Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting For The FCC, FTC To Punish Verizon For Screwing Firefighters

from the nothing-to-see-here dept

We've noted how the telecom industry been having great success in the Trump era eliminating FCC, FTC, and state authority over telecom monopolies. The underlying industry justification is that gutting consumer protections will somehow magically improve competition and spur investment by regional telecom monopolies, a decades-old claim that has never been true, and yet somehow never dies. In reality, when you kill regulatory oversight of natural monopolies (without shoring up the underlying competition issues beneath), the problem only tends to get worse. It's something you probably noticed if you've had any interactions with Comcast lately.

Last week the perils in this particular course of action were laid bare when Verizon was busted first throttling and then trying to upsell first responders while they were trying to combat wildfires in California. Gigi Sohn, one of the ex-FCC staffers that helped craft the rules, did a good job pointing out how the FCC's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order didn't just kill net neutrality, it punted the FCC's ability to hold ISPs like Verizon accountable for issues just like this one:

"...Even assuming that Verizon’s actions were not technically a violation of the 2015 net neutrality rules’ express prohibition against throttling internet traffic, the company’s actions may still have violated the 2015 rules.

Those rules permitted complaints to be filed pursuant to what was called the “general conduct rule,” which prohibited broadband providers from unreasonably interfering or disadvantaging “end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband internet access service or the lawful internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice.” Certainly, the FPD could have made a persuasive case that Verizon was unreasonably interfering with its ability to use broadband internet access service. But, since the repeal of net neutrality, that avenue was not available."

Telecom monopolies have claimed that killing the FCC's oversight authority of ISPs is no big deal because the FTC will quickly rush in and fill the void. But as we've noted repeatedly, this argument was not made in good faith; whereas the FCC was perfectly-crafted for telecom oversight, the FTC lacks the authority and bandwidth to police ISPs, meaning most meaningful punishment never happens (check out the FTC's half-decade long effort to hold AT&T accountable for lying to customers about throttling as just one example, or the total failure to police bogus fees).

In the wake of last week's scandal, you'll notice Ajit Pai's FCC hasn't so much as issued a peep about Verizon's face plant. Undaunted, a group of eighteen Senators have fired off a letter to the FTC (pdf) urging it to, you know, maybe investigate Verizon:

"We believe the Federal Communications Commission, as the expert regulatory agency, should be responsible for the oversight of public safety networks and communications networks as a whole. Unfortunately, with its repeal of the 2015 Open Internet Order, the FCC has abdicated its jurisdiction over broadband communications and walked away from protecting consumers, including public safety agencies. We, therefore, call on the FTC to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices stemming from this incident."

Good luck with that. Companies like Verizon have been spending millions of dollars to erode FCC, FTC, and state authority over ISPs. In Verizon's preferred regulatory paradigm, both state and federal regulators could be powerless to hold Verizon accountable for wrongdoing, even in screw ups of this magnitude. And if any federal "investigation" happens it will be superficial at best--thanks to a neutered FCC, an over-extended FTC, and states handcuffed by Ajit Pai's historically-unpopular Restoring Internet Freedom order.

That's because in the Trump administration (like countless past administrations before it), telecom monopolies like AT&T and Comcast are quite literally directing policy. After all, nobody wants to risk angering deep-pocketed campaign contributors. And these companies' central, puerile tech policy thesis is that when you let telecom monopolies (with thirty-years of anti-competitive behavior under their belt) run amok without meaningful oversight or competition, miracles happen.

Filed Under: fcc, fire fighters, ftc, net neutrality, public safety, throttling
Companies: verizon

Just Because The Internet Didn't Implode The Day After Repeal Doesn't Mean Killing Net Neutrality Was A Good Idea

from the we've-been-over-this dept

By now we've well established that the FCC ignored the public, ignored the experts, and ignored all objective data when it killed net neutrality rules at the behest of telecom monopolies.

While the vote to kill the rules occurred last year, the rules didn't technically die until last June 11. And one common refrain by Pai and pals (and many folks who don't understand how the broken telecom market works) is that because the internet didn't immediately collapse upon itself post-repeal in a rainbow-colored explosion, that the repeal itself must not be that big of a deal. For example, Ajit Pai tried to make that point again last week at an FCC oversight hearing that was severely lacking in the actual oversight department.

In his opening statement, Pai proclaimed (pdf) that the internet still working semi-reasonably is proof positive that the threat of the repeal was over-hyped:

At the time that the Restoring Internet Freedom Order was adopted, there were many hysterical predictions of doom. We were told that it would be the destruction of the Internet, or as some outlets put it, “the end of the Internet as we know it."...It has now been 67 days since the repeal of the previous Administration’s utility-style Internet regulations took effect. Far from ending or being delivered one word at a time, the Internet remains open and free.

Of course Ajit Pai lecturing anybody on truthfulness is amusing, given his past claims that net neutrality only aids fascists and that the U.S. broadband market is wonderfully competitive. But Pai's not the only one repeatedly making this claim in the hopes it magically becomes true. Pai staffer Matthew Berry has also pushed this same claim on Twitter each and every day since net neutrality was repealed, though the message is usually accompanied by adorable little trivia nuggets in an effort to make them seem interesting. For example:

Charming. And given the naming choice of the FCC's net neutrality-killing "Restoring Internet Freedom" order, that last one is quite apt.

Again, the message is that because Comcast didn't immediately begin behaving like a jackass, what Pai's FCC did must have been a good idea. But there are numerous reasons ISPs didn't immediately start behaving idiotically. One, they're worried that the FCC behaved so ridiculously during the repeal that it may not stand up to a court challenge from Mozilla, consumer groups, and 22 states attorneys general. It's more than possible that the courts could find that the FCC violated agency policy and several laws (including the Administrative Procedure Act) by ignoring the will of the public and basing the repeal on fluff and nonsense.

ISPs are also worried about the fact that more than half the states in the nation are now pursuing their own state-level rules in the wake of federal apathy. So not only are ISPs (temporarily) inclined to behave to avoid adding any ammunition to the looming lawsuits, they're wary of agitating state lawmakers and Governors looking for a reason to impose tougher state level rules. Should the FCC win in court and ISP efforts to ban states from protecting consumers proceed, their inevitable behavior won't be subtle. They didn't just spend millions of dollars gutting FCC authority and consumer protections for fun.

In short, ISPs are only really behaving until the legal fight has been settled and the dust has been cleared, something Pai and Berry know very well. But as we've noted previously, just because the internet didn't immediately implode doesn't mean that killing net neutrality won't be immeasurably harmful. After all, what many see as a silo'd conversation about net neutrality is really about something larger: a horrible lack of competition in broadband and the laundry list of bad behaviors ISPs engage in to take advantage of that fact.

What tends to be forgotten in this whole conversation is that net neutrality violations are really just a symptom of the lack of broadband competition.

It's a problem nobody really wants to fix, given it would require standing up to hugely powerful campaign contributors like AT&T. And instead of fixing it, the current administration's "solution" has been to eliminate oversight of natural monopolies and gut consumer protections. The theory is that this blind deregulation of broadband will somehow magically result in a free market utopia. In reality, eliminating oversight of natural monopolies like Comcast simply frees those monopolies to engage in bad behavior, with neither regulatory oversight nor healthy competition to constrain it.

This isn't opinion. Former FCC boss Michael Powell (now the top lobbyist for the cable industry) followed the same mindless deregulatory mantra, and it's one of the major reason why Comcast is currently the only real broadband option in countless areas country-wide. Mindless deregulation may work in healthy markets where competition can supplement adult regulatory supervision, but broadband is not a healthy market. It's a broken system of regional monopolies propped up by regulatory capture and corruption. Anyone who thinks killing basic consumer protections solves this problem doesn't understand the problem we're dealing with.

No, the internet didn't immediately implode in the wake of the FCC's historically-unpopular decision. But that's not the point. Killing net neutrality is just one part of a broader, multi-decade effort to eliminate most meaningful oversight of one of the most broken, predatory, and unpopular markets in America. Anybody who thinks this hasn't already slowly but surely resulted in significant, additional problems hasn't paid attention to history, or spent a few hours on the phone with Comcast technical support. And as U.S. telcos refuse to upgrade their networks and Comcast's monopoly power grows, you'd be a fool to believe the current trajectory won't make our current broadband problems significantly worse.

Filed Under: ajit pai, fcc, matthew berry, net neutrality

Verizon Throttled The 'Unlimited' Data Plan Of A Fire Dept. Battling Wildfires

from the herp-derp dept

We've long discussed how Verizon (like most U.S. cellular carriers) has a terribly-difficult time understanding what the word "unlimited" means. Way back in 2007 Verizon was forced to settle with the New York Attorney General after a nine-month investigation found the company was throttling its "unlimited" mobile data plans after just 5GB of data usage, without those limits being clearly explained to the end user. Of course Verizon tried for a while to eliminate unlimited data plans completely, but a little something called competition finally forced the company to bring the idea back from the dead a few years ago.

But the company's new "unlimited" data plans still suffer from all manner of fine print, limits, and caveats. That includes throttling all video by default (something you can avoid if you're willing to pay significantly more), restrictions on tethering and usage of your phone as a hotspot or modem, and a 25 GB cap that results in said "unlimited" plans suddenly being throttled back to last-generation speeds as slow as 128 kbps. In short, Verizon still pretty clearly has no damn idea what the word unlimited actually means, nor does it much care if this entire mess confuses you.

The latest case in point: one fire department in Santa Clara County, California had subscribed to what it thought was an unlimited Verizon wireless data plan for its mobile command and control center (OES 5262) vehicle. The vehicle is used to manage department resources during wildfires and other emergencies. But a brief (pdf) filed this week by net neutrality supporters pushing for restoration of net neutrality rules (first spotted by Ars Technica) highlights how the fire department suddenly found the vehicle (and all connected systems) largely unusable because Verizon had throttled its cellular data connection after 25 GB of usage:

"Santa Clara Fire paid Verizon for "unlimited" data but suffered from heavy throttling until the department paid Verizon more, according to Bowden's declaration and emails between the fire department and Verizon that were submitted as evidence.

"In the midst of our response to the Mendocino Complex Fire, County Fire discovered the data connection for OES 5262 was being throttled by Verizon, and data rates had been reduced to 1/200, or less, than the previous speeds," Bowden wrote. "These reduced speeds severely interfered with the OES 5262's ability to function effectively. My Information Technology staff communicated directly with Verizon via email about the throttling, requesting it be immediately lifted for public safety purposes."

This being the telecom industry, Verizon's support response to the problem wasn't what you'd call top shelf. Instead of quickly understanding the dire nature of the complaint and restoring the connection to full speeds, the fire department says Verizon informed them that the fire department needed to upgrade to a new data plan at more than twice the cost. At one point, a Verizon account rep advised that the fire department should pony up for Verizon's per gigabyte rate (which has varied at prices ranging up to a whopping $15 per gigabyte).

If you're playing along at home, this is nothing new. Cellular carriers often impose all manner of confusing limits and caveats as part of an intentional effort to upsell you to more expensive tiers of service you may not actually need. Historically, the FCC's now-discarded net neutrality rules allowed for this kind of throttling in cases of congestion and "reasonable network management" (though this term has long been abused). But the fire department says its connection was being throttled at all times, not just during periods of congestion.

And, lo and behold, the department technically couldn't formally complain to the FCC because Verizon had, as we're all well aware, just got done spending millions of dollars and countless lobbying hours to dismantle net neutrality protections, notes Ars:

"Santa Clara could have complained to the FCC under the now-removed net neutrality system, which allowed Internet users to file complaints about any unjust or unreasonable prices and practices. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's decision to deregulate the broadband industry eliminated that complaint option and also limited consumers' rights to sue Internet providers over unjust or unreasonable behavior."

Lovely. Verizon subsequently admitted that the company shouldn't have throttled first responders anyway, as that was a violation of the company's own policies. But this being the telecom industry, customer service gaffes are a feature, not a bug.

Granted, this is the same company that has fought for more than a decade to crush net neutrality while not only actively denying that's what it was doing, but insisting that net neutrality needed to be dismantled to help protect public safety. As such, there's nothing about this story that's remotely surprising. Verizon has worked tirelessly to ensure it doesn't have to be particularly transparent, whether we're talking about net neutrality or privacy, and the end result has been on proud display for decades.

Filed Under: ajit pai, california, fcc, fire department, fire fighting, fires, net neutrality, santa clara fire department, throttled, unlimited, wildfires
Companies: verizon

Trump Admin Hopes Kavanaugh Supreme Court Delivers The Killing Blow To Net Neutrality

from the pulling-it-up-from-the-roots dept

So you'll recall that before Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and friends convinced the Trump FCC to ignore the public and kill net neutrality, they had attempted to dismantle the rules legally. That effort didn't go very well, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upholding the FCC's Open Internet Order in June of 2016, and ISPs losing a subsequent en banc appeal. More specifically, the courts found that the former Wheeler-run FCC was well within its legal right to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under the Telecom Act.

The 2016 FCC victory made sense, especially if you recall that the agency lost its 2014 legal fight with Verizon in part because it tried to implement net neutrality without first putting itself on legal footing by classifying ISPs as common carriers under Title II. You might also recall that Wheeler at the time initially wasn't sure about the Title II route, but changed his mind based on available facts and evidence, back when people, you know, actually still did that.

But that was then and this is now. Lawyers for the FCC and Department of Justice filed a brief (pdf) with the Supreme Court last Friday, urging it to vacate the 2016 court ruling that upheld the Wheeler-era net neutrality rules. The move is necessary, FCC lawyers inform the court, because of the FCC's new, comically-named "Restoring Internet Freedom" proposal has purportedly changed the facts on the ground:

"The court of appeals upheld the 2015 Order primarily because it concluded that it was required to defer to the FCC’s legal and factual judgments as reflected in that order. But the Commission itself has now repudiated those factual and legal judgments in a new order issued after full notice-and-comment proceedings."

Of course we've noted time and time again how the repeal of net neutrality was a facts-optional shitshow of comical proportions. Given the FCC's entire justification for repeal was based on bogus ISP lobbyist math and bullshit, the FCC leaning on the facts here is pretty funny. Even if the courts don't agree with that, FCC lawyers state, the Supreme Court should just go ahead and agree with ISPs anyway:

"Alternatively, if this Court concludes that the 2018 Order did not render this case moot, or if it prefers not to resolve that issue, it should grant the petitions for writs of certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand for further proceedings to allow the court of appeals to consider in the first instance the effect of the 2018 Order on this litigation.

Wouldn't that be Comcastic!

So what is the Trump FCC and DOJ (read: AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Charter) up to here? Because the FCC engaged in so much bizarre and shady behavior during the net neutrality repeal last fall (from making up a DDOS attack to turning a blind eye to identity theft and fraud in the public comment period), ISPs are well aware the FCC repeal could fall apart in court.

That could happen for a number of reasons, including the court finding the FCC violated the Administrative Procedure Act by dismantling a major regulatory effort based on little more than hot air and string cheese. The FCC can't just reverse such a massive regulatory move without first showing that broadband market realities changed dramatically enough to warrant it, something SEC filings, CEO statements and earnings report show didn't happen. That's why you'll often see Ajit Pai routinely lying about how net neutrality demolished sector investment, something that isn't supported by the facts.

In short, giant ISPs like Comcast and AT&T know they'll soon have to relitigate this in court. That's why they're pushing for a new fake net neutrality laws they've written with an eye on passing something that pre-empts both the restoration of the federal rules, or the myriad of state solutions that are now popping up. And they know that should they lose, this could very likely head to the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court that could soon be staffed by Brett Kavanaugh, who bizarrely bought the completely bogus ISP claim (during the first round of the FCC's fight with Verizon) that net neutrality rules violate an ISPs First Amendment rights.

The short version? ISPs are worried that Ajit Pai's ham-fisted and facts-optional attack on net neutrality won't survive the looming court challenge by consumer groups and Mozilla. As such, they're gearing up for what they hope will be a Kavanaugh-staffed Supreme Court to help deliver the killing blow, something that would be greatly aided by neutering existing precedent. ISPs are well aware that public sentiment, factual data and lower course rulings could restore the FCC's extremely popular net neutrality rules, and we wouldn't want that, right?

Filed Under: ajit pai, brett kavanaugh, broadband, doj, fcc, net neutrality, supreme court, tom wheeler, trump administration

Ajit Pai Lies (Again) To Congress With Claim Net Neutrality Killed Broadband Investment

from the repetition-forges-reality dept

So, we've kind of been over this. One of the cornerstones of the broadband industry's flimsy and facts-optional assault on net neutrality was that the rules somehow demolished broadband industry investment. Of course the press has noted time and time and time again how that's simply not true.

It's simply not debatable. Close examinations of SEC filings and public earnings reports during the period highlight how this alleged investment apocalypse never actually happened. What's more, CEOs from nearly a dozen ISPs are on public record telling investors (who by law they can't lie to) that the claim was effectively bogus, and that they saw no meaningful impact from the rules. Again, that's not surprising, since many broadband industry executives have also acknowledged the rules, which were discarded last June, really didn't hurt them unless they engaged in anti-competitive behavior.

Still, the false claim gained traction online thanks to industry-linked economists and the usual industry stenographers. These days, the only folks you'll find still clinging to this repeatedly debunked narrative are either ISPs, ISP-linked consultants, or the think tanks, fauxcademics and other policy voices ISPs pay to intentionally muddy the discourse waters. And oh, Ajit Pai, who again this week lied to Congress in claiming that net neutrality was a broadband investment apocalypse. From his testimony during an "oversight" (that term is used loosely) hearing:

"...we’ve returned to the successful light-touch regulatory framework under which the Internet flourished in the United States from 1996 to 2015. Under the heavy-handed regulations adopted by the prior Commission in 2015, network investment declined for two straight years, the first time that had happened outside of a recession in the broadband era."

Except that is, again, not even remotely true. For one, ISPs spent years technically under Title II (cable until 2002 and DSL until 2005) without the sky falling. That was until FCC boss Mike Powell (now the top lobbyist for the cable industry) decided to weaken FCC oversight over broadband monopolies under the bullshit claim it would result in a broadband competition utopia (you may have noticed that didn't happen). Companies like Verizon also like to ignore the fact they were just fine having parts of their businesses regulated under Title II for years--when it was providing the company with notable tax breaks.

And when the FCC did reclassify ISPs as common carriers again under Title II in 2015, the agency used forbearance to prevent applying many of the heavier, utility-style regulations upon ISPs. The FCC also went well out of its way to make it clear that it had no intention of seriously regulating broadband rates, a gift to ISPs that have been abusing their monopoly markets via price hikes and obnoxious fees for nearly two decades now. In short: Title II was never the bogeyman it was portrayed as, and many ISPs were just fine with Title II -- when it fit their political and financial argument du jour.

As for the purported investment dip caused by Title II, numerous major ISPs like Comcast (who boosted CAPEX by 13 percent in 2015) reported an overall increase in investment during that period. At best investment (which is usually dictated by competition) remained flat. And while Ajit Pai has also tried to claim that the rules somehow placed an unfair financial burden on smaller ISPs, the agency's own data disproves those claims as well. In fact, a coalition of thirty small ISPs opposed Pai's historically-unpopular attack on the rules as counterproductive and harmful to a truly competitive internet.

Again, the only reports claiming that net neutrality hurt sector investment come from industry linked economists who intentionally cherry picked very specific, unrelated windows of investment slowdown (like scheduled cable box upgrades ending) and massaged the data to falsely imply net neutrality was to blame. Despite the fact these studies have been debunked by years of journalism and public admissions from the industry itself, Pai and ISP lobbyists enjoy repeating them in the apparent belief that repetition forges reality.

From there, Pai informed Congress that they no longer need to worry about this investment-killing bogeyman thanks to his Orwellian-named "Restoring Internet Freedom Order":

"In the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which was adopted last December, we stopped regulating the Internet with 1934 rules designed for the Ma Bell telephone monopoly. We strengthened our transparency rules so that broadband providers are required to disclose more information about their network management practices. And we restored the authority of the Federal Trade Commission, our nation’s premier consumer protection agency, to police the practices of Internet service providers—authority the prior Commission had stripped from the FTC in 2015.

You'll be shocked to learn that Pai's still not telling the truth here, either. This industry line that the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules were somehow "designed for the ma bell telephone monopoly" or impose "archaic, utility-style rules on modern networks" is decidedly false, as we've explained in great detail previously. The claim that ISP transparency rules have been "strengthened" is also false, since Pai effectively replaced tough ISP transparency requirements with the policy equivalent of a pinky swear. Pai's FTC claims are also incorrect, since the FTC lacks the resources or authority to really police broadband providers effectively.

Of course this cavalcade of bullshit is nothing new for Pai, as we saw recently when he claimed that the majority of Americans support his attacks on net neutrality, something survey after survey (another of which was released this week) disproves. Of course countless reporters, citing publicly-available data, have been pointing all of this out for years, not that appears to matter in post-truth America. The bottom line is that net neutrality rules are dead, and Pai ignored the public, the experts, and relied entirely on garbage data to justify killing them. With zero substantive repercussions.

Eventually accountability will likely come for Pai, either in the form of the looming lawsuits by Mozilla and consumer groups, or the inevitable collision between his obvious post-FCC political aspirations and the Millennial voters who are vibrantly aware of just how badly his decision will screw them over the longer haul.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband investment, congress, fcc, investment, net neutrality

Massachusetts Just The Latest State To Embrace Net Neutrality

from the boxing-in-bullies dept

In the wake of the FCC's historically unpopular decision to gut net neutrality, more than half of the states in the nation are now exploring their own, state-level net neutrality rules. In some instances (Montana) states are signing executive orders that ban state agencies from doing business with ISPs that behave anti-competitively. Elsewhere (Oregon and Washington) states are passing new laws that largely mirror the FCC's discarded 2015 rules, and in some instances (California) are a bit tougher than the FCC on things like usage caps or "zero rating."

This week, Massachusetts began finalizing approval of S2610, which initially proposed doing many of the things other such bills do (banning ISP blocking, throttling, or crippling of competitor services and websites). But the bill has since been notably reworked to instead create a state-wide registry that ranks ISPs based on how terrible their service, pricing, privacy and other behaviors are:

"There shall be an internet service provider registry to make broadband internet access service quality and network management practices readily available to customers in the commonwealth. The department shall compile for the registry information disclosed by internet service providers in the commonwealth pursuant to this section and from the verification tests conducted pursuant to this section. The department shall organize the registry in a format that is conducive to review and comparison by customers and prospective customers of internet service. The registry shall be available on the department’s website and shall include net neutrality and consumer privacy grades under subsection (f) in comparison chart for fixed line internet service providers and 1 comparison chart for wireless internet service providers. The department shall provide the information in the registry upon request."

ISPs that behave would be able to display a Massachusetts seal of approval to, purportedly, clearly advertise that they're not terrible and anti-competitive. Efforts to actually include language preventing things like the blocking and throttling of competitors were supposed to be added via amendment, but were thwarted at the behest of telecom lobbying organizations according to regional news outlets. In conversations with state lawmakers, I've also been told that leaders wanted to tightly restrict the language in the bill to avoid ISP lawsuits, since the FCC's "Restoring Internet Freedom" repeal ironically tries to ban states from protecting consumers (you know, state rights and all that).

Since large ISPs convinced the Trump FCC to neuter not only FCC authority but many of the transparency requirements, having a registry that clearly illustrates what kind of connection you're buying isn't a terrible idea. That said, without any hard restrictions on bad behavior, relying solely on naming and shaming bad policy actors can only go so far. A lack of competition means that users can't switch ISPs anyway, so while transparency is great and all, it alone isn't going to force monopoly last mile broadband providers to magically behave.

As is usually the case, local broadband and TV providers tried to claim that rules actually preventing them from being anti-competitive bullies would hurt jobs, puppies, and innovation:

"Our members support and adhere to the principles of net neutrality every day while employing thousands of Massachusetts residents and investing over a billion dollars annually in the Commonwealth’s economy,” Tim Wilkerson, vice president of the New England Cable & Telecommunications Association, said. “The measure being considered in the Massachusetts Senate will do little to protect consumers while hurting innovation and economic growth."

Even if these claims could be taken seriously, perhaps that's something ISPs should have considered before they lobbied to dismantle popular and relatively modest (by international standards) net neutrality protections on the federal level. ISPs have promised to sue states that try and protect consumers in the wake of federal apathy, but they've yet to actually do so -- in part because they're nervous about looming legal challenges of the FCC repeal.

Filed Under: ajit pai, fcc, massachusetts, net neutrality