More Than 40 ISPs Across the Country Tell Chairman Pai to Not Repeal Network Neutrality

An anonymous reader shares a report: One excuse FCC Chairman Ajit Pai regularly offers to explain his effort to gut net neutrality protections is the claim that open Internet rules have harmed ISPs, especially small ones. During a speech earlier this year, he stressed that 22 small ISPs told him that the 2015 Open Internet Order hurt their ability to invest and deploy. In reality, though, many more ISPs feel very differently. Today, more than 40 ISPs told the FCC that they have had no problem with the Open Internet Order (PDF) and that it hasn't hurt their ability to develop and expand their networks. What is more, that they want the FCC to do its job and address the problem Congress created when it repealed the broadband privacy rules in March.

Re:God Damned Clickbait Headline...

[Desler]

Of course not, that's why the letter also says:

We wish to further express our opposition to the proposed plans to reverse course and again undergo another reclassification of broadband back into an information service

Want to try again?

Re:

[Desler]

Nice backpedalling and goalpost shifting.

Re:Boom goes the dynamite

[Desler]

Except these companies don't have high-paid lobbyists so he's unlikely to care.

Re:Boom goes the dynamite

[rudy_wayne]

Except these companies don't have high-paid lobbyists so he's unlikely to care.

Net Neutrality hurts the big corporate overlords such as Comcast and Mr. Pai's former employer, Verizon, and that is the only thing that matters.

He, and his Republican Commrades, had already made up their minds about this before he was appointed chairman of the FCC. Anyone who thinks this will have any impact on his decision is completely delusional.

Re:

[davester666]

Sorry, your comment assumes the final decision has not already been made. It has. He is just waiting for the time limit to expire and then the "decision" will be posted.

Re:

[bill_mcgonigle]

Hey, now, it's complete bullshit that telesurgery users can buy priority transit. My cat videos are just as goddamn important.

Re:

[mrclevesque]

"Can we please stop with this notion that "net neutrality" as exists in law is not the same as "net neutrality""

How so?

Re:

[ortholattice]

"Can we please stop with this notion that "net neutrality" as exists in law is not the same as "net neutrality""

How so?

For one thing, will "net neutrality" mean they will stop blocking incoming port 80 (web server) to my home network, unless I buy the expensive "business class" service?

Re:

[mrclevesque]

Not sure that's a net neutrality issue 'as exists in law', but I get the impression it might not be if your ISP blocks port 80 for all it's residential consumers.

Pai is full of BS

[UnknowingFool]

Pai said this back in May: "Just last week, we heard from 22 small ISPs, companies that nobody has ever heard of in towns very few people will ever visit, and what they told us is, look, we are being inhibited." As far as I know, Pai has never named the ISPs nor shared the communications. Whereas this week 40 ISPs through the EFF signed a letter [eff.org] stating the opposite. I'll let you decide who is not telling the whole truth.

Re:

[dfm3]

Four out of five dentists agree... that if you poll a large enough sample size and are dishonest in how you report the numbers, you can get statistics to say anything. Did they have to ask 500 ISPs to find those 22?

Re:Pai is full of BS

[UnknowingFool]

Communication with the FCC should be public record especially when the ISPs are discussing legislation and regulation. Why hasn't Pai disclosed the names? Also Pai failed to disclose how many ISPs were in favor of Net Neutrality. The fact that 40 of them went as far as to sign a public letter about their stance says more.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

Anyone having a formal meeting in person or over the phone is required to file an ex parte describing exactly who attended the meeting on both sides, along with what was discussed.

I find it hard to believe however that Pai had a private meeting with 22 of them in a week until it was 1) all at once or 2) they merely emailed or called the FCC. Either of the two should have a record.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

Let's compare:
Pai: 22 ISPs that no one has heard of and that I have not named are against Net Neutrality.
vs
40 ISPs sign a public letter for Net Neutrality.

Who do you believe?

Re:

[penandpaper]

When polled, 9 out of 10 people said that they enjoyed gang rape.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're member of the Trump cadre, what's the downside to lying?

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

The problem is even if you believe that ISPs are out to screw over their customers, small ISPs are actually protected by Net Neutrality against bigger ISPs. It is in the interest of small ISPs to favor Net Neutrality.

Re:

[GrumpySteen]

"companies that nobody has ever heard of"

if nobody has heard of them, it means they have no customers. Sounds like he's talking about shell companies put together to parrot whatever opinions their owners want to repeat.

But then again, he's also made it clear that he wants to allow all of the obvious bot comments supporting his repeal of net neutrality to be accepted as genuine support, so it's not like he hasn't been clear about his agenda and his lack of concern what the actual public wants.

Re:Pai is shallow and pedantic

[See Attached]

Just change for changes sake is just plain ignorant. If there is something better... describe desired objectives, define how we meet them, how we will pay for it, and what benefit it will have to all. And then it makes sense. Same thing for healthcare. The compulsion to repeal something ... just because, ... is just shallow and pedantic (thanks Peter Griffin ) or at least mean spirited. Maybe Mr Pai can tell us how its going to benefit you and I. The people he serves. Should we start a new tradition

A failure to understand how government is designed

[Alascom]

"...they want the FCC to do its job and address the problem Congress created when it repealed..."

This is a grossly false assertion.
The FCC's job is to implement the law as directed by Congress, not the other way around.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

Next thing you'll expect this administration to respect checks and balances. Hahahaha.

Re:

[buss_error]

The FCC's job is to implement the law as directed by Congress, not the other way around.

Which is how you get lawyers that don't understand technology setting technology policy. The FCC understands tech (at the lower, non-polcy levels) but the administration of FCC oversight is set by politicians.

Let's put it like this: How's that repeal and replace going for ya? They've been saying for 7 years this is job one, and here it is, 150 days into a majority Republican administration (and soon SCOTUS). The key fac

Re:

[ausekilis]

At the risk of feeding the trolls, this is incredibly misguided.

Net Neutrality means anyone with internet access can access whatever they want, regardless of "connection tier", income, gender, race, sexual preference, generations in the U.S., or whatever other nonsense segregation you can come up with. It's what stops ISP's like Comcast from promoting only their stuff. It allows the cheapskates to avoid cable and opt for Netflix instead.

The only racism I can see in Net Neutrality is it's the old, stuffy, te

Also...

[XSportSeeker]

They should also tell him that allowing ISPs to sell user data is a blatant violation of privacy that no company should be allowed to do.
But hey, small victories.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

Oh he probably knows. He doesn't care but he's lying through his teeth to sell falsehoods is the problem.

At this point all you need to know about

[bravecanadian]

Amit Pai is that he is a Republican. That equals liar and hypocrite for those of you keeping track at home.

Re:At this point all you need to know about

[ewhac]

No. All you need to know about Ajit Pai is that he is the former Associate General Counsel to Verizon. [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Areyoukiddingme]

No. All you need to know about Ajit Pai is that he is the former Associate General Counsel to Verizon.

We thought Tom Wheeler was going to be like Pai, since he was a former cable lobbyist. He surprised us, and the FCC reclassified ISPs as common carriers under his watch.

It really does come down to individuals. (And possibly his age contributed. Tom Wheeler knew he didn't need another job after his stint at the FCC. Pai is young. He's gonna need another cushy Verizon job.)

Re:

[Highdude702]

You. You are a moron. It doesn't matter whether there is a R or a D or a fucking hippy sign behind their name. If they are a politician, and a career politician at that.. They are a liar and a hypocrite. BUT!! Big butt.. You're such a partisan asshole you believe everybody with that little D behind their name is a saint and shits roses and gumdrops.. People like you ARE the problem with the world. All you care about is "You" and people that think like "You". Now please go think about this and try to grow up

Re:

[penandpaper]

is a saint and shits roses and gumdrops.

To be fair, some of the shits I have taken were rose coloured and gumdrop shaped... Turns out I have colon cancer.

Wow 40...

[aicrules]

Not saying this isn't important news..but 40 is not a lot.

Re:

[aicrules]

I guess compared to the 22 he originally cited that's a lot...but neither amount is meaningful enough to make policy decisions on.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

No according to the 22 he allegedly said was against it. Also Pai didn't disclose how many contacted the FCC being for Net Neutrality. Hundreds could be for it and he could have cherry picked 22 against.

Re:

[Desler]

It's more than the unnamed 19 ISPs that Ajit Pai was using as justification for rolling back the classification.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub... [fcc.gov]

Pai is completely, totally bought

[ZorinLynx]

Look at his record of the things he's done so far. ALL of them favor big ISPs, and NONE of them favor the consumer.

The man is completely bought. He has absolutely no business heading the FCC, which is all about regulating communications and the PUBLIC airwaves.

I don't understand why so many people in this country, especially those who aren't wealthy, continue to support politicians that not only don't work for the people, but are so BLATANTLY and OBVIOUSLY corrupted by big corporate money and influence.

Re:

[fishscene]

Because the alternative was even more blatant and obvious corruption. I.E. The Hilary campaign and the Democratic National Convention.

Re:

[rtb61]

Basically Trump was only elected so that the corporate Democrats and the corporate whore Clinton would not be. In fact the only thing expected from Trump is to lose the next election, along with the Republicans, to be replaced by a reformed Democrat party, well partially, it will take years to dig out the corporate stooges infesting politics.

Clearly Trump has control over pretty much nothing, with the deep state ensuring it is neither investigated nor prosecuted whilst it wages the forever war across the p

Hearing but not listening.

[fahrbot-bot]

It seems that those in government -- generally of both parties but, lately, more specifically Republicans -- listen more to ideologies than ideas. Remember people, you get for whom you vote.

Their "Job"?

[Madcat221 .]

Their "Job" now is to serve their regulatory captors at the expense of the rest of the People.

ISPs should go with nuclear option.

[Gravis Zero]

Begin by blocking all political donation sites to all the congress critters that support the repeal of net neutrality. That's a fun start but you can take it to some weird extremes.

I can't be the only one...

[OfMiceAndMenus]

Does anyone else think "Chairman Pai" sounds like an Asian dictator's name?

"Here we have Chairman Pai, Chairman Mao's lesser-known cousin..."