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

[wiyosaya]

"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."

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.

IMO, you see his statement quite correctly for the political load of that his statement is. It is precisely this kind of that to me makes this guy the political puppet and imbecile that he is. He is first and foremost a f'ing lawyer and has no f'ing clue about technology.

His aim is to make it easier for his masters at the heads of corporations to permanently attach themselves to everyone's wallet and drain those wallets dry. As I see it, he really should not be the head of the FCC; he should be an industry lobbyist instead. In my not so humble opinion, he's the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing and it is all the more the worse because he wields the sword of the FCC at this moment.

If he had any honor and integrity, he would resign from the FCC because he is unable to separate his corporate-centric views from his job as the head of the FCC.

More to the point:

"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.

I do not understand why people latch on to a load of rhetoric as if it were fact. The quoted statement is nothing more than Pai's load of opinion. Neither you nor he have exhibited any factual evidence that clearly demonstrates any information why CA wants to enact this legislation that supports this claim, much less your position.

The truth of the matter is that Pai's version of NN aims to prevent any municipality from offering any kind of internet access on publicly owned network infrastructure at a reasonable rate since that would provide competition to his industry masters. His version is akin to the asinine law passed by the State of TN that prevented a taxpayer-paid-for fiber network from offering internet service to rural customers even though that network said that they could easily do it at an inexpensive rate.

His version of NN is over-reaching to the extreme in that it is attempting to over-rule any and all state laws regarding internet access.

So, if it is the case that CA wants to gain more tax revenue please post a link to the bill and quote directly from the bill that it includes raising taxes. Without that, your argument is vacant.

As I see it, he is upset that CA is challenging his power and is unwilling to accept CA's position even though the SCOTUS has almost always ruled in favor of state rights in cases like this. As I see it, he is throwing a temper-tantrum because CA is holding him to what the people want and he ignored perhaps in an effort to curry favor from his masters in the political and industrial realm.

EDIT: Here's the post to support my statement about the state of TN: https://www.techspot.com/news/68941-residents-rural-chattanooga-almost-had-10-gbps-internet.html

 

[wiyosaya]

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.

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

He likely is, but I think he is misguided to say the least. He has no idea what his rules will create. It is more business theory than technological understanding.

As long as there is profit to be made, the engineers and the technologists will be the dogs who dig up and create the bones. Those engineers and technologists will be dragged around by entrepreneurs controlling the profit leash.

 

[cliffordcooley]

He likely is, but I think he is misguided to say the least.

The ones misguided are the ones wanting NN.

 

[wiyosaya]

The ones misguided are the ones wanting NN.

You are entitled to your opinion, Cliff. I respectfully disagree.

From Pai's statement in the article:

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.

As I see it, this is Pai's far over-reaching attempt at taking power from the states.

In NY, Spectrum tried to have their fraud case dismissed based on the ruling Pai quoted. Charter argued:

that the continued existence of a transparency rule and the FCC's preemption of state net neutrality regulation is enough to preempt "the Attorney General's allegations that Time Warner Cable made deceptive claims about its broadband speeds.

However, NY's Supreme Court told Spectrum

For example, the FCC said that "[a]lthough we preempt state and local laws that interfere with the federal deregulatory policy restored in this order, we do not disturb or displace the states' traditional role in generally policing such matters as fraud, taxation, and general commercial dealings, so long as the administration of such general state laws does not interfere with federal regulatory objectives.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...t-save-charter-from-lawsuit-over-slow-speeds/

Note the language there from the FCC with respect to the NN repeal:

we preempt state and local laws that interfere with the federal deregulatory policy

 

[Danny101]

I have no inclination for the nanny-state, but what are AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon? At least the government does have some form of balance of power, but these telecoms can charge whatever they want, snoop at whatever they want, and basically control the flow of information. I may not be on board with every kooky plan the Democrats can come up with, but this is one I have to agree with. Until we can introduce the modifying force of competition, we could use the modifying force of legislation. While I see the concerns that Cliff raises, you get enough hollering, legislation can be rolled back. If Americans are good at anything, they are good at hollering.

 

[cliffordcooley]

If Americans are good at anything, they are good at hollering.

Amen to that!

 

[Danny101]

https://aomedia.org/
With a new audio video codec coming out soon, we're getting some technology help on the data usage front.

 

[captaincranky]

Ajit Pai is a complete iddiot...

Hardly. Pai is well smart enough to know whose a** he has to wipe. It just so happens that it's not yours or mine.

 

[wiyosaya]

Hardly. Pai is well smart enough to know whose a** he has to wipe. It just so happens that it's not yours or mine.

Before he can wipe his own, though, he has to wipe those of his masters.

 

[Danny101]

If anyone has noticed, Net neutrality is not a divisive issue among the general population. Actually one of the few issues that isn't. Most see it to be a good thing and others have no strong opinions on the matter. All the arguments are being fought in the chambers.