The fight for Net Neutrality continues today with the US Representatives piling questions on to the FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. The questions sent to the FCC were in regards to the controversial comment docket for the “Restoring Internet Freedom” order which is due on March 6th.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce asked many questions including:

• The Commission has never handled a docket of this size before or one with so many fraudulent filings. What public process did the Commission conduct to determine how to handle these novel issues? How did the commission generate any guidelines it provided to staff working on this proceeding? Please provide any guidelines and internal legal analysis to support any guidelines proved to staff.

• The FCC’s Order notes that Commission did not rely on “comments devoid of substance,” or “non-substantive comments.” What analysis did the FCC conduct to determine which comments were “devoid of substance” or “non-substantive?” Please provide any guidelines provided to staff who made these determinations.

• According to the Commissioner Clyburn, the Order does not cite a single consumer comment. How many consumer comments were filed in the record? Why did the Commission decide not to respond to any of these comments?

The letter includes a total of 16 questions for the Chairman and his staff. The entire document, to be seen here, was just sent today from the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

According to the source, Techcrunch, this is not the first letter to be sent to Chairman Pai from Congressmen. Many letters have been sent to the Chairman in regards to cybersecurity, the first amendment and a proposed merger of Sprint and T-mobile. All of these letters from members of Congress to the FCC, have been made publically available here on the FCC website.

It is currently unknown when Chairman Ajit Pai will be responding to these messages but he and his staff have answered all previous questions, whether it was publicly or not so public. Unfortunately, previous replies have shown rather uninformative, to say the least.