Your post is perhaps the essence of the issue. We are talking about people raging over Pai's position on net neutrality. Instead of discussing this, you respond with a slew of things that mostly absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Let's say I ask the average person who is raging about net neutrality, what are your views on the proposed modifications of the lifeline program and the vote split ratio under recent FCC chairpeople? Nobody is going to have any clue whatsoever about any of this.

And if they did they what it's about, I imagine they'd be even more confused by your argument which seems to be mostly just citing clickbait [1] with even more sensationalized language added on top. So for instance let's take that lifeline program. Did he "dramatically cut access to the internet for poor people through the lifeline program"? No. In part a response to massive abuse, they chose to be more judicious about how money is handed out - primarily as it relates to Tribal lands where, I presume, the government has more difficulty with know-your-customer requirements.

What happens is people who don't even setup infrastructure instead of resell access they purchase from a third party, and then artificially and fraudulently inflate subscription numbers raking in up to $34.25/"user"/month -- $9.25 in the normal lifeline subsidy, and a $25 'enhanced' subsidy on top of it. You'd apparently have guys setting up Wi-Fi hotspots and then claiming people using them were "customers", thus qualifying the "service provider" for the subsidy. They "charge" the user $34.25/month, the government pays for it. Imagine a Starbucks getting up to $34.25/month from the government for each person who used their Wifi.

Their proposed changes aim to get more control on how money is going out so they would only allow the max subsidy ($34.25) for companies who are actually deploying permanent infrastructure in rural areas. Urban areas and resellers in rural areas would still qualify for the standard $9.25/month subsidy. The prohibited Wi-Fi hotspotting as qualifying as an ISP, and set minimum standards of quality. They also removed a rule that locked consumers into a Lifeline provider for a minimum of a year - enabling them to swap providers as they see fit. And they've also proposed fines in the tens of millions against the "ISPs" who were fraudulently abusing the program.

Notice how the things you cite never really dig into the details? Instead they just use labels, aspersions, and completely misleading statements. I mean again you can definitely disagree with the FCC's actions on the above. Perhaps instead of cracking down on abuse in this way they could have instead tried to strengthen know-your-customer laws, presumably with support from Tribal governments. Why didn't they decide to go this route? What would have been more desirable? What nuance is there in Tribal - US legal relations? But instead of actually talking about things like this they lead with hyperbolic sensationalism that you then repeat, and spread -- and next thing you know everybody's acting a fool thinking the sky is falling and Pai is Lucifer incarnate.

[1] - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/28/fcc_chairman_ajit_p...