More brown stuff comes out of Ajit Pai's Pie Hole

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Right, I just fail to see how OP is complicit in what some trolls post in a social media platform. It's obvious for most here that he meant "shit" with 'brown stuff'. You calling it 'stereotyping!' smacks of wanting to shut down legitimate discussion by deeming someone's intentions in discussing the subject as bad when it's clear they aren't.

Right. Tell me where I stated that he is complicit or even suggested that Derp was discriminating against Ajit Pai.

When you keep calling the title racist, despite being told it has nothing to do with that? Like, don't you read your posts?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=450156&p=34645778#p34645778

For fucks sake, can we bring this back from Ajit Pai's race to something relevant to the topic at hand?

Agreed. Let's get back to discussing the topic.

[Vassenor]

Right. Tell me where I stated that he is complicit or even suggested that Derp was discriminating against Ajit Pai.

When you keep calling the title racist, despite being told it has nothing to do with that? Like, don't you read your posts?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=450156&p=34645778#p34645778

For fucks sake, can we bring this back from Ajit Pai's race to something relevant to the topic at hand?

Agreed. Let's get back to discussing the topic.

So we're back at the party of SMALL GUBMINT and STATES RIGHTS trying to use the big federal government to overrule a state that isn't toeing its line.

[Bakery Hill]

I mean you'd have to be very uninformed to back the FCC on this, but I can see where Ux is coming from. It totally (though definitely unknowingly) does play into the negative stereotypes about Indians and street defecation which are all over the internet. And the downplaying of racist abuse by some people who are all about social justice at other times is a bit opportunistic. You might not like this particular man, but that doesn't make what racialised harassment of him a good idea.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

When you keep calling the title racist, despite being told it has nothing to do with that? Like, don't you read your posts?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=450156&p=34645778#p34645778



Agreed. Let's get back to discussing the topic.

So we're back at the party of SMALL GUBMINT and STATES RIGHTS trying to use the big federal government to overrule a state that isn't toeing its line.

Well, that's pretty much what is being said regarding CA clapping back at this issue. Ajit calls CA net neutrality laws ''illegal''. CA senator says CA is enforcing net neutrality because Pai ''didn't do his job''.

[Ethel mermania]

It use to be both the feds, and state PUC's regulated telecom. I would need to know more about current law to make an informed decision. As long as the state regulation only affects instate services I guess it should be ok.

I still think the state senator is an idiot, but people have the right to elect idiots.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

The OP didn't want the word shit in the title so they didn't write shit but that's clearly what their talking about.

I did want the word shit in the title but a mod changed it.

[Valentine Z]

The OP didn't want the word shit in the title so they didn't write shit but that's clearly what their talking about.

I did want the word shit in the title but a mod changed it.

See? Case closed! Herp didn't mean it any other way, don't take it too hard, man.

---

All right, all right, enough of that topic. Back to Ajit Pai and Net Neutrality. So... from what I can understand, Net Neutrality itself is to make sure that all the data around the internet are treated the same, yes?

Maybe I'm just out of the loop with what the government and the corporations want, but why would you want it any other way? We probably don't need any more judgment on whether your data is worth more or less than mine. Politics have already segerated people more than we needed it to be.

It seems like a simple concept, but then again, I probably have missed out a lot on the desire of each of the politicians. With that said, hypothetically speaking, of course. Let's just say that Net Neutrality is repealed. Then wouldn't it just bring most of the services underground to the Deep Web? If you're going to tell someone that their data is worthless, they're going to bring all that underground.

At least, I hope I got the grasp of what NN is. And I am aware of the controversial position from Ajit, and I completely dislike him and his idea.

By the way... Go California!

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I did want the word shit in the title but a mod changed it.

See? Case closed! Herp didn't mean it any other way, don't take it too hard, man.

Aww thanks!

I'm not takeing it harshly. Although I would like to state that my statement in the title was meant that Ajit Pai was talking nonsense or shit. As I see what he is doing as wrong and I heavily criticize what he is doing.

My statement was not a raciest remark.

[Telconi]

It use to be both the feds, and state PUC's regulated telecom. I would need to know more about current law to make an informed decision. As long as the state regulation only affects instate services I guess it should be ok.

I still think the state senator is an idiot, but people have the right to elect idiots.

I question California's ability to create an effective regulation without throwig a lot of added weight on the books.

[Petrasylvania]

It's just based on the open defecation stereotype that India and the Hindus currently possess.

Did you pull something reaching that hard?

Or is it racist to use the phrase "talking shit" in general now?

I thought only SJWs tried to find an offense in everything.

[Petrasylvania]

When you keep calling the title racist, despite being told it has nothing to do with that? Like, don't you read your posts?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=450156&p=34645778#p34645778



Agreed. Let's get back to discussing the topic.

So we're back at the party of SMALL GUBMINT and STATES RIGHTS trying to use the big federal government to overrule a state that isn't toeing its line.

Liebruls aren't allowed to exercise states' rights, silly. /s

[Ethel mermania]

It use to be both the feds, and state PUC's regulated telecom. I would need to know more about current law to make an informed decision. As long as the state regulation only affects instate services I guess it should be ok.

I still think the state senator is an idiot, but people have the right to elect idiots.

I question California's ability to create an effective regulation without throwig a lot of added weight on the books.

They can say no throttling on outbound traffic originating in CA I suppose, I don't see how you enforce it in different jurisdictions

[The New California Republic]

Sorry, but Pai is a tosser.

[Kyrinasaj]

Still going, huh?

[Telconi]

I question California's ability to create an effective regulation without throwig a lot of added weight on the books.

They can say no throttling on outbound traffic originating in CA I suppose, I don't see how you enforce it in different jurisdictions

or how effective it'd be, if they could still throttle return traffic. There's also jurisdiction issues about them regulating interstate traffic, they may very well only be able to regulate communication both originating in, and terminating in, California.

[The New California Republic]

Still going, huh?

Pai? Well since any fall from grace would be extensively covered in the press, then yes...

[Godular]

Honestly I got the brown stuff = shit talk connection from the get go. I musta missed the racism angle.

[Communist Xomaniax]

lmao pai's pissing himself because California doesn't want its little corner of the internet to be totally at the mercy of telecom companies. Fuck him.

[Shofercia]

sause

Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules “illegal”

CA enforcing neutrality because "Pai abdicated his responsibility," senator says

California's attempt to enforce net neutrality rules is "illegal" and "poses a risk to the rest of the country," Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said in a speech on Friday.

Pai's remarks drew an immediate rebuke from California Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who authored the net neutrality bill that passed California's legislature and now awaits the signature of Governor Jerry Brown.

California's net neutrality rules are "necessary and legal because Chairman Pai abdicated his responsibility to ensure an open Internet," Wiener said in a press release.

"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."

Pai claims power to preempt state rules
Pai targeted the California rules in a speech at the Maine Heritage Policy Center (transcript).

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 US 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 covered that court ruling last week. The ruling preempted Minnesota's attempt to regulate VoIP phone services offered by cable companies, but there are some key differences between the Minnesota case and the question of whether states can impose net neutrality rules.

The FCC never decided whether VoIP is an information service, and it still imposes some regulations on VoIP. In the net neutrality case, supporters of state rules argue that they can't be preempted by the FCC because the FCC abandoned its regulatory authority over broadband.

FURTHER READING
Ajit Pai helped Charter kill consumer-protection rules in Minnesota
"Since the FCC says it no longer has any authority to protect an open Internet, it's also the case that the FCC lacks the legal power to preempt states from protecting their residents and economy," Wiener said.

Pai doesn't have a perfect track record when it comes to predicting whether a set of net neutrality rules would hold up in court. He claimed that the FCC rules that passed in 2015 relied on "legal authority the FCC doesn't have," but those were upheld by a federal appeals court.

If California's bill is signed into law, ISPs and broadband industry trade groups will likely sue the state to block the rules. But the FCC's preemption authority is not unlimited, as seen in a 2016 court decision that prevented the FCC from preempting state laws that restrict the growth of municipal broadband networks.

Pai “said nothing” when Verizon throttled firefighters
To Pai, rules that prevent ISPs from interfering with Internet traffic are simply "government control of the Internet." He has been using that phrase for years to describe the FCC's now-repealed net neutrality rules, and he used it again Friday to describe the California rules.

But the California rules are even worse than the FCC ones, Pai said, calling the California legislation "a radical, anti-consumer Internet regulation bill that would impose restrictions even more burdensome than those adopted by the FCC in 2015."

The California rules are actually quite similar to those that used to be enforced by the FCC before Pai led a vote to kill the rules. The California bill bans blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, just like the federal rules did. California's bill goes beyond the old FCC rules by also banning paid data-cap exemptions ("zero-rating").

Pai said the California bill's restriction on zero-rating will "prevent Californian consumers from buying many free-data plans," including ones that "allow consumers to stream video, music, and the like exempt from any data limits."

The California bill would prevent ISPs from demanding payments from websites or online services in exchange for data cap exemptions. California lawmakers decided to ban paid data-cap exemptions because they could prioritize some services over others and give ISPs an incentive to impose lower data limits.

But the California bill allows ISPs to exempt entire categories of Internet content (such as video and music) from data caps. That means the zero-rating in programs like T-Mobile's Binge On and Music Freedom would be allowed under the pending California law.

Wiener said his bill ensures that "we as individuals get to decide where we go on the Internet, rather than having Internet service providers decide for us," and that "big telecom and cable companies can't force us to get our information only from favored websites."

Wiener also criticized Pai for remaining silent on Verizon's recent throttling of Santa Clara County firefighters while they fought the state's largest-ever wildfire.

"When Verizon was caught throttling the data connection of a wildfire-fighting crew in California, Chairman Pai said nothing and did nothing," Wiener said. "That silence says far more than his words today."

My opinion, keep on going on cali.

The people who are really active about State's rights should also be behind Cali on this.


Also, a reminder that Trump appointed Ajit Pai, therefor he takes some responsibly for what Ajit Pai has done to the US.


Your thoughts NSG?

Wow. Ajit Pai, is so bad he even makes Senator Scott Weiner look good. Yeah, going to go with my state on this one. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but it seems that Ajit Pai is just destined to be wrong.

[Shofercia]

I'm fine with California's anti-consumerist radical internet adgenda. Especially if it means Verizon won't arbitrarily cap my internet, and offer me the same thing for twice the price. Love the idea of treating all data equally.

How's net neutrality radical? California's Internet Agenda, with the exception of corporate spying and partisan hypocrisy, isn't radical.

Sometimes, whenever I'm feeling like I'm a guy who has done some bad things, I remember that I'm not Ajit Pai, and my self-perception gets better. So, at least Mr. Pai has that going for him, he has dicks like me feeling like less of an ass.

That about summarizes the life and times of Ajit Pai. He's so bad, that not even the radical Obama/Trump supporters want their guy associated with him.