powers. In obedience to that principle, we condemn the current Administration's unconstitutional expansion into areas beyond those specifically enumerated, including bullying of state and local governments in matters ranging from voter identification (ID) laws to immigration, from healthcare programs to land use decisions, and from forced education curricula to school restroom policies. We pledge to restore the proper balance and vertical separation of powers between the federal government and state governments -- the governments closest to, and most reflective of, the American people. We encourage states to reinvigorate their traditional role as the laboratories of democracy, propelling the nation forward through local and state innovation.
Hypocrites.
Re: (Score:2)
How the FCC has the power to regulate the internet and California does not
1. The commerce clause of the constitution
The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.[1] It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause,[2] and the Indian Commerce Clause.
2. The Federal Communications act
The first section of the Act reads: "For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the 'Federal Communications Commission', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act."[1]
Somehow I doubt you actually care for the facts as much as you want to scream "Hypocrites"
Re:We all know (Score:5, Insightful)
But even if that weren't, Ajit Pai stated that Point 2 does not grant the FCC the power to regulate internet service providers when he rescinded the Wheeler regulations. If it doesn't give the Feds that power, then it certainly doesn't take the power away from the states. Pai is trying to eat his cake and have it too.
Not really the slam dunk you think it is (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
States have power to tax those that don't.
Bribeocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
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. [politico.com]
Re:Bribeocracy (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggest advocates of states' rights in the past were with slave holding states and later segregationist states, which were Democrat at the time. Political parties, of course, change over time. And for a long time the Democrats were the opposition of the hated Republicans that eliminated slavery. This lasted a long time until the Democrats were the driving force behind the civili rights act, at which point most leading Democrats left the party en masse, often to join the Republicans and also to try and form the short-lived Dixiecrats. This was exploited by Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater in their "southern strategies" to woo white voters away from the Democrats.
Which is why I think it's absolutely absurd that some ex-segregationists proudly proclaimed to be in the party of Lincoln, when the parties today have so little resemblance to those in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say GOP was exclusively the problem. Read it again. But in general I'd say that top management of large companies leans toward the right. The companies you listed lean left socially but centrally on tax and economic issues. Tim Cook has given personal money to the GOP (and praised the tax cuts with little if any mention of the long-term debt problem they cause.)
On taxes and eco
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
State's Rights is still part of the Republican platform, right? Or, has that been replaced by "whatever the highest Corporate bidder wants"?
When was it ever anything other than the latter?
Re: (Score:2)
As a member of the Republican administration, shouldn't Ajit Pai be happy that California is executing it's State's Rights to enact their own state specific legislation?
I mean... State's Rights is still part of the Republican platform, right? Or, has that been replaced by "whatever the highest Corporate bidder wants"?
You got it wrong. The are only for small government when it benefits them, but in favor of Federal intervention when a state does something they don't want.
Re: (Score:2)
State's Rights is still part of the Republican platform, right?
You said "Republican platform" - you're funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes both sides, one adamant on enforcing regularity on the states, the other angelic with the glories of 50 states experimenting, have swapped sides.
This is "situational ethics", where you tout as high value a principle, then abandon it when it gets in your way.
It is the political principle of neurosis -- the brain trying to hold two incompatible positions simultaneously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We all know (Score:4, Insightful)
Government should not advocate for large business and enterprises but for individual people.
People have to vote for that, or it just ain't gonna happen. All your congress people are stooges for big industry also. They have to be, or all that campaign financing dries up. It's all so totally natural.
The only way to advocate for a responsible government is to elect one. If you elect/reelect crooks, you shouldn't complain, or you look like a fool.
Re:We all know (Score:4, Insightful)
Those that don't even understand the basics in voting look like fools by default.
Re: (Score:2)
Government should not advocate for large business and enterprises but for individual people.
But, but, but... Corporations are people - I remember hearing and reading [washingtonexaminer.com] about that. We were told to "get over it".
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There does seem to be an inexhaustible supply of it.
When will Pai crawl back under his rock? (Score:2, Informative)
What a creep.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: When will Pai crawl back under his rock? (Score:2, Insightful)
California is run by the big web advertising companies, though.
If California could introduce some like the GDPR with teeth, that would be something.
No surprise, he channels his boss. (Score:4, Interesting)
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."
Re:No surprise, he channels his boss. (Score:4, Informative)
Pai was designated chairman of the FCC by President Donald Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually Pai was appointed to the chairman of the FCC by trump. It doesn't really matter if he was initially appointed to the FCC by Obama. When Obama appointed him he was one small cog in the machine. Now he runs the machine. I think that kind of makes a difference.
Just an observation (Score:2)
Telecommunications Carrier (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
No. The exact point of the Pai's FCC decision is that ISPs are not telecommunications carriers (Title II), only "information services" (Title I). Currently there is no legal difference between Netflix and Comcast.
Internet traffic doesn't recognize state lines (Score:2)
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.
Re: Internet traffic doesn't recognize state lines (Score:2)
Commerce with foreign countries or Native American tribes is federal jurisdiction mentioned in the same sentence as interstate
Re: (Score:2)
Pigs fly (Score:4, Funny)
I don't believe this. I actually agree with the California legislature. I feel like I should turn in my man card or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Correction can't come soon enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What Ajit Pai will be remembered for (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What Ajit Pai will be remembered for (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Turns out that a "healthy economy" does not equate with better conditions for voters.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe the FCC even has the authority to regulate how the internet operates. Their biggest influence is allowing broadcast licenses and issuing fines for dirty words spoken in broadcasts. Can they fine Comcast for taking money from Netflix to so their packets get priority over Hulu's packets? Unlikely. Can they write new laws or regulations? No, all they can do is lobby congress to make new laws.
Domino Theory Redux (Score:2)
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.
Pai's strongest supporter? (Score:2)
The president who appointed him. You can't like one guy and dislike the other. "Drain the swamp" by making the water deeper?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How broad is the problem? (Score:2)
"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.
I'm a little jealous of the telecoms (Score:2)
I mean, this guy really sucks and sucks until he gets every last drop.
Sorry to interrupt Yankee wank-fest... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you trolling or do you actually believe that?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The new law that is needed is the one that puts assholes like Pai in jail for what he's done.
Re:I don't think it matters (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
AC below also brings up the FTC angle, but I can't think of any instances where the FTC has gone after states rather than businesses anywhere around this topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the text of the bill (yet to be signed), I didn't see anything that showed this only applied to ISPs contracting with the state.
You can have both arguments (Score:2)
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 gove
Re: (Score:2)
The states lack authority because of the commerce clause.
No, they don't. Not when it comes to how businesses in their state are allowed to operate. Citation: Tenth Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
The Feds don't have authority, but neither do the states.
Re: (Score:2)
It is also not Pai's job to be suing here. He has no standing to sue, as he's said his agency doesn't have authority to regulate. He's only saying this as a private citizen.
Re:I don't think it matters (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
It seems obvious that it should be the FCCs jurisdiction. The internet is "telecommunications". And the bill passed in 1934 creating the FCC, it passed over responsibility for telecommunications that was originally the responsibility of the disbanded Interstate Commerce Commission.
And of course the internet is telecommunications. Most actual phone calls go over some of the same physical lines and media as commonly used in the internet, and using similar protocols and techniques. It should not need to go
Re: (Score:2)
It seems obvious that it should be the FCCs jurisdiction.
See, that's the thing. It has to be done according to the processes and procedures set out under the US Constitution and the Rule of Law. "It should be obvious" is not a legal or Constitutional standard and depends upon who you ask and what they believe. Going by "it should be obvious" instead of following the proper process is what got us into all this mess in the first place.
"It should be obvious" instead of Rule of Law is what put Japanese & German Americans in internment camps in WW2, passed Jim Cro
So (Score:3)
Re:I don't think it matters (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 long
Cannot govern (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
You might do well to get out of your bubble to understand why people support Republicans, because you clearly have blinders on.
Don’t get me wrong— I am a “rich” agnostic liberal all day long, but understanding people with different ideas is what makes you capable of a debate. There are good things to be taken from many ideologies.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the GOP has been a "small government" party since the mid-90s, and it's been the "giant corporate donor" party for at least as long. We sure could use a "small government, small business" party.
Re: I don't think it matters (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah I don't agree with Pai on this, but interstate commerce does make it a federal issue
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
can the States preempt the authority of the FCC here
Are the ISPs still going to be complying with FCC requirements if this passes? Yes. So the authority of the FCC has not been challenged.
Re: (Score:2)
If the FCC and the FTC have both said "Not Responsible", then I'm perfectly fine with California stepping up and saying "Hey Feds - since you refuse to own this, we'll take it".
Unfortunately I agree the newly stacked supreme court will strike
Re: (Score:2)
if big telecom has Pai in it's pocket or not. What matters is can the States preempt the authority of the FCC here.
California isn't preempting FCC regulations - it is implementing additional ones, applicable only to companies operating within its borders, and only respecting their operations within its borders. Which is well within its rights as a state.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Republican. I'm happy about many of the things this administration is doing.
However I don't agree 100% with all of the opinions of my wife. What's the chance I'll ever agree 100% with all of the opinions of some random politician?
This is not a partisan issue, or shouldn't be. What it comes down to is a battle between two corporate interests. One the one side are the telecoms, who want to make money on both sides of the data stream. Charging users on own side and content developers/aggregators on the o
Re:Anonymous Coward calls Ajit Pai a corporate shi (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Indeed! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Indeed! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Fuck this dothead piece of shit. (Score:4, Informative)
Didn't realize Hawaii seceded from the US. When did that happen?
Re: (Score:3)
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