Senate Dems ask FCC to delay net neutrality repeal

Senate Dems ask FCC to delay net neutrality repeal
© Getty

A group of Senate Democrats is asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to delay its effort to repeal the Obama-era net neutrality regulations in order to review a trove of recently-released documents related to the proceeding.

The nine senators, led by Sen. Ed MarkeyEdward (Ed) John MarkeyMassachusetts Democrats question deployment of Border Patrol teams to sanctuary cities Overnight Energy: Controversial Trump adviser reportedly returning to EPA | Delta aims to be first carbon neutral airline | Dem senator gives EPA D-minus on 'forever chemicals' Senate Dems blast Barr for 'clear violation' of duty in Stone case, urge him to resign MORE (D-Mass.), wrote to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai asking if the new documents had been taken into account by the agency when deciding to roll back the rules.

“Although the Commission has undertaken an historic proceeding to undo the Open Internet Order, the FCC has failed to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the tens of thousands of filed complaints that directly shed light on proposed changes to existing net neutrality protections,” the letter reads.

ADVERTISEMENT
Pai’s office declined to comment.

Last week, the FCC handed over 70,000 pages of documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the National Hispanic Media Coalition. The group had requested all complaints filed by consumers about violations of the net neutrality rules since they went into effect in 2015.

The net neutrality rules require internet service providers to treat all legal web traffic equally. Pai and other Republicans believe the Obama-era FCC overstepped its authority with the regulations by reclassifying the ISPs as common carriers.

The coalition and the group of Senate Democrats now want more time for the public to be able to review and comment on the complaints. The official deadline for public input on the proceeding expired last month.

The letter was also signed by Sens. Chuck SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerBarr to testify before House Judiciary panel Graham won't call Barr to testify over Roger Stone sentencing recommendation Roger Stone witness alleges Trump targeted prosecutors in 'vile smear job' MORE (D-N.Y.), Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenSenate Dems blast Barr for 'clear violation' of duty in Stone case, urge him to resign Overnight Health Care: Nevada union won't endorse before caucuses after 'Medicare for All' scrap | McConnell tees up votes on two abortion bills | CDC confirms 15th US coronavirus case Harris, Castro introduce resolution condemning Trump aide Stephen Miller MORE (D-Ore.), Al FrankenAlan (Al) Stuart FrankenAl Franken blasts Susan Collins: She'll let Trump 'get away with anything' Bill Press: Don't forget about Amy Key moments in the 2020 Democratic presidential race so far MORE (D-Minn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenJoe Biden lost his fastball — can he get it back before South Carolina? Where the 2020 Democrats stand on taxes Budget hawks frustrated by 2020 politics in entitlement reform fight MORE (D-Mass.), Chris Van HollenChristopher (Chris) Van HollenSenate Dems blast Barr for 'clear violation' of duty in Stone case, urge him to resign Senate Democrats introduce legislation to change impeachment trial rules Warren asks for probe of whether Trump violated law by delaying Puerto Rico funds MORE (D-Md.), Brian SchatzBrian Emanuel SchatzBooker, Merkley propose federal facial recognition moratorium Poll: Majority of Democrats say Electoral College delegates should cast ballots based on popular vote Democrats praise Romney for breaking with GOP on convicting Trump MORE (D-Hawaii) and Kamala HarrisKamala Devi HarrisConway: Trump is 'toying with everybody' by attacking Bloomberg for stop-and-frisk comments The Hill's Campaign Report: New challenges for 2020 Dems in Nevada, South Carolina Beleaguered Biden turns to must-win South Carolina MORE (D-Calif.).

“The public deserves an opportunity to review and analyze evidence that has a direct impact on the proceeding,” the letter reads.