Often these types of articles have a take they want the reader to adopt. In the past it was simple, we need net neutrality to save the internet and Ajit Pai is

Often these types of articles have a take they want the reader to adopt. In the past it was simple, we need net neutrality to save the internet and Ajit Pai is an industry plant aimed to killing net neutrality. Cable companies love him. You would think he'd be lobbying for cable companies, but a new boogie man has entered, the mobile industry. And now cable companies are mad at him. Oh and also consumer advocates, which apparently has the same incentives now apparently. At least they admit as much later: > The fight puts Pai at odds with the cable industry that cheered his many deregulatory actions when he led the FCC. But this is kind of weird considering the "revolving door" policy and the implicit promise of future rewards A few paragraphs in you get to some substance: > "During the first Trump administration, the US was determined to lead the world in wireless innovation—and by 2021 it did," Pai wrote. "But that urgency and sense of purpose have diminished. With Mr. Trump's leadership, we can rediscover both." > Pai's op-ed drew a quick rebuke from a group called Spectrum for the Future, which alleged that Pai mangled the facts. > "Mr. Pai's arguments are wrong on the facts—and wrong on how to accelerate America's global wireless leadership," the vaguely named group said in a May 8 press release that accused Pai of "stunning hypocrisy." Spectrum for the Future said Pai is wrong about the existence of a spectrum shortage, wrong about how much money a spectrum auction could raise, and wrong about the cost of reallocating spectrum from the military to mobile companies. I still have no idea whats true, but I will note the Spectrum for the Future is a lobbyist group (including tech companies like Airspan, Celona, Federated Wireless and comm providers like Charter Communications, Comcast, Cox Communications). But at least they have a better name! The article doesn't actually explain any of the issues or complexity, it just tries to say "Pai is aligned with [group], and [group] is bad. The article relies heavily on other lobbyist groups, that now include big cable which are the good guys now. I have no idea what to think but my collective understanding of this issue somehow dropped after reading this article.