I Asked Him To Stop It

But he disagreed and did the opposite, this is his canned response. Might add that it is no less canned than the request sent.

Dear Mr. Otis:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the ongoing debate over net neutrality.  I appreciate your thoughts on this legislation.
Currently, there are over 215 million internet users in America, and many of these individuals rely on the internet to conduct their business, to research and study, and for leisure. Recently there has been substantial debate over whether action to ensure unrestricted access to the internet is necessary.  As you know, the placing of restrictions on network owners that would ensure equal access to the internet is referred to as "net neutrality."  Most policymakers agree that any definition of net neutrality should include the general principles that network owners should not control how consumers lawfully use that network.  Further, they should not be able to discriminate against network content provider access. While some policymakers contend that regulation would limit advance on the internet, others claim that the consolidation and diversification of broadband providers into content providers have the potential to conflict with the principle of net neutrality.
As you may know, broadband internet access is governed by the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. These laws authorize the Federal Communications Commission's jurisdiction over interstate communication conducted via radio and wire. Specifically, Title I and II of the Communications Act permit the FCC to regulate broadband services, with Title II providing more stringent parameters for telecommunications services. Presently, broadband regulation is under the umbrella of Title I which requires any associated regulation to be ancillary to an expressly granted power of the FCC. Some argue that a reclassification of broadband services under Title II will protect consumers from predatory internet service. However, others argue that moving broadband services to title two will stifle innovation and development.
During its February 26th open meeting, the FCC voted 3-2 to adopt new open Internet rules. According to the FCC, the order will apply to mobile as well as fixed broadband and will rely on Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and, for mobile broadband, Title III for its legal authority. The order reclassifies "broadband Internet access service" as a telecommunications service under Title II and bans blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. Additionally, the order creates a general conduct standard that Internet service providers cannot harm consumers or edge providers and gives the FCC the authority to address questionable practices on a case-by-case basis. Among other things, the order applies major provisions of Title II such as no unjust and unreasonable practices or discrimination, consumer privacy, disability access, consumer complaint and enforcement processes, and fair access to poles and conduits. With limited exceptions, the rules will go in to effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. For more information regarding the new rules voted upon by the FCC, I encourage you to visit http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet.
As you may be aware, several Members of Congress have introduced legislation regarding Net Neutrality. To be more specific, Rep. Doris Matsui introduced H.R. 196, the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act of 2015.  This bill would direct the FCC to establish and adopt regulations, within 90 days of enactment, which would prohibit broadband Internet access providers from entering into agreements for pay, with content providers. These barred agreements include giving preferential treatment or priority to that content, often termed "paid prioritization." Additionally, H.R. 196 would prohibit broadband providers from giving preferential treatment to their own or affiliated content. These rules would apply to the content that travels between the access provider and the end user, often termed "the last mile." Exceptions are given to address the needs of emergency communications or law enforcement, public safety, or national security authorities. Let me emphasize, I understand the importance of this topic and the impact of legislation regarding a free and open internet. Currently, H.R. 196 is pending in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. While I am not a member of this committee, please rest assured I will keep your views in mind should this bill come to the House floor for a vote.
Again, I thank you for sharing your views with me. I hope you will continue to give me the benefit of your opinion in the future. In addition, I encourage you to visit my web site at http://davidscott.house.gov, where you can view the latest news and obtain information on issues and legislation that is important to you. You can also sign up for my electronic newsletter, and receive periodic updates on my activities as your representative in Washington. Thank you again for contacting me, and I look forward to continuing to serve you.
Sincerely,
David Scott
Member of Congress

The FCC will become an instrument of censorship, I promise it. All done under the guise making sure everybody has equal access to the internet. They are lying, they know, we know and they went for it anyway.