1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Ajit Pai calls California lawmakers 'nanny state' legislators, says the state's net neutrality...

By Polycount · 34 replies
Sep 17, 2018
Post New Reply
  1. With the fight for net neutrality all but lost, individual states have taken it upon themselves to institute their own replacements for the now-eliminated Title II internet protections.

    One such state is California. If you've been following the news surrounding net neutrality over the past few months, you're probably already aware that California lawmakers have been working on their own set net of neutrality rules for some time.

    The state's attempts to push forward with these rules have proven successful so far. As noted by Ars Technica, California's net neutrality bill has made its way through the state's legislature, and now only requires the signature of Governor Jerry Brown to move forward.

    However, Ajit Pai -- the FCC Chairman behind the elimination of net neutrality -- is far from pleased with California's attempts to undermine his decision. Pai spoke at the Maine Heritage Policy Center on Friday about broadband rules at large, but a sizable portion of his speech directly addresses the state's pro-net-neutrality efforts.

    "Last month, the California state legislature passed a radical, anti-consumer Internet regulation bill that would impose restrictions even more burdensome than those adopted by the FCC in 2015," Pai said. "If this law is signed by the Governor, what would it do? [it would] prevent Californian consumers from buying many free-data plans. These plans allow consumers to stream video, music, and the like exempt from any data limits."

    He went on to refer to the lawmakers behind the bill in question as "nanny-state" legislators, adding that their efforts are "illegal" because "well-established law" states that federal rulings regarding information services -- which the FCC classified broadband as in December -- preempt state law.

    With that said, it's not clear what, if anything, Pai intends to do about the matter. He didn't announce any plans to counteract California's progress in his speech. Instead, he merely closed by saying the following:

    The internet should be run by engineers, entrepreneurs, and technologists, not lawyers, bureaucrats, and politicians. That's what we decided in 2017, and we're going to fight to make sure it stays that way.

    My final message to you today is simple: stay engaged, never give up, and stay true to your beliefs. You are champions for free market principles in a politically divided state. You’ll win some battles, and you’ll lose some. I’ve been there, and I’ve done that.

    It won’t be easy, but the principles of free markets and free minds are worth fighting for. They have made us the most prosperous nation in human history and a beacon of hope to the world. They have always propelled America forward and they’ll continue to light the way.

    So, when the inevitable setbacks come. Don’t give up. Fight even harder.

    As Andy Dufresne once said, "Get busy living, or get busy dying."

    It's tough to say what Pai means by "fight," but it could mean that an official legal challenge is on the way. Regardless, we'll keep you updated if anything major happens.

    Permalink to story.

  2. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 11,364   +5,001

    "It's tough to say what Pai means by "fight," but it could mean that an official legal challenge is on the way. Regardless, we'll keep you updated if anything major happens."

    Anyone with a brain knows what he meant by "fight". Only someone wanting to twist the facts will suggest they don't know.

    He tells both sides of the fence to stay true and continue fighting for what they believe. What is so difficult to understand about that?
    Reehahs and Polycount like this.
  3. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 3,991   +3,479

    It would be awfully funny if Pai does try to do something against California. He's on record stating the FCC shouldn't be the one regulating the Internet and ISPs yet here he is complaining about California doing just that. I guess it's only ok to regulate in a way that benefits corporations.

    It's going to be an interesting challenge either way, as the states are delegated powers when the federal government doesn't have a set precedent on the topic of rule making. Basically, by removing NN rules, Pai opened the door for states to regulate. Even if Pai did sue and win, it would be because the FCC has the sole power to regulate ISPs, which goes against everything Pai has spun so far. It's a lose-lose if he decides to take action against cali.
  4. bmaytum

    bmaytum TS Enthusiast Posts: 48   +8

    Ajit is such an obvious tool of the big cable / telco companies. The phony FCC claims [LIES, actually] of DDoS overload on their servers when we all tried to submit negative comments on the Net Neutrality withdrawal was flatout despicable. So much for Trump draining the swamp...……..

    As a Californian, I hope the state prevails against any Pai-inspired FCC legal challenge.
    BMAN61, Reehahs, Deevo324 and 3 others like this.
  5. seeprime

    seeprime TS Guru Posts: 382   +409

    Punchable face boy is nothing but a massive dicк-tater.
  6. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 3,963   +2,273

    These childish memes from this administration are wearing thin.
    I can see where it might be interpreted that way, however, he did say
    With that statement, it is hard for me to imagine that Pai is on any side other than what he supported by acting to repeal NN.
  7. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 3,963   +2,273

    With the FEMA chief being referred to prosecutors, perhaps Pai is not far behind. There are ongoing investigations into his conduct.
    BMAN61, Deevo324 and psycros like this.
  8. Polycount

    Polycount TS Evangelist Topic Starter Posts: 1,753   +387

    As is usually the case when I write articles on NN, I'll just point this out - I've got no dog in this fight, and I try to keep things as neutral as possible. I don't even dislike Pai, or at least don't think he's quite the horrible person others do.

    With that in mind, try not to read into statements like that too much. Given the context, it's not unreasonable to think he would want to "fight" what California is doing (whether you think what they're doing is good or bad is up to you, not me). He clearly isn't happy about it, at least.
  9. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 11,364   +5,001

    So who exactly is reading too much into what? You could be right. But it is clear he chose his words carefully, to remain neutral for the time being. And at the same time expressed his opinion as well as a few facts on the subject. If you want to read too much into it, don't expect others not to.
  10. "If this law is signed by the Governor, what would it do? [it would] prevent Californian consumers from buying many free-data plans. These plans allow consumers to stream video, music, and the like exempt from any data limits."

    In other words... The state of California is after more tax revenue.
    cliffordcooley likes this.
  11. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 11,364   +5,001

    Why else would they pass legislation? I can just about guarantee they are not doing it out of the goodness of their heart.
    davislane1 likes this.
  12. Polycount

    Polycount TS Evangelist Topic Starter Posts: 1,753   +387

    What I meant is, try not to read too much into my "it's not clear what he meant by fight" statement. I wasn't trying to harm Pai's credibility or anything, just open up the possibility that he might want to fight legislation that he considers highly problematic ("illegal," in his own words).

    In retrospect, I agree that it's possible he was just trying to offer a general "feel-good" statement in order to promote unity. But given the context of the rest of his speech, that's not the conclusion I came to. Regardless, point taken.
    Evernessince likes this.
  13. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 14,925   +3,985

    Obviously you can't have an honest opinion about virtually any topic you might write about here at Techspot. "Reporting", is relaying what you've heard, seen, or witnessed, without any personal opinion or coloration..

    As it stands, were you to offer your honest opinion, Trump would be tweeting about you from under his "fake news umbrella".

    That said, kick back, and leave the editorializing to us..;)(y) (Y)

    Those things said, I think the US needed a break from the uber liberal left, including most of all, Hillary Clinton. However, I don't think the nation could endure a second term of the "clowndrel" currently inflicting himself on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue..

    The trick here kidz, is to pull a straight Democratic ticket in the upcoming mid term elections. And it absolutely doesn't matter whether the Republican running for office is your twin brother. As many as possible have to go. With a Democratically controlled house, and god bless us, hopefully even the senate, the current "Republicans get whatever Republicans want", steamroller legislative ability, would be halted in its tracks.

    As for Ajit Pai, :poop:, where the hell is Lee Harvey Oswald when you really need him? :mad:
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018
  14. treetops

    treetops TS Evangelist Posts: 2,558   +548

    What advantages to the American people do you see by ending net neutrality?
  15. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 14,925   +3,985

    Cliff's objections to "net neutrality",are the cross he bears proudly and for all to see. He bears it in the name of his own semantic principals, which ensconce themselves around the questions we should all be asking ourselves. Such as, "why isn't the number, "one" called "two", and vice versa.

    I know I've lost many days of needed sleep, tossing and turning as I wrestled with that very question. Or maybe is was the meth, I'm not sure...
  16. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 11,364   +5,001

    Since my comment was neutral, I object to your question placing me on one side or the other. I really didn't want to get into my opinions on this topic again.

    I will suggest my complaint is not with regulating. But more on whether passing regulation will stop, once we start regulating the Internet. I'm actually surprised they came to their senses and back tracked on regulation that had been passed years earlier.
  17. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 14,925   +3,985

    I can appreciate your concerns. But the sticky question which still remains is, "would additional regulations be worse than Ajit Pai handing all control over to the Comcasts and Verizons of the industry"? The only thing preventing them from doing whatever they felt like, would be competition with one another. And trust me, a Verizon tech told me that Comcast and Verizon are, behind the scenes, in bed with one another.

    For example, Comcast is now advertising "Gig Speed" internet. Verizon brought it to market first. But, one has to ask if that is, coincidence, competition, or collusion?

    BTW, that same tech told me that in certain areas, they use one another's equipment.
    wiyosaya, Puiu and Evernessince like this.
  18. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 11,364   +5,001

    I don't see passing regulation changing anything. They will remain in control regardless.
  19. psycros

    psycros TS Evangelist Posts: 2,709   +2,509

    When they start making up new terms that don't have anything to do with what their talking about, you know what you're hearing is bulls**t.

    You know what other sort of federal law trumps the states? Immigration. So where is the big lawsuit against CA for being a sanctuary state?
    wiyosaya likes this.
  20. Polycount

    Polycount TS Evangelist Topic Starter Posts: 1,753   +387

    I love you.
    BMAN61, wiyosaya, Burty117 and 2 others like this.
  21. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 3,991   +3,479

    If you were in control, what would you purpose to fix the current market?

    Just curious to see if there is a different approach that what's already been proposed by Wheeler and Pai.
    wiyosaya likes this.
  22. Puiu

    Puiu TS Evangelist Posts: 3,433   +1,889

    Sooo... you know that the regulations are going to do good, but you are afraid that more regulation will pass after this which will start doing bad things.
    Soooo... your question is "Why wait for the inevitable?". If more regulation will eventually hurt the market, let's do it right now by removing all regulations.
  23. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 14,925   +3,985

    No silly, that's not his question, that's his answer. After it's distilled down to it's basic premise it amounts to,"total web anarchy or bust"..

    You know, we should probably repeal, "The Bill of Rights", while we're at it. After all, that set of Constitutional amendments was pushed hastily through our legislature, which at the time. was in its infancy After which, other more oppressive amendments have been passed.

    For example the 18th amendment:

    "The Eighteenth Amendment (1919) prohibited the making, transporting, and selling of alcoholic beverages nationwide. It also authorized Congress to enact legislation enforcing this prohibition. Adopted at the urging of a national temperance movement, proponents believed that the use of alcohol was reckless and destructive and that prohibition would reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, decrease the need for welfare and prisons, and improve the health of all Americans. During prohibition, it is estimated that alcohol consumption and alcohol related deaths declined dramatically. But prohibition had other, more negative consequences. The amendment drove the lucrative alcohol business underground, giving rise to a large and pervasive black market. In addition, prohibition encouraged disrespect for the law and strengthened organized crime. Prohibition came to an end in 1933, when this amendment was repealed.[81].

    But, as we all know, that achieved exactly the opposite result of its intentions. It was supposed to stop crime, but it created more crime. Oh well, it was repealed in 1933, not quite 15 years after its debut, with the passing of the 21st amendment.

    Then there's the 16th Amendment.......or as it's more commonly known, "federal income tax".

    Oh well, laws are gonna get passed, good and bad. So what, I say! Most people have a few favorites they like to ignore anyway.

    I stopped watching the evening news because of that. I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that the US is a lawless dystopia, with or without net neutrality....
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2018
    wiyosaya and Puiu like this.
  24. Jeff Re

    Jeff Re TS Addict Posts: 151   +114

    I hope he's serious about this since he's a lawyer.
  25. netman

    netman TS Addict Posts: 308   +95

    Ajit Pai is a complete iddiot...
    wiyosaya likes this.

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...