FWIW, when the previous FCC chairman was nominated there was concern about his being a former industry lobbyist [1] - but he supported net neutrality strongly. (On the other hand, he and the Obama administration didn't do much to prevent mergers like Charter + TWC, etc.)

1. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/new-fcc-chairman-...

It was a surprise because the first time the FCC ever talked about net neutrality, the supposedly ISP-friendly guy came out on the right side. Pai has made his position clear: net neutrality blocks innovation and investment. He also doesn't seem to know what he's talking about all the time: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/2015011...

> On the other hand, he and the Obama administration didn't do much to prevent mergers like Charter + TWC, etc.

The Charter/TWC deal was preceded by the (much more significant, if it had been successful) deal with Comcast and Time Warner Cable. The FCC did look into that, though the deal was called off before the FCC would have announced any action (if any at all) that they would take: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_purchase_of_Time_War...

Wheeler's lobbying days were decades ago. Pai's consistent anti-consumer, pro-industry approach on nearly every issue is incredibly recent.

I'm generally for Net Neutrality but you seem to be suggesting that regulation drives technological progress. Modulo things like natural monopolies, unaccounted-for externalities, etc, isn't the opposite usually true?

Also, are you suggesting that Ajit Pai represents "regulatory capture" and has no regard for the consumers of the industry he helps regulates? Perhaps it is the case that he's a terrible person, but it might also be the case that he has a different perspective on how best to drive innovation in the telecom industry.

I'm not sure how I feel about Trump but he's a new President and I'm going to root for him and for his team until he makes an actual mistake and not a maybe-could-turn-into-a-mistake-someday choice.

Well you're right: maybe Pai doesn't hate consumers (though if we treat him as honest, he's dim enough to inadvertently be anti-consumer[0]), and he has very different views about how to drive innovation.[1] But it's about increasing investment and profitability for large ISPs through some of their more despised ideas that the net neutrality rules tried to preempt: expensive peering, paid speedups, and tiered access for consumers.[2] All of these things are very bad for tech startups and tech-savvy consumers. You're not going to find much sympathy for those ideas 'round these parts, or really anywhere outside Comcast's boardroom.

[0] https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/2015011...

[1] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...

[2] http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/01/23/new-fcc-c...

>Modulo things like natural monopolies, unaccounted-for externalities, etc, isn't the opposite usually true?

The purpose of "net neutrality" is precisely to combat the problem of natural monopolies in the ISP market and the inevitable abuses that result. Perhaps a better solution which has seen some success in other countries at promoting competition is local loop unbundling, but this guy has shown no sign of preferring that.

Net neutrality requires regulation. Otherwise everyone will follow what T-Mobile is doing.

The difference with Ajit Pai is that he has years of recent history making statements which are often ungrounded in reality but consistently very friendly to large ISPs. Ars Technica's covered that a lot over the years (https://arstechnica.com/search/?ie=UTF-8&q=ajit+pai) – here are some highlights:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/fccs-a...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/ajit-pai-net-neut...

“Strong net neutrality rules in the US would give authoritarian states an excuse to strengthen their grip over the Internet, Federal Communications Commission member Ajit Pai reportedly said today.”

(see also http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015...)

And, when network neutrality didn't go his way, he asked Congress to sabotage enforcement:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/new-tactic-in-war-on...

http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/05/ajit-pai-votes-again...

He objected to the Charter TWC merger on the grounds that it should NOT have conditions prohibiting “imposing data caps and overage fees on Internet customers, charging large online content providers for network interconnection, and stifling growth of online video by demanding restrictive clauses in contracts with programmers.”

He's convinced the bad guy in the paid fast lane program is Netflix, not the ISPs trying to double-charge for service and made some truly bizarre claims about how open standards work:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/12/netfli...

When Congress was investigating the network neutrality rule-making process, he flat out refused to supply the requested documents to the committee:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/fcc-re...

When the FCC chairman tried to set a modern definition for broadband speed, he opposed it:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chairman-mocks-i...

One of two votes against opening up cable box competition:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/02/fcc-votes-to-unlock-...

He was one of the two votes against a cap on the rates phone companies charge prison inmates: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/prison-phone-comp...

Net neutrality advocates want very limited technological progress: they want faster speeds but no other "innovation" from ISPs. So regulation is the perfect tool.

> Net neutrality advocates want very limited technological progress

Untrue of any of the net neutrality advocates I know.

Net neutrality advocates don't see the oligopolistic (and often regionally monopolistic) market for internet access as one that positions ISPs in the US to be agents of rapid technology change in any circumstances.

Assuming that those who disagree with you about policy must agree with you about facts (e.g., what would happen in the absence of their preferred policy) is a good way to assure that your inferences about their motivation will be wildly incorrect.

Note that I am mostly a net neutrality advocate. I agree that ISPs aren't very innovative and I would further add that virtually all of their "innovations" are anti-consumer.

What other sorts of innovations do ISPs have to offer? Admittedly I'm a curmudgeon, but all I want is decent service at a fair price...

Throttling video to prevent you from going over your cap (T-Mobile).

Spying on you and selling that information to reduce your bill (AT&T).

Extorting money from CDNs (Comcast).

So, same as the previous govt?