Net Neutrality Rollback Faces New Criticism From US Congress -- And 16 Million Comments (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader quotes TechCrunch's newest update on the FCC's attempt to gut net neutrality protections: 10 Representatives who helped craft the law governing the FCC itself have submitted an official comment on the proposal ruthlessly dismantling it... The FCC is well within its rights to interpret the law, and it doesn't have to listen to contrary comments from the likes of you and me. It does, however, have to listen to Congress -- "congressional intent" is a huge factor in determining whether an interpretation of the law is reasonable. And in the comment they've just filed, Representatives Pallon, Doyle et al. make it very clear that their intent was and remains very different from how the FCC has chosen to represent it.

"The law directs the FCC to look at ISP services as distinct from those services that ride over the networks. The FCC's proposal contravenes our intent... While some may argue that this distinction should be abandoned because of changes in today's market, that choice is not the FCC's to make. The decision remains squarely with those of us in Congress -- and we have repeatedly chosen to leave the law as it is."
In another letter Thursday, 15 Congressmen asked FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to extend the time period for comments. They note the proposed changes have received more than 16 million comments, more than four times the number of comments on any previous FCC item. The Hill reports that the previous record was 4 million comments -- during the FCC's last net neutrality proceeding in 2014 -- and "the lawmakers also noted that the comment period for approving net neutrality in 2014 was 60 days. Pai has only allowed a 30-day comment period for his plan to rollback the rules."

Comments

Am I wrong?

[Marc_Hawke]

It seems that Ajit Pai is the most openly corrupt government official that I've seen in United States politics. Am I missing something?

Keep in mind, I'm not saying he's the most 'corrupt,' but rather the most open about it. And when I say 'corrupt' I just mean pandering to special interest groups.

The instant he was appointed he basically said, "We're going to hand the Internet over to big corporations, and smile while we do it." Then just laughed whenever anybody said that it's contrary to what everyone wants. For example, the comments thing, "We nominally have a comment period, but we've decided to just ignore them."

I just don't get it. I'd expect speeches trying to justify what he's been doing, or trying to convince people to come around to his way of thinking...but really it seems like he just doesn't care. On one hand, that's kind of refreshing in a 'no bullshit' kind of way, but on the other hand, I don't agree at all with how he's handling the situation.

Re:Am I wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's taking a gamble that, in the Trump administration, the way to catch the boss's eye and get ahead is to model your behavior on his.

He's imitating Trump himself. Sincerest form of flattery, and all that. If Trump holds on to the White House for, all gods forbid, eight years, you can expect pretty much every senior civil servant to act like this by then.

Fig leaves are for statues. Real men do their graft loud and proud, in the open. Heck, they even put their names to (ghostwritten) bestselling books about it.

Re:Am I wrong?

[drinkypoo]

The worst case of FCC corruption was when the brother of Colin Powell, as head of the FCC, allowed the concentration of news outlets into a few corporate hands,

Bill Clinton is not Colin Powell's Brother, nor was he head of the FCC.

He's not even close

[rsilvergun]

I mean, you've got Dick Cheney for raw, open corruption. And the stuff that gets done on the local level would make even him blush. I remember reading a story of a land owner that wanted some land that had some endangered goats. Couldn't have the land because of the goats. So he bought some nearby land, but up some broken, rickety fences and stuck sheep with syphilis on the land. The goats jumped the fence and the sheep, died of syphilis and blammo, he got the land. City turned a complete blind eye to the entire scheme.

There's still a small chance Pai's drinking his own Kool-aid. Those city reps and the goats? No chance whatsoever.

Re:WTF?

[PopeRatzo]

Hell, even Fox which gets accused of supporting Trump has 52% negative coverage

Let's think about this. Is there any other possible reason that the coverage of Trump is overwhelmingly negative? Can you possibly imagine that it might not all have to do with "media bias"? Is there a scenario where negative coverage of Trump doesn't have to do only with bias?

Use your imagination.