FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai Is Leading An Incoherent, Facts-Optional Last Minute War On Net Neutrality…For The American People

from the revolving-door-dysfunction dept

Over the last few months we’ve discussed how FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has been waging a one man war on net neutrality and Title II using what can only be described as an increasingly aggressive barrage of total nonsense. Back in January Pai tried to claim that Netflix was a horrible neutrality hypocrite because the company uses relatively ordinary content delivery networks. Earlier this month Pai one-upped himself by trying to claim that meaningful neutrality consumer protections would encourage countries like Iran and North Korea to censor the Internet.

Now on the surface, it appears that Pai just doesn’t understand technology very well. Of course, once you understand that he was once a regulatory lawyer for Verizon, you realize he’s simply dressing broadband duopoly profit protection up as some kind of deeper, meaningful ethos. As such, lamenting that Title II is “Obamacare for the Internet,” is just political theater designed to rile up the base to the benefit of the broadband industry.

With net neutrality set for a vote this week, Pai has accelerated his master plan to make the largest number of inaccurate net neutrality statements in the shortest amount of time possible. For example, Pai co-wrote an editorial in the Chicago Tribune last week that tries to use Obamacare fears to insist Americans will lose the right to choose their own wireless plans if Title II based rules come to pass:

“If you like your wireless plan, you should be able to keep it. But new federal regulations may take away your freedom to choose the best broadband plan for you. It’s all part of the federal government’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet like a public utility…take T-Mobile’s Music Freedom program, which the Internet conduct rule puts on the chopping block. The “Un-carrier” allows consumers to stream as much online music as they want without charging it against their monthly data allowance.”

Except as we’ve noted recently, classifying ISPs as common carriers under Title II absolutely does not involve “regulating ISPs like utilities.” In fact, Wheeler’s stripping away many of the tougher aspects of Title II, something you’ll see immeasurably annoy consumer advocates when the full rules are released later this week. And while I personally think zero rated apps like T-Mobile’s Music Freedom plan set a horrible precedent and should be reined in by the rules, the FCC’s made every indication that they see usage caps and zero rated apps as “creative” pricing models that won’t be touched.

Meanwhile, both Sprint’s and T-Mobile’s COOs have said absolutely nothing should change with their wireless plans under the new rules. Are we noticing a disconnect between Pai’s rhetoric and reality yet?

At the heart of Pai’s assault on net neutrality has been an absolute flood of press releases and public speeches in which Pai insists that he’s aggressively fighting consumer protections because he cares so very much about the little guy. His February 6 press release, for example, throws around his love of the “American People” and “small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs” like so much disingenuous digital confetti. Yet when you actually bother to ask said entrepreneurs — like this letter (pdf) from 100 companies including Yelp, Etsy, Kickstarter, Tumblr and GitHub — they unequivocally make it clear Commissioner Pai doesn’t speak for them:

“We are the ?small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs? that Commissioner Pai referenced in his February 6, 2015 press release about the FCC?s impending net neutrality rulemaking, and we write to say unequivocally that his release does not represent our views on net neutrality. Quite the opposite, entrepreneurs and startups throughout the country have consistently supported Chairman Wheeler?s call for strong net neutrality rules enacted through Title II.”

One marginally clever thing Pai’s been doing is that he’s been raising an absolute hysterical media shitstorm for weeks over the fact the FCC hasn’t released the proposed rules ahead of Thursday’s vote. And it’s impossible to claim he’s wrong: FCC restrictions bar the agency from publicizing drafts ahead of a vote, no matter which party is in power. That’s something that’s been the bane of telecom reporters (and public discourse) for years.

That said, as a former Verizon lawyer, Pai doesn’t really give a damn about transparency. Phone and cable companies absolutely adore the lack of transparency that allows them craft abysmal anti-consumer regulations on the state and federal level every day. Similarly, were Pai’s party in office pushing an agenda he liked (like oh, letting Verizon do effectively whatever it likes, no matter how anti-competitive) you can be fairly sure his love of transparency would be notably absent from the conversation. Still, Pai’s attempting a futile Hail Mary attempt to delay this week’s vote because he just loves transparency so much it hurts.

In short, you’ve got a former Verizon regulatory lawyer claiming to represent the interests of everybody except the companies he’s actually busy looking out for. Layered on to that is a media that pretends it’s not just a little bit absurd that a living, breathing example of revolving door regulation is claiming to be a champion of the American public. Pai knows the rules will be approved on Thursday; he’s just hoping his theatrical performance wins him a chance to lead the FCC (and the likely destruction of these very same rules) should we see a 2016 party shift.

If those ambitions are unattainable, perhaps Pai can rejoin Verizon and contribute to the industry’s legal assault on consumers and the rules more directly — to the great and immeasurable benefit of puppies and school children everywhere.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai Is Leading An Incoherent, Facts-Optional Last Minute War On Net Neutrality…For The American People”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That One Guy (profile) says:

Almost funny

You know, his complete, mindless panic would almost be funny, if I didn’t know there are people clueless enough to fall for it. At this point I’m just waiting for him to pull out the ‘Supporting Title II is supporting terrorists!’ claim(oh, wait…)

‘former Verizon lawyer’… ‘former Verizon regulatory lawyer’… ‘perhaps Pai can rejoin Verizon’

You say all these things as though he’s not currently working for them. He may not be directly employed by them at the moment, but his actions leave little doubt who he believes he’s working for, and it’s not the public.

John Snape (profile) says:

Too many laws

“Net Neutrality” might be the best thing since sliced bread.

However, as a citizen of this country, I’m just sick of so many regulations that a guy can write a book how every one of us is committing “Three Felonies a Day.”

Why can’t we just clear out the hundreds of thousands of regulations and laws that are slowly killing this country before we start piling more onto the list?

Or am I just being too libertarian?

S Palmer says:

Re: Too many laws

Interesting that it’s the regulations that you have problems with while the companies being regulated have been suckling off the public teat forever. Perhaps if these companies were subject to a free market and didn’t rake in billions in government subsidies while utilizing public rights of way to provide their service I’d agree with you…

Karl Bode (profile) says:

Re: Too many laws

US Telecom really is a unique animal. Thanks to the duopoly stranglehold over the last mile, when you support regulators doing nothing, you by proxy support nothing changing. Because U.S. broadband is far, far from a free market; there is no deus ex machina coming out of the wings to resolve the issue organically.

Then the choice ends up being: if we’re going to have to have regulations: which would you rather have? Regulations that protect the greatest number of people and companies possible, or regulations protecting AT&T, Verizon and Comcast’s competitive stranglehold over vast swaths of the country?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Too many laws

Unbundling the last mile would’ve probably been 5x more effective than the rules they are going to adopt now. It was a shame to see Tom Wheeler actually promote not doing that as a “good thing”.

Competition would keep the big guys in check more faster than any of the restrictions will. Just look how they’re acting in Google Fiber towns. You would’ve never seen AT&T and others say they are going to adopt Gigabit speeds as fast, under any government regulations, if not for the Google Fiber competition. Granted, they are still lying about their “Gigabit-but-actually-300Mbps-but-actually-it’s-30-dollars-more-if-you-don’t-want-to-be-spied-on” deal.

Karl Bode (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Too many laws

I agree! None of this is ideal. We had unbundling in 1996 and it was gutted (and subsequently used to good effect in other locations like France). Net neutrality protections are our next best bet, since it’s pretty clear nobody in government has the stomach to return to unbundling requirements or open access broadband models any time soon.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Too many laws

I wouldn’t say that it failed so much as it wasn’t a raving success. It’s still there. You still have CLEC’s out there operating. However, there is a distinct things to note about that. The telcoms were allowed to influence how it was structured that effectively hamstrung the effort. Although ILECs have to allow CLECS to operate over their network, the ILECs were still allowed to compete for retail business, instead of simply maintaining the infrastructure and providing access to the CLECS at fair, regulated rate. That is not the same at all.

Karl Bode (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Too many laws

Unbundling was part of the 1996 telecom act. And was gradually destroyed by telecom lobbyists, resulting in CLECs (with a few exception) dying off in droves and the duopoly logjam we enjoy today. France, in contrast, took our idea and made it work, resulting in many Parisians paying $40 or so for triple play services.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Too many laws

Yes, sorry. Let me try again. Prior to the Telecommunications Act of ’96, we had healthy competition and a choice of numerous different ISPs. It was actually a thriving market and competition kept some of the worse effects we see today from happening.

Due to heavy pressure from the major telecoms, the law included a disastrous provision that declared internet service as an “information service” rather than a communications service. This is not only logically untenable, but meant that the rules that were keeping the ISP business competitive no longer applied. The result is the near-monopoly situation we have now that allows the abusive practices we see.

The correct thing to do is to reverse that portion of the ’96 law. However, the telecoms paid big bucks for that and they aren’t exactly going to sit by and let it get fixed. I think that the stranglehold these companies have on the lawmaking process is such that they can hold their ground for many years to come.

So fixing the problem in the obvious way isn’t feasible.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Too many laws

The reason there was competition then was more technological than a matter of law. Back then the vast majority of people were connecting via a dial up connection that was an independent service that didn’t require it additional infrastructure in place for providers to reach their customers other than existing POTS lines which most people already had. So starting an ISP was much easier and cheaper to do. To offer broadband it required either a significant upgrade or even new infrastructure to be built.

Part of the problem here is that regulation can be a two-edged sword. It’s supposed to fight anti-competitive and abusive behavior but far too often it becomes the tool of the incumbent to prevent a larger barrier to entry for new competitors. The fear at the time was that small ISPs would be so encumbered with additional expense due to government regulation that their viability would become untenable which was a real possibility. Of course all of that expensive regulation came out of the anti-competitive actions of the big telcos in the first place but that was after they were already established enough to weather it.

Had ISPs had to be encumbered with the expense of the regulation that was in place for telcos at the time, either two things would have happened:

1. The telcos would have moved in to become the only ISPs available which would have at best left us at the same place we are today but with the strong possibility that broadband doesn’t emerge as there would be no incentive for them to develop that technology. or…

2. The technology would have died as it would have been too expensive for anyone else to offer and again with no incentive to adjust their business, telcos would have simply gone on making their money selling POTS service.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Too many laws

Here’s a novel idea. How about instead of regulating industries by based on the type of business, we instead regulate companies based on their previous history of anti-competitive behavior (including previous iterations of the company even if they occurred under different names or were run by different people.) Companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast have such a long history of anti-competitive behavior that should mean they should be subject to regulation even if they suddenly decided that they wanted to switch their business to one of holding a series of bake sales. And if you don’t want your business to be shackled with burdensome government regulation, the choice is simple – don’t engage in anti-competitive behavior and you won’t be.

PRMan (profile) says:

Re: Re: Too many laws

Or, you know, regulate them based on consumer complaints and if they are anti-consumer, break them up like is allowed by anti-trust laws.

Given Time Warner and Comcast’s current customer service scores, it seems like a no-brainer that they are anti-consumer monopolies and need to be broken into a company that owns the lines and a company that owns the content. (Hey, didn’t we used to have laws preventing the ownership of both FOR EXACTLY THIS REASON?)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Too many laws


I agree, too many laws, too many regulations, too many policies…….whats it gonna be like ONLY 50 years from now………were gonna end up being fined for letting one go in public …..criminal

Its clear today that those behind the constitution understood the danger of this, in how and what and how much or how little they included in it……..i think the leaders of the past were still in the mists of the END of an imperialistic reign, they understood freedom better, everybody was in the mist of a mature imperialistic reign, i think today, we have leaders that have lived in a world that holds no unavoidable hardships you’d find in a mature tyranny, neither thinks along those lines, nor associates the possible consequences of current actions to similar actions and its same consequences in the past

TasMot (profile) says:

Re: Re: Too many laws

Many of these laws are the result of the “must do something” mentality of a nanny state that doesn’t feel like dealing with the big issues like the budget problem.
It’s just too easy to spend a lot of money to “save the victims” and “protect the little guy” (you know, from the big faceless corporations that we created).

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Yet when you actually bother to ask said entrepreneurs — like this letter (pdf) from 100 companies including Yelp, Etsy, Kickstarter, Tumblr and GitHub — they unequivocally make it clear Commissioner Pai doesn’t speak for them:

“We are the “small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs” that Commissioner Pai referenced in his February 6, 2015 press release about the FCC’s impending net neutrality rulemaking

Which, exactly, of those major websites is a small, independent business again?

Just saying…

ken (profile) says:

We are being hoodwinked

Oh please people please wake up. The FCC and Obama is doing this in secret. We have no idea what is in this. It is just like TPP. It is all being done out of our sight.

As with Obamacare it is going to have to be passed before we know what is in it and probably will not know until we see the effects.

What Obama means with Net Nuetrality in not what we think as Net Neutrality.

We are all being howdwinked.

ken (profile) says:

Re: Re: We are being hoodwinked

Obama has been in the thick of this. The chairman is Obama’s man. So we have 300 pages to tell ISPs they cannot throttle traffic and must treat all packets equally?

Just like TPP this is being passed in secret with no public input. We will not know what is in this till it is already implemented.

Rudyard Holmbast says:

“Of course, once you understand that he was once a regulatory lawyer for Verizon, you realize he’s simply dressing broadband duopoly profit protection up as some kind of deeper, meaningful ethos.”

But of course, because none of the people who disagree with the arrogant blowhards on this site could possibly be doing so in good faith. It must necessarily be related to some nefarious underlying profit motive.

In regard to the corruptocrats on the FCC pushing this bullshit, that sentence could just as easily read “Once you understand he is a lifelong government bureaucrat, you realize he’s simply dressing up burdensome government regulation and overreach as some sort of deeper meaningful ethos”.

When it comes to the issue of “net neutrality”, the “authors” at this site may as well be wearing tin-foil hats, because that is how asinine some of the bullshit sounds. It’s every bit as ludicrous as the conspiratorial nonsense John Oliver was spouting about tobacco companies that this site found to be so fucking profound. If the “debate” goes on long enough, it will only be a matter of time before the Illuminati replaces Verizon as the bad guys in all this.

I hesitate to call this a debate because, in breach of the law, the FCC refuses to make public its proposed rule changes for public comment, yet I have read nary a fucking word of complaint from the very people who usually claim such an offense is the worst threat to American democracy, whenever some other unelected federal bureaucracy does it, of course. Refusing to abide by the rules is clearly A-OK as long it is in the service of “net neutrality”. Meanwhile, anyone and everyone who criticizes FCC overreach and its usurpation of authority it simply was never given by any legislative body is accused of being on Verizon’s payroll. It has become a fucking farce. Evidently a large percentage of the people commenting on this issue are being secretly reimbursed by Verizon, as if Nick Gillespie, for instance, is somehow analogous to Clarence Beaks and Verizon is Duke & Duke. But he, and everyone else opposed to “net neutrality”, must be on Verizon’s payroll. How do I know? Because, clearly, disagreeing with the snide pricks who run this site is evidence enough.

It is hard to say which is more pathetic: the casual smears directed at anyone who dares disagree with the fuckwits who run this site, or the absolutely fucking hilarious belief that increased government regulation, regardless of how it is dressed up, is somehow not going to be burdensome and stifling. Because I know that when I think of increased government oversight and regulation, I immediately think innovation and efficiency.

legalcon (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Two thumbs up for this comment. I am often appalled that a site that purports to be a serious news site can publish such garbage. The ad hominem attacks are tolerable, if completely childish, but the utter lack of substance in this “debate” is shameful. Net neutrality is more like a religion to people than policy. Those who disagree are just heretics…

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“I am often appalled that a site that purports to be a serious news site can publish such garbage.”

Then let’s engage in a dialogue: what about this piece do you disagree with? Just calling it “garbage” without saying why is entirely devoid of meaning.

Oh, also, this is a commentary site, not a news site. It does commentary.

John Cressman (profile) says:

Government in Internet is bad... PERIOD... End of Story

The government turns everything it touches to sh*t. Everything the government has gotten involved in ends up costing more and ends up stripping rights and freedoms.

The government is good for things like national security where the great hulking behemoth is slow to move but large and intimidating. It has NO ability to turn on a dime… something absolutely REQUIRED for something as highly evolving as the internet.

Sure… it starts with the promises of equality and savings but ends in cost increases and less choice. ObamaCare is the PERFECT example… I pay more now for my insurance than I did before… MUCH more… and I have a higher deductible. Why? Because if my employeer hadn’t have stripped down our plan, they would have been taxed for offering their employees a “cadillac” plan. And my mom was dropped from her insurance (she’s 63) and currently has NO INSURANCE, because any plan close to what she had is twice as much money with twice the deductible. Yah… the government screws things up. PERIOD. No matter what they say or promise now, remember, that can all be changed once it’s implemented – just like ObamaCare. Remember… if you like your plan you can keep it and you like your doctor you can keep them? All BS.

Don’t give me any of this benevolent government BS. I trust the government as far as I can throw them… which I can’t, otherwise I’d throw them out.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Government in Internet is bad... PERIOD... End of Story

This regulation is specifically applies to last mile providers and regulates the ability to treat all traffic equally. That’s what the focus of this is. “The Internet” the actual internet which is backbone providers are not affected by this. Last mile ISP’s are not the internet folks, they are just greedy folks that stand in the way of you and the actual internet.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Government in Internet is bad... PERIOD... End of Story

If you want to know why so much that the government touches turns to shit, it’s because we allow corporate money to influence it to the point that it turns out that way. If corporate powers that be can’t stop something from happening they will the corrupt it to the point that it becomes pointless or something that they can use for anti-competitive purposes. It’s not government being bad so much as corrupted government being bad.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Yeah, no gummint has problems too.

Personally, I like a defense against a Canadian invasion, or a Chinese invasion.

I like having clean water and clean meat, and a cause for someone to think twice before killing me and taking my home.

I like protection from fires, and response to hurricanes, and protection from joblessness and financial hardship.

Or consistent communications encryption standards that aren’t dependent on trusting Microsoft or Google or Apple, or that some expert is willing to volunteer his time to making it. I like that too. And I’m really pissed off that the NSA sabotaged that, due to funtion creep and conflicting interests.

Government can serve some good uses. But it’s also susceptible to certain ailments, and a drift toward a feudal dictatorship.

I say we should have some ideas as to what we want to implement in the next iteration before we tear this one down.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Yeah, no gummint has problems too.

Well said. This sort of discussion seems to devolve into binary positions: they government is either good or bad. The reality, as you said so well, is that it’s both.

Also, people forget that “the government” as a unified, monolithic entity doesn’t exist. “The government” is more like the biomass in your gut: a collection of a large number of distinct entities, each with their own agendas, that coexist. Just like the fact that statements that include absolutes like “everyone”, “always”, or “never” are rarely correct, referring to “the government” as if it were an entity with a unified purpose or ability is rarely correct.

Brett Glass (profile) says:

Spect (just a little bit)

How about showing a bit of respect for Commissioner Pai, who is not only a very smart man but is leading the charge for something that everyone should want: transparency at the FCC? You may not agree with him, but don’t insult his intelligence.

Besides, he happens to be correct. Title II regulation would be horrible for the Net and would harm Net users worldwide by paving the way for nations to block, throttle, censor, and overcharge.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Spect (just a little bit)

“would harm Net users worldwide by paving the way for nations to block, throttle, censor, and overcharge.”

How would it do that? It’s an odd thing to claim since companies are paving that road right now. The whole point is to stop that. So, even if your speculation is correct, it doesn’t really make things worse.

Ben There says:

First They Came...

First they came for Comcast, and I did not speak out,
Because Comcast sucks.

Then they came for the guy who warned us, and I did not speak out,
Because he used to work for Verizon.

Then they came for internet freedom, and I did not speak out,
Because I fell for their ploy that it’s just about net neutrality.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
05:30 Survey Shows Majority Of GOP Voters Support Restoring Net Neutrality (31)
06:25 Big Telecom Finally Ends Quest To Stop States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (35)
05:56 Big Telecom's Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers Continues To Go... Poorly (13)
12:15 Courts (Again) Shoot Down Telecom Lobby's Attempt To Kill State-Level Net Neutrality Rules (5)
04:48 Dumb Telecom Take Of The Week: Because The Internet Didn't Explode, Killing Net Neutrality Must Not Have Mattered (23)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
04:55 Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality (54)
10:50 NY AG Proves Broadband Industry Funded Phony Public Support For Attack On Net Neutrality (10)
06:24 The GOP Is Using Veterans As Props To Demonize Net Neutrality (22)
06:03 Telecom Using Veterans As Props To Demonize California's New Net Neutrality Law (12)
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
More arrow