FCC Ajit Pai Calls California Net Neutrality Proposals “Illegal”
Following the FCCs removal of Net Neutrality protections, many people within America have been fighting hard to get them back. In a move that the FCC described as removing restrictions from the internet and businesses, others saw it as a major step backwards in terms of potential exploitation by internet providers selling the internet in pieces.
One of the most major supporters of its reinstatement has been California. For the last 6 months, the State has regularly been attempting to circumvent the decision made by the FCC and has attempted to look to apply Net Neutrality laws on a state level. This appeared to have crossed a massive hurdle earlier this month when it was revealed that a law had been approved by the State Assembly.
In a report via CNET though, Ajit Pai has said that any such law, in his view at least, would be illegal.
Ajit Pai Speaks
Following the news, FCC chief Ajit Pai has said: “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.”
Senator Scott Weiner, one of the major forces behind the law, has responded saying: “SB 822 is necessary and legal because Chairman Pai abdicated his responsibility to ensure an open internet. 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.”
A Tricky Situation
At present, it’s likely that California will continue to have success in their endeavours to re-instate Net Neutrality protections. This is, however, clearly something the FCC doesn’t want. Regardless of the legalities of a state-led law taking precedence over a national law, if one state does it, there are going to be others who will attempt to push through the exact same laws.
This would, however, I feel a fitting response to the FCCs initial efforts that only looks to bolster businesses. Not protect individuals.
What do you think? – Let us know in the comments!
