No, ending the FCC’s policy of net neutrality has been the general Republican Party position for years.

I would say more correctly the Republican Party was the one chosen by the lobbyist to take the heat for this anti consumer action.

In reality when the democrats get back control Net Neutrality will unlikely be brought back. Just like the Republicans did with Obmacare. They labeled it the anti-christ of all regulations then they get full control and they do nothing.

The DNC and the GOP are just tools of the lobbyist to keep the people distracted , separated, and appeased to think they still have a voice.

The unfortunate truth, IMO, is that the two party system in America has broken down in that they both serve corporate interests and then blame each other in order to keep the news cycle going and the populist distracted.

What can we do? I believe we need to move away from a First-past-the-post voting system, as it mathematically converges to a two party system. There is a small push to get America to move to Ranked Choice Voting: http://www.fairvote.org.

If "the lobbyist" had the power over both parties that you are imagining, then net neutrality would have not passed in the first place.

Or do you think that was part of some long game to hide the influence of "the lobbyist" by appearing to lose on that issue, even though that meant "the lobbyist" had to put up with net neutrality for many years (it would have been at least 14 years if Clinton had one)?

Do you explain the numerous other things besides net neutrality for which Democrats and Republicans have consistently been on opposite sides for a very long time as just fake outs by "the lobbyist"?

> I would say more correctly the Republican Party was the one chosen by the lobbyist to take the heat for this anti consumer action.

You might say that, but not “more correctly”. While the action is anti-consumer, there are big business lobbyists on both sides, it's not big business lobbyists on one side and consumers on the other. And this is true of most issues with big business lobbying; it's the exception, rather than the rule, that big business has a unified interest.

You can't talk about “the lobbyist” as if there is only one, or many that act in coordination with a single will.

> The DNC and the GOP are just tools of the lobbyist to keep the people distracted , separated, and appeased to think they still have a voice.

I get how it might have seemed that way if you looked at a narrow range of big-picture economic-policy issues at the height of the 1990s neoliberal consensus, but that's not even approximately true.

It's not all him, but it can't happen as easily without his cooperation. If cooperation means losing your job, the next person in his position will be less likely to cooperate.

His resignation will be a an important sign.

Suppose for the sake of my argument that this petition is successful and Ajit Paid has to resign, and the newly put in place chairman the removes net neutrality anyway.

It will then be obvious that there are powers in place that want net neutrality to fall even at the cost of having to replace the chairman.

Given that it's unlikely that net neutrality can be upheld in the current political climate, this would be a victory.

How would the "has to resign" part work? What binding power does this petition have once it reaches the required number of votes?

This isn't how things work. They appointed him precisely because he's a hack.