Ajit Pai Again (Falsely) Claims States Are Powerless To Protect Broadband Consumers
from the good-luck-with-that dept
For much of the last year ISPs like Comcast have been successfully lobbying to eliminate most meaningful oversight of their broadband monopolies. On the federal level, that has involved convincing Ajit Pai to neuter the FCC's authority over ISPs, then shoveling any remaining authority to an FTC that's ill-equipped to actually do the job. On the state level, that has involved lobbying Pai (who again was happy to oblige) to include language in the FCC net neutrality repeal attempting to "pre-empt" (read: ban) states from also protecting consumers.
These efforts haven't gone well so far. Charter (Spectrum) tried to lean on this language to recently wiggle out of a New York State lawsuit over terrible speeds and poor service, only to have the courts reject its argument. And lawyers have argued that when the FCC abdicated its authority over ISPs, it ironically also eroded its rights to tell states what they can do, spelling trouble for any ISP plans to kill state level net neutrality rules.
Undaunted, Pai's FCC continues to insist it has this authority anyway. Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled (pdf) that Minnesota's state government cannot regulate VoIP phone services offered by Charter and other cable companies because VoIP is an "information service" under federal law. Charter had sued the state PUC after it filed a complaint noting that Charter had split off its voice service from its regulated wholesale telecommunications business, dubbing it an "information service" in a bid to avoid state oversight.
Ajit Pai was quick to take a victory lap in a statement praising the ruling (pdf), insisting that the court victory portends success in the FCC's goal of stopping states from protecting net neutrality:
"A patchwork quilt of 50 state laws harms investment and innovation in advanced communications services. That’s why federal law for decades has recognized that states may not regulate information services. The Eighth Circuit’s decision is important for reaffirming that well-established principle: ‘[A]ny state regulation of an information service conflicts with the federal policy of nonregulation’ and is therefore preempted. That is wholly consistent with the approach the FCC has taken under Democratic and Republican Administrations over the last two decades, including in last year’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order."
So for one, there wouldn't be a "patchwork quilt of 50 states" trying to protect net neutrality if Pai hadn't almost-gleefully assaulted popular (and modest by international standards) federal rules. Two, Pai's endless claim that net neutrality stifles investment has never been supported by the facts. Three, you'll probably be surprised to learn that the ruling doesn't do anything close to what Pai says it does:
"The net neutrality case is being handled by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, so it will be decided by different judges. The details are also different in the net neutrality case, said attorney Andrew Schwartzman, who represents the Benton Foundation in the case against the FCC.
In the net neutrality case, "the Pai FCC definitively said that it has no jurisdiction under either Title I or Title II [of the Communications Act] to regulate broadband Internet access service," Schwartzman told Ars. "As the governmental parties explained at pp. 39-56 their brief, when an agency lacks authority to regulate, it also lacks authority to preempt.
The VoIP case also differs from the net neutrality case in that there was "no FCC decision at issue" because "the FCC has repeatedly refused to decide what regulatory classification... should be applied to VoIP," Schwartzman said. "Thus, it was left to the court to consider the question in a case between the state and Charter."
In other words, these are completely different rulings in a different court saying completely different things, something you imagine Pai (as a lawyer) would understand. And again, when the FCC killed its own ability to regulate ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act, it simultaneously eliminated its authority to thwart states from filling the void. That's a bit weedy, but it's going to be very important should ISPs follow through on their promise to sue any states that pass their own state-level net neutrality protections.
Again, the pretense is that by killing state and federal oversight of natural monopolies, magical things will happen, ranging from more investment to lower prices and more competition. But that's not how the telecom sector works. Freeing Comcast from meaningful oversight in the absence of healthy competition only gives Comcast carte blanche to do whatever it damn well pleases. And as we've made pretty clear, what Comcast wants is to be able to find new and creative ways to rip people off with neither regulatory oversight nor competition having much of a say about it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ajit pai, authority, broadband, fcc, net neutrality, regulations, states, states rights, voip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But you also claimed 1 nationwide Federal law also harmed investment and innovation. So the answer here is clear: a requirement that ISPs must invest a certain portion of revenues back into infrastructure or pay heavy fines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wouldn't the ISP have to be declared title II first?
Too bad they can no longer do that, or will they admit they were wrong? - lol, not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no such thing as this with government. Government can make up any law it wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is what the US government wants, but it is limited by the Constitution as to what laws it can make; at least so long as the Supreme court will strike down unconstitutional laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and this has become questionable lately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First you have to work through the legal system of judges telling you that the government can do what it wants, THEN you have to get SCOTUS to "agree" to see your case, THEN they have to rule in your favor. THEN you have get the police to obey, which no one actually does. People still get arrested for recording the police, and despite Heller, it is still dangerous to have a firearm in DC and the police can arrest you anyways.
Your rights are for sale to the lowest bidder and many of your fellow citizens of varying flavors are entirely FOR removing more than enough of your rights to make the police state stronger until you wake up and realize that you are owned entirely by your government and you just have the "illusion" of freedom.
You don't we produce hierarchies just exactly for this purpose... "Control"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bull
Constantly shouting "Wake up" does not contribute to *any* conversation, and is as annoying as fuck. Nutter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bull
The fact that you think it is a good idea to try to fix the symptom rather than solve the underlying problem is what makes you the nutter.
This is why America is failing.... no why all western governments are failing. The people have become so pampered that they feel no fear of their own gross ignorance and incompetence.
The abuses of government are on open display and no one is doing anything to stop it other than run a little campaign mouth and create us vs them strategies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bull
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bull
i know what the normal persons definition of this is, but id like to know what your insane version is going to be here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bull
Like that "dream" I Had the other "Night", where I was being CHASED by an "angry" can of Lead-Free "paint" that was ANGRY with me because I had "eaten" So Many of its Leaded "cildren". I tried "Explaining" how SMART I am efor SEVERAL "hours" but for "some" reason it was Not "impressed", probably because it as a very very "Stupid" sycphantic Can of Paint! Probably not enough "lead"! Very Sad that goverment "Regulatons" can "ban" Lead in Paint, and make Paint cans fo very very Stupid. Not "Smart" like Me.
Long story "shot" the Paint can began to "nibble" at my Toes, like how I like to "nibble" at Delicious, Delicous paint Chips. But then I woke "up" and found Out that it was actually my pet "rat", Plaguey.
The Governmnt does not "want" me to have Plaguey because he "has Diseases". Well fuck "You", government! I'll let the Free "market" decide What kinds of "pets" I can have!
In "conclusion", you shoudl Wake Up!
Especially you should "wake up" to a Pet "rat" nibbling on YOUR toes. The wsame way you should "nibble" on Paint Chips!
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First ... you need lots of money.
Second you need a good lawyer
Third you argue your case in court(s)
Then - get the police to obey ... what?
Did you miss a few steps?
Laws are meaningless when the DA refuses to do their job and laws are useless when the police refuse to do their duties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The case has to make it to SCOTUS first and even then the government still does what the fuck it wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems like it's time for Congress to rescind that power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rescind
B. Rescind doesn't mean what you think it means.
Doesn't matter in this screwed up Republican mess and Verizon Lawyer Ajitator Pai. Nothing good will come of this and it will take two future administrations to undo the harm and fix it.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rescind
Yeah, they kind of did when they created the FCC in the first place. Court cases have upheld the fact that the FCC is perfectly within their rights to define broadband however they want.
I, and many others, disagree that it should be defined as anything other than a Title II telelcommunications service but that relates very little to the fact that Congress gave the FCC that power in order to regulate the industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rescind
Congress can not constitutionally grant law making power anyways, Congress only has the power to create agencies to uphold and enforce the laws congress creates.
"Doesn't matter in this screwed up Republican mess" if the mess is republican then why didn't the "democracts" solve it a long time ago.
You are just playing identity politics now. That is ONLY okay to do when only one side is guilty. Both are equally guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rescind
Laws? No. Regulations? Yes. Which is what the FCC does. They make regulations, not laws. Big difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
English is not my first language
What is not a good idea?
> Even the old telephone companies...
What old telephone companies?
>... did not have that sort of enforcement...
What sort of enforcement?
> Wouldn't the ISP have to be declared title II first?
What is it you're trying to say?
> Too bad they can no longer do that,...
Who can't do what any longer and why is it too bad?
> ...or will they admit they were wrong?
Who admit what was wrong?
Please do try and say what you mean. This pronoun soup could be posted here, reddit, facebook, foxnews.com and would be equally useless anywhere (except foxnews where Trump would quote it in his next tweet).
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: English is not my first language
from the post to which I replied:
"So the answer here is clear: a requirement that ISPs must invest a certain portion of revenues back into infrastructure or pay heavy fines."
Ok,I so here I will say what I mean ...
What is your problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They were required to invest in infrastructure:
(While I don't know how much enforcement it took, rural infrastructure did get built.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I do not recall any heavy fines being levied, were there any?
"The universal service objective was placed into law "
Consumers paid the universal service charge for many years and received very little if anything as a result.
"rural infrastructure did get built."
You know anyone in rural america?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Telecom business model:
1. Complain that we can't afford to provide the service our customers are paying for, and we can't cover everyone.
2. Ask the government for Billions of dollars to help out with number 1.
3. Pay executives just slightly less than Billions in bonuses, and take a #2 on the government (as in take a crap on) when they complain that we didn't do enough of #1
4. Bribe (aka Lobby) politicians to pass favorable regulations, or to remove regulations that hinder profit.
5. Profit all the way to the bank (and then repeat the cycle with the new 'tech')...
Speaking of which, have you seen how expensive it will be for us to implement 5G, I'm sure we will need BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars this time, and we promise we will at least turn it on in one location...
We are telecom and you will be assimilated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You missed the third option. If he objected to a single, federal law, and now objects to the idea of 50 state laws, then it's pretty clear that the objection is not to the number of laws but the existence of them.
He doesn't want any regulations unless they benefit his buddies/past and future (official) employers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a musical quality to that statement
When an agency lacks authority to regulate, it also lacks authority to preempt
It's music to my ears. Now if only Governor Brown would get on with signing our net neutrality protections into law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's a musical quality to that statement
Filthy pirate!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The above is one of many rejoinders to the views expressed in this article re state legislation on the matter of net neutrality.
The points made deserve thoughtful consideration because they discuss matters of federal law that are not discussed in any of the several articles posted on this site that speak approvingly of state legislation/regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then you obviously haven't read any of the articles that discuss these specific issues on this site, or many other sites for that matter.
There are many factual errors in that forbes article about how the law actually works and how it applies in this situation. Not the least of which is the wording in Pai's order stating that the FCC doesn't have ANY authority to regulate information services; if that is your argument, then you are precluded from pre-empting state regulation because that would require you to have authority over it in the first place. You can't have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is settled law that if Congress does not grant a regulator authority over something, it can not preempt state regulation.
The FCC has explicitly stated congress did not give it regulatory authority over broadband. Therefore, it can not preempt state regulations over broadband. No matter what common carrier exemptions Congress gave 'information services', the FCC has no rule making authority over them, and therefore can not preempt state authority.
And the wording of the law is misrepresented - It relies on the assertion that crongress has 'expempted' Information services from common carrier restrictions, which it didn't do. It did not grant the FCC the authority to impose Common carrier restrictions on Title I, while granting it that authority to Title II. This difference is important. Because it doesn't actually say they are exempt. Therefore there is not a federal law exempting a Title 1 service. That allows the states to regulate common carrier restrictions when the FCC has no regulatory authority over a Title I service.
The issue of purchasing power is a funny one. The ruling effectively states that the state can not choose to make purchasing decisions based on the law abiding nature of the contractor, which seems...odd. Esp since it seems the issue is one of it being a law rather than an informal policy. If a state announces it will end its contract to purchase goods with a contractor due to recently exposed unethical behavior (say knowingly exposing employees to poisonous environs without proper protection in violation of OSHA), can they not do that? If they choose to not say anything, but don't renew and an FOIA request reveals the decision is based on the federal law violation, could they be penalized? Are they required to continue to purchase as soon as massive regulatory violations occur to prevent lawsuits? The core of the decision, that the state choosing to not do business based on regulatory violations is not normal market function, seems to incentivize some weird behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To answer the questions it is useful to consider the nature and scope of Congress’ Article 1 power under the Commerce Clause, as well as a legal concept that goes by the name Dormant Commerce Clause. I believe those who do this will come to the realization that the author of the Forbes article made some very cogent arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Read, researched, considered. Forbes is still wrong and their arguments are not "cogent" in any way, shape or form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It bears repeating that an article by a Forbes contributor is, essentially, a blog post on the Forbes website; describing it as a "Forbes article" gives it an air of reputability that its author simply hasn't earned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hopefully
So if the dems take the house in november,hopefully if people press them and right now some of them are already pissed pai won't answer questions it might just happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>Eighth Circuit judges concluded that Charter's VoIP technology is an information service because it "transforms" information by converting voice calls from one format to another. Specifically, Charter "transforms voice calls from analog electrical signals into IP 'packets,' which are then carried on Charter's network.
Under such a moronic definition, *nothing* is a telecommunications system. Not even POTS anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]