I have always been a little jealous that telecom regulation never seems to have its own conspiracy theory. Other industries certainly do. For example, some believe the Coca-Cola company introduced "New" Coke knowing it would be hated, as a sneaky way to reintroduce "Old" Coke with cheaper ingredients. Older folks might remember the controversy in the 1960's when the Beatles supposedly replaced Paul McCartney with a look-alike after he "died." This became obvious to the believers because when playing Beatle songs backwards they were able to hear the group exclaiming "Paul is dead." Years later, of course, Paul is still performing. 

Unfortunately, we in telecom regulation have never been popular enough to have our very own conspiracy theory. Thankfully, now that net neutrality has become a huge issue, we have arrived. We finally have our own conspiracy!
The "conspiracy" involves the fact that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai delayed the key parts of his Restoring Internet Freedom Order until the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the new ISP transparency rules. Those rules require ISPs to make public their commercial business agreements, including any efforts to block or throttle traffic or engage in paid prioritization. 

According to the conspiracy pushers, the new rules were not submitted to OMB until months after the Order was released. When you add on the fact that once OMB approves the rules, it will be another 60 days until the new rules take effect, since they must be published in the Federal Register first. Apparently, this is enough for some to conclude the FCC is slow-rolling Internet "freedom," despite the ongoing damage net neutrality is inflicting on the poor ISPs. Here's what one consumer advocate wrote about the FCC's "delay."  

This is, to say the least, highly unusual. There is absolutely no reason for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to have stretched out this process so ridiculously long. It is especially puzzling in light Pai’s insistence that he had to rush through repeal of net neutrality over the objections of just about everyone but the ISPs and their cheerleaders because every day — nay every minute! — ISPs suffer under the horrible, crushing burden of Title II is another day in which Princess Comcast Celestia, Princess Twilight Verizon Sparkle, and all the other Broadband Equestria Girls must endure the agonies of a blasted regulatory Hellscape rather than provide us all with wonderful new innovative services at even lower cost than they do now. Because Broadband Is Magic. So yeah, if Pai thought it was a total emergency that he take his vote in December, why did he basically extend the current Title II regime indefinitely? Why hasn’t Pai restored our Internet Freedom? Why has Pai instead forced us to languish here in the terrible regulatory Hellscape that is the merely “open Internet” rather than the private sector controlled de-regulatory paradise he and his fellow Republican Commissioners have promised us?  Hell, the FCC didn’t even submit the new rule to OMB for approval until March 27. For a guy who was all on fire to repeal Title II and free his Broadband Ponies, Pai sure has taken his time making it actually happen. (April 22, 2018, Harold Feld Blog, www.wetmachine.com).

Why is Pai is willing to endanger ISPs by delaying Internet freedom? Some believe it is because he knows the Order is rife with errors and will be overturned by the courts or overrun by new state net neutrality laws.

The most popular theory is that ISPs and the FCC wanted more time to garner support for their effort to pass a bogus net neutrality law. A law they promise will “solve” the net neutrality feud once and for all, but whose real intention is to pre-empt tougher state laws, and block the FCC’s 2015 rules from being restored in the wake of a possible court loss. While it may seem like ISPs scored a major victory with last December’s vote at the FCC, that’s simply not the case. Given the FCC’s bizarre behavior during the repeal (ranging from ignoring comment fraud and identity theft during the public comment period to making up a DDOS attack), the repeal remains on some shaky legal ground courtesy of FCC ethical gaffes. In addition to their looming legal challenge, ISPs are worried that more than half the states in the country are now pursuing their own net neutrality rules. And while ISPs successfully lobbied the FCC to include language in their repeal trying to ban states from protecting consumers, their legal authority on that front is dubious as well. (April 26, 2018, Karl Bode Article, www.motherload.vice.com).  

Despite these theories explaining why Pai has delayed the net neutrality repeal, the truth is obvious and has even been explained by Pai himself. He wants Congress to legislate permanent net neutrality rules. He does not want Internet regulation dependent on which political party wins the presidency or on parties engaging in court shopping that results in inconsistent or everchanging Internet regulation rules. Yes, Pai is a clear supporter of the large ISPs, but he (unlike the conspiracy theorists) knows that large businesses cannot thrive in an uncertain environment like the one we have in Internet regulation today. Thus, he is willing to have ISPs "suffer" a little longer under Title II if he can provide Congress enough time to get its act together and develop a net neutrality compromise. Moreover, despite the claims otherwise, a delay is irrelevant to a court challenge as everyone at the Commission knew the Internet Freedom Order would be appealed, regardless of its outcome whenever it became effective.

Unfortunately, Pai's hope for Congressional action is going nowhere fast. Instead of compromising, Democrats in the Senate have decided that on May 9, 2017 they will force a vote on the Internet Freedom Order under the Congressional Reform Act. They know this effort will fail, but it will get Republicans on record on a clearly unpopular issue for them as the mid-term elections approach. 

That is why a conspiracy theory involving net neutrality is ridiculous. In these partisan days, every FCC order is challenged in court unless Congress intervenes. Trying to get Congress to act before implementing a controversial order is not a conspiracy, it is simply common sense.