Eric Lieberman, DCNF

Federal Communications Chairman (FCC) Ajit Pai directly refuted a number of assertions Tuesday made by celebrities on the issue of ānet neutrality,ā which deals with internet regulations imposed under the Obama administration.
āGiven that some of the more eye-catching critiques have come from Hollywood celebrities,Ā whose large online followings give them out-sized influence in shaping the public debate,Ā I thought Iād directly respond to some of their assertions,ā Pai stated in a speechĀ organizedĀ in part by the think tank R Street. āPerhaps the most common criticism is that ending Title II utility-style regulation will mean the end of the Internet as we know it.ā
Pai then recites a portion of aĀ tweetĀ from actor Kumail Nanjiani, who contends that if a repeal of net neutrality goes through, āwe will never go back to a free internet.ā
āBut hereās the simple truth: We had a free and open Internet for two decades before 2015, and weāll have a free and open Internet going forward,ā Pai said.
āMany critics donāt seem to understand that we are moving from heavy-handed regulation to light-touch regulation, not a completely hands-off approach,ā Pai continued, highlighting an oft-referenced point of his that administrations of former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama (for the most part) had it right. āWe arenāt giving anybody a free pass. We are simply shifting from one-size-fits-all pre-emptive regulation to targeted enforcement based on actual market failure or anticompetitive conduct.ā
Pai explains how his plan would restore the authority of the Federal Trade Commission, the federal agency usually in charge of policing the practices of internet service providers (ISPs).
āAnother concern Iāve heard is that the plan will harm rural and low-income Americans. Cher, for example,Ā tweetedĀ last week that the Internet āWill Include LESS AMERICANS NOT MOREā if my proposal is adopted,ā Pai continued. āBut the opposite is true.ā
Pai, who has traveled for thousands of miles across the U.S. in recent months to visit more bucolic, remote areas, argues that āheavy-handed Title II regulations just make the problem worse.ā
Net neutrality is an amorphous concept with a wavering definition. In general, it means that ISPs have to treat all internet traffic the same, and thus have no right to discriminate against certain forms of traffic. It also often means that firmsĀ canāt offerĀ faster speeds to higher-paying customers,Ā nor offer special deals and promotions.Ā Placing the internet under the Title II classification, like water or electricity, is a strong mechanism for enforcing net neutrality regulations, and mandating ISPs comply with a uniform set of rules.Ā
Title II regulations, according to Pai, reduces āinvestment in broadband networks, especially in rural and low-income areasā by cultivating uncertainty or restrictiveness for the larger business environment.
āBy turning back time, so to speak, and returning Internet regulation to the pre-2015 era, we will expand broadband networks and bring high-speed Internet access to more Americans, not fewer.ā
Pai also aimed to debunk claims made or supported by actors Mark Ruffalo and George Takei, as well as actress Alyssa Milano.
Takei posted an article which alleged that Portugal was dealing with the same situation as the U.S., which is false, says Pai, since the country doesnāt appear to have rules similar to net neutrality.
āTaking away #NetNeutralityĀ is the Authoritarian dream,ā RuffaloĀ wroteĀ on Twitter. āConsolidating information into the hands of a few controlled by a few. Dangerous territory.ā
āI will confess when I saw this tweet I was tempted to just say āHulk ⦠wrongā and move on,ā Pai joked. He said he once received an email with a similar sentiment, reading, āDo you really want to be the man who was responsible for making America another North Korea?ā
Pai said such comments are āabsurdā because government control over the internet is exactly what authoritative states like North Korea do, and relinquishing such power āis the exactĀ opposite of authoritarianism.ā
Joining in the cacophony of pro-net neutrality clamoring, Milano has also chimed in.
https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/932838791902932992
āIām threatening our democracy? Really?ā Pai asked, in a perplexed, yet light-hearted manner. āIād like to see the evidence that Americaās democratic institutions were threatened by a Title I framework, as opposed to a Title II framework, during the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, and the first six years of the Obama Administration.ā
Pai rhetorically suggested that people ādonāt hold your breathā because there is no proof, at least that heās aware of.
āIf this wereĀ Whoās the Boss?,Ā this would be an opportunity for Tony Danza to dish out some wisdom about the consequences of making things up,ā Pai joked, somewhat keeping with the theme of a celebrity-filled commentary on telecommunication policy.
Paiās decision to directly address celebritiesā almost-hyperbolic criticisms shows that the battle over net neutrality has morphed into monster-size proportions, in which everyone has thrusted themselves into the debate, regardless of knowledge of internet policy and the nuances of the telecommunications industry.
Send tips toĀ eric@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contactĀ licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- āNo other way to spin itā: CNN expert says inflation number āpositive newsā - December 18, 2025
- Fairfax County freed illegal despite ICE request ā now a man is dead - December 18, 2025
- US may be entering moderate moment as voters reject radicalism, poll suggests - December 18, 2025
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
