A coalition of 171 public interest groups have sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission and Senate leaders, urging them not to kill the agency's 2015 net neutrality rules. In the letter, groups including Consumer Union (owner of Consumer Reports), Public Knowledge, the ACLU, the EFF, Free Press and more argue that the rules have massive public support, and eliminating them would be a major mistake for the Pai-lead FCC, Trump, and the GOP. The letter was sent to to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, and Ranking Member Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).
"Protecting net neutrality is crucial to ensuring that the internet remains a central driver of economic growth and opportunity, job creation, education, free expression, and civic organizing for everyone," the letter warned.
The groups were also quick to deflate broadband industry claims (often using ISP-funded think tanks that cherry pick data) that the FCC's rules stifled broadband deployment.
"Since the order went into effect, broadband infrastructure investment is up, ISP revenues are at record highs, and businesses continue developing innovative ideas and offerings," said the letter. "A 2016 report found that the total capital expenditures of ISPs increased by 4 percent and that total revenues increased by 5 percent from 2014 to 2015."
While FCC boss Ajit Pai has stated he wants the rules killed, it's unlikely that the FCC itself will do the killing. Reversing the rules via the existing FCC process would require convincing the courts that things have changed dramatically since the FCC's massive legal win last year. It would also require a new public comment period, something net neutrality opponents would like to avoid for what should be obvious reasons.
All told, it's believed that the GOP will try to kill net neutrality either via a standalone piece of legislation, or via a Communications Act rewrite. Like the Thule proposal that tried to pre-empt the FCC's 2015 rules, the bill will likely profess to "save" net neutrality by encoding it into law, but will be so riddled with loopholes as to make it a sharp step backward from leaving the existing rules in place.