FCC President says California Network Neutrality Bill "flagrant" and "illegal"

FCC President Ajit Pai said California's recently adopted net neutrality bill was "blatant", "radical, anti-consumer" and "illegal" in a speech on Friday. The bill, which was passed last month but has not yet been signed, promulgates even more stringent network neutrality rules than those recently canceled by the FCC. But it comes up against at least one major blockade: a commission rule prohibiting the laws on the neutrality of state networks.

Pai, of course, believes that the FCC rule will rise, which would make California law illegal. He says that the Internet is an interstate service, so "it follows that only the federal government can establish a regulatory policy in this area."

California lawmakers think it's wrong or are willing to fight to find out because they will inevitably have to dispute this dispute in court if the bill is signed. State Governor Jerry Brown has not yet said whether he will sign the law, but the state's biggest democrats have lent their support.

Pai calls national Net neutrality laws the "latest tactic" used by net neutrality advocates to "demand greater government control over the Internet." He says California lawmakers consider free data as "the enemy" away from consumers.

The bill does not entirely prohibit free data, however. Although this would prevent ISPs from selectively offering free data on specific applications – for example, their own applications or applications from businesses that can afford to pay for them – they are prohibited from offer free data on an entire category of applications. This means that Internet service providers in California could, for example, offer free data on all music streaming applications, if they so wish.

Mr. Pai's speech was delivered to a think tank on free market policy, and his criticism of the Internet Neutrality Act was largely influenced by the limitations of the market for Internet providers. 'Internet access. But advocates of network neutrality argued that the ISP market needed regulation because competition was minimal and Internet providers could exert considerable market control for many other companies.

As mentioned Pai, California is one of many states to consider the laws on internet neutrality. Many states have taken less stringent measures, such as requiring ISPs to adhere to the principles of network neutrality, but California law defies the FCC in the same way as most states.