Ajit Pai Is a Liar. Will the Net Neutrality Repeal Reversed Now?

Members of the House Energy wrote to the Chairman of the Federal Communications Community. In the essay letter, the committee calls upon Ajit Pai to respond to the repeal of net neutrality . A reversal of net neutrality means Internet Service Providers can control what do on the internet. The council blames Ajit for using cyber-attacks to cause the repeal of net neutrality.

A digital rights group objected to FCC claims about the raid of DDos. Director Eva Greer talks about Ajit is an embarrassment. The commission that Ajit was lying about the need for repeal. Evan and group believe there was nothing as dangerous as a cyber-attack. The fight for Future digital rights group terms Ajit as the biggest up and coming source of failure in Trump’s next elections. The repeal has awoken questions from Congress. Evan Greer advises lawmakers to do a discharge petition to get rid of repeal to protect internet service users.

The repeal by Ajit was due to claims that the Fight for Future comment website might have led to the attacks in America’s DDos. The pro-net neutrality might have gotten themselves in the position of destruction by taking part in and hugely contributing to the heated discussions in Joh Olivers TV program.

Surprisingly the FCC clears the air by saying the DDoS attacks were staged. In an internal investigation report, it is all evidence of the involvement of the FCC in the creation of malicious cyber-attacks.  Most evidently, the story goes ahead to say all that was cooked was all clear and that Ajit was a significant part of it all. The Federal Bureau of Investigation also gets involved in the digging and finally shift focus from the investigation of cyber-attacks to checking for false statements that might have been made by the Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC had a year ago received all the evidence that was to be useful in repressing association with cyber-attacks to the DDoS from the Fight for Future digital rights group. On the other side, the public petitioned for the FCC to provide all the evidence that support cyberattack claims. The FCC could have ignored this claims and even went ahead to deceive the people and the lawmakers. The FCC besides never put in the loop the US-CERT and relevant authorities about the attacks. SUch is evidence that there was nothing to report.

On Thursday Ajit is set to face the Senate committee and respond to the many allegations attributed to the FCC. Ajit Pai is scheduled to appear before a Senate committee to answer questions about the incident this Thursday.

Is the FCC doing due diligence?

The Federal for Communications Community through Chairman Ajit Pai repeals the net neutrality Act of the Obama era. This act might be for good or for the bad, who knows. Many could be asking themselves is the FCC doing its job in the right way. Is this what it preaches?

The regulatory philosophy of the FCC is as stated below and could be the best way to tell whether the FCC mandate is handled diligently.

Free markets

The FCC talks about consumers of communication and internet services. Most importantly about the importance of competition to consumers and that the only way to benefit users is by actually allowing for free markets that are not strictly regulated to the point of hindering business successes.

Respect for the law

The FCC in its bid to regulate the growing communication sector in the country needs to carry out its mandate concerning the law. In the above allegation, the FCC might have broken the law in some ways. The public wishes to get the truth of what could have steered a repeal of net neutrality.


The FCC in its regulatory mandate is rooted in being able to work for the citizens without showing support to particular political affiliation. Whatever decisions it makes in regulating the communication sector should be able to prove fairness without having to choose a political side.


The FCC mandate believes in the need of a regulatory authority that does not regulate only competitors of a given rival it favors or one that pays more fees to it. No special treatment is encouraged in any way.