TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

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

117 点作者 Swifty超过 6 年前

17 条评论

TYPE_FASTER超过 6 年前
From the transcript:<p>So in early August, we adopted a policy that would allow a single entity to do the requisite work on the utility pole—a policy commonly known as “one-touch make-ready.” This policy could substantially lower the cost and shorten the time to deploy broadband on utility poles.<p>But according to <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;tech-policy&#x2F;2018&#x2F;08&#x2F;fcc-gives-google-fiber-and-new-isps-faster-access-to-utility-poles" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;tech-policy&#x2F;2018&#x2F;08&#x2F;fcc-gives-google...</a>:<p>Despite today&#x27;s vote, the FCC hurt the cause of faster pole attachment when it deregulated the broadband industry last year, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Legislative Counsel Ernesto Falcon. The FCC&#x27;s anti-net neutrality vote removed the classification of broadband as a common carrier service—that now-repealed classification &quot;ensure[d] that every broadband provider has the legal right to gain access to many of the poles that run along our roads,&quot; the EFF wrote last year.<p>&quot;I wonder if the anti-net neutrality crowd understands that Title II&#x27;s regulation of poles and conduit is now limited to telephone&#x2F;cable TV thanks to [the] Restoring Internet Freedom Order,&quot; Falcon tweeted today. &quot;The ISPs that are broadband-only will not get the benefit, thus limiting its positive impact.&quot;
drfuchs超过 6 年前
Ah, the hypocrisy of the &quot;States Rights&quot; crowd: They&#x27;re all for it, until they don&#x27;t like what a state wants to do.
评论 #18008496 未加载
评论 #18008443 未加载
评论 #18007958 未加载
zwerdlds超过 6 年前
&gt; &quot;only the federal government can set regulatory policy in this area&quot;<p>Regulatory policy that apparently he wants to set - but specifically gave that ability to the FTC.<p>Seems like he wants to have his cake and eat it too? Am I misunderstanding this?
评论 #18008104 未加载
frandroid超过 6 年前
&gt; After all, broadband is an interstate service; Internet traffic doesn&#x27;t recognize state lines.<p>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.
Jtsummers超过 6 年前
&gt; 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.<p>-- Pai<p>Interesting argument. Could his reasoning be used to block attempts by states (NC, I&#x27;m looking at you!) to interfere with municipal broadband?
评论 #18008814 未加载
评论 #18008422 未加载
评论 #18007895 未加载
shmerl超过 6 年前
For Pai, it&#x27;s only legal when it serves his monopolistic masters. When it serves the people, it must be illegal. The only thing it poses a risk to, is monopoly abuse by Comcast, Charter, AT&amp;T, Verizon and the like. Which is exactly the point.<p>And Pai lost all power to preempt anything, when he himself removed FCC from overseeing ISPs and pushed that to FTC.
jedberg超过 6 年前
I believe the entire purpose of passing that law was for California to say &quot;come at me bro&quot; to the Federal government, and force a showdown on the issue. I doubt the California lawmakers ever expected it to actually go into effect, and not get blocked by lawsuits the moment the ink is dry.
评论 #18009483 未加载
Fede_V超过 6 年前
I&#x27;ve said it in the past, but I&#x27;m going to repeat myself: if anyone is willing to defend Pai&#x27;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&#x2F;Comcast or an RNC friendly lobby shop?
评论 #18007871 未加载
评论 #18007921 未加载
评论 #18007840 未加载
评论 #18008263 未加载
评论 #18007859 未加载
评论 #18007887 未加载
评论 #18007781 未加载
GW150914超过 6 年前
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.<p><i>The broader problem is that California&#x27;s micromanagement poses a risk to the rest of the country. After all, broadband is an interstate service; Internet traffic doesn&#x27;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.</i><p>What?! I can’t even begin to express how infuriating this is, the sheer hypocrisy and wanton dishonesty, from someone who is nominally in the position of protecting Americans’ interests. Forget the interstate commerce clause, forget Republican’s supposed respect for state’s rights, forget giving people a necessary service, let’s use a warped interpretation of the law as a hammer to empower crooked bureaucracy.
评论 #18007733 未加载
评论 #18007874 未加载
评论 #18007738 未加载
评论 #18008185 未加载
评论 #18007730 未加载
ddingus超过 6 年前
Of course he does.<p>There would not be such a fight if Ajit were to actually regulate in the public interest.<p>I see someone already made the comment, &quot;didn&#x27;t he give all that to the FTC?&quot;<p>Indeed.
greymeister超过 6 年前
How long before they use the commerce clause as an excuse to kill California&#x27;s law?
评论 #18008224 未加载
mangix超过 6 年前
Funny how nobody seems to understand the interstate commerce clause. I guess this is how they justify being able to do anything...
评论 #18007865 未加载
syntaxing超过 6 年前
It&#x27;s quite interesting how much the Trump administration is copying from the Reagan administration (admittedly, I was not alive during the Regan times so my info is coming from textbooks). The Trump administration is doing is essentially its own form of Trump Reaganomics mixed with his own Starve the beast playbook [1]. Though I feel like this new strategy is more to protect the self interests of the few around President Trump rather than to cut down the big government.<p>[1]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Starve_the_beast" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Starve_the_beast</a>
trumped超过 6 年前
where does Ajit Pai hangout?
djohnston超过 6 年前
but muh state&#x27;s rights
preparedzebra超过 6 年前
I hate this guy so much
评论 #18007880 未加载
valarauca1超过 6 年前
TBH it is hilarious we believe &quot;net neutrality&quot; exists in the first place. Peering agreements between ISP&#x27;s at IPX&#x27;s are rarely &quot;fair or neuatral&quot; as different ISP&#x27;s have different carrying capacity, and will treat traffic from their own networks preferentially for technical reasons.<p>But since &lt;5k people understand BGP routing configuration we pretend it is neutral.
评论 #18008255 未加载
评论 #18007920 未加载