31–40 of 74 posts
> 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. -- Pai Interesting argument. Could his reasoning be used to block attempts by states (NC, I'm looking at you!) to interfere with municipal broadband?
Hum, it either recognizes both state and nation-state lines, or neither. Since the FCC can regulate ISPs, then it clearly recognizes nation-state lines, and thus state lines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't know id you're right or wrong about California's overreach. Can you give a few supporting examples?
Some of their policies regarding illegal aliens (though this is more of a city by city thing) are arguably in direct contradiction with federal law.
A lot of the rulings the 9th circuit has come up with over the years look like they came out of left field with regard to the constitution and the precedent being set.
I can dig up specific examples if you want.
I'm not passing a value judgement here, just saying that CA likes to interpret the constitution rather freely, for better or worse.
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…
I don’t think his actions are representative of what Indian people think; they’re just proof of his own greed.
TBH it is hilarious we believe "net neutrality" exists in the first place. Peering agreements between ISP's at IPX's are rarely "fair or neuatral" as different ISP's have different carrying capacity, and will treat traffic from their own networks preferentially for technical reasons. But since <5k people understand BGP routing configuration we pretend it is neutral.
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?
That isn't to say that the revolving door nature of these regulators and private industry can't or even doesn't lead to corruption, but what are the alternatives? The regulators should obviously be experts in the industry they regulate. If you forbid anyone high up at the FCC from ever working in the communications industry, what experts are left? You would basically limiting these jobs so they can only be done by academics, which would introduce its own set of problems.
Ah, the hypocrisy of the "States Rights" crowd: They're all for it, until they don't like what a state wants to do.
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?
I am in no way defending Pai, but I generally disagree with the idea that a regulator working in the industry before or after they are done serving publicly is definitive proof of corruption (which you seem to be implying). That isn't to say that the revolving door nature of these regulators and private industry can't or even doesn't lead to corruption, but what are the alternatives? The regulators should obviously b…
I don't see any benefit to someone in charge of regulating the communications industry having ever worked in communications. An intelligent person - and not necessarily an academic - a lawyer would be capable, for instance - with no personal connections to people high up in the industry is immensely preferable and has much less potential for corruption.