11–20 of 74 posts
I've said it in the past, but I'm going to repeat myself: if anyone is willing to defend Pai's actions, would you like to do a friendly bet (proceeds to to a GiveWell charity) that as soon as he is legally allowed too he will be given a sinecure at Verizon/Comcast or an RNC friendly lobby shop?
Is he considered a source of pride within the community due to his accomplishments? Or is he an embarrassment due to decisions like Net Neutrality? Or, is it a complete no-op and the Indian/Indian-American community basically doesn't think about him either way?
Edit: I'm not sure why the downvotes. There are very few (if any?) Indian-Americans at that high and very visible level of government. It it a reasonable question to ask Indian-Americans whether they regard him in high or low-esteem, or neither, as a lone representative in an otherwise nearly all-white system.
This guy will just say anything, won’t he? I already knew he wasn’t a constitutional scholar, but this is rich even coming from a shill with as little self respect as Pai. 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 reg…
This fight is pot vs kettle. CA doesn't think twice about making laws that contradict federal laws or are in direct violation of the constitution. Pai is, charitably speaking, in the pocket of industry. I think CA is within its rights this time around and wins this one fair and square though despite not having an awesome coffee mug.
It's been my naive observation that state laws are, in some practical context, "allowed" to contradict federal laws, in the sense that perhaps they are simply given some de facto leeway. Am I totally off base? Does this reduce the hypocrisy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. This line of argument fai…
It also fails the smell test because Internet traffic doesn't recognize international lines, yet he's claiming the federal government has regulatory powers over the Internet.
So much for the party that claims they back state rights.
This guy will just say anything, won’t he? I already knew he wasn’t a constitutional scholar, but this is rich even coming from a shill with as little self respect as Pai. 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 reg…
This fight is pot vs kettle. CA doesn't think twice about making laws that contradict federal laws or are in direct violation of the constitution. Pai is, charitably speaking, in the pocket of industry. I think CA is within its rights this time around and wins this one fair and square though despite not having an awesome coffee mug.
-- Pai
Interesting argument. Could his reasoning be used to block attempts by states (NC, I'm looking at you!) to interfere with municipal broadband?
I've said it in the past, but I'm going to repeat myself: if anyone is willing to defend Pai's actions, would you like to do a friendly bet (proceeds to to a GiveWell charity) that as soon as he is legally allowed too he will be given a sinecure at Verizon/Comcast or an RNC friendly lobby shop?
EDIT: It seems many of them go to this place: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/ (source: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/314248-fcc-chair-to-ta...). Not sure what to make of that.
I would be interested to learn how Indian and Indian-American HN members regard him. Is he considered a source of pride within the community due to his accomplishments? Or is he an embarrassment due to decisions like Net Neutrality? Or, is it a complete no-op and the Indian/Indian-American community basically doesn't think about him either way? Edit: I'm not sure why the downvotes. There are very few (if any?) Indian…
But since <5k people understand BGP routing configuration we pretend it is neutral.