[virmundi]

Nope. Not unless you can show that he did something a)unethical, b) immoral or c) illegal. Since he gets to define legality through what the FCC dictates, within reason, he can't really violate c on a policy level. If you got a and/or b, please let us know. You can even leak that information.

In general Congress has to pass a law declaring the ISPs utilities. Then net neutrality is a good thing. The problem is that none of the congress (obviously a generalization) really care about the topic. It appears to be too much for them to understand that AT&T made the claim that bandwidth over the wireless is limited. They went so far as to say that caps were needed. Now AT&T has changed it argument, "Our bandwidth is too limited for our users to use services from providers that we haven't made a peering deal with." Congress can't understand that peering or not, wireless spectrum is limited. Too complex.

If you write your representatives, you might need to use really basic language. Think Alan Shore explaining the pharmaceutical case to Denny.

edit: grammar.

[tracker1]

Alternatively, congress can pass laws that would define net neutrality and enforcement... but good luck with that.