To be fair, the FCC ignored the automatically generated comments and focused on comments that were unique, detailed, and relevant. The actual scandal should be what they did with those comments: those that supported rolling back the NN rules were accepted as fact, those opposed (i.e. those in favor of NN regulation) were dismissed as "not compelling." I know this because my comment was among those dismissed as "not compelling," including specific sections that dealt strictly with the factual errors in Ajit Pai's proposal. The only reason they bothered citing my comment (and numerous others by actual technical experts who took the time to comment) was to avoid being sued for ignoring the public comments (they are legally required to consider public comments when making a decision).
It is also worth mentioning that Ajit Pai differed from his predecessor Tom Wheeler. Wheeler had intended to introduce rules that allowed various NN violations but changed course in response to public comments and went with the stronger regulations. Pai never cared what the public had to say and made that very clear in his public statements, where he basically said that the only thing that would change his mind would be comments concerning the FCC's legal authority (not that there was any serious dispute about that legal authority).
These consultations are just legally-mandated hoops that the regulators jump through. The fact that you or another individual put forward an interesting or important comment really doesn’t matter at all, no matter what side you’re on.
To be clear, I don't believe Wheeler's statements about his motive for changing course; I think he changed because the administration believed it would be politically advantageous.
I disagree. Comments cited by the FCC's final report and decision are part of a permanent public record that can be scrutinized, including in lawsuits (such as the one filed by the EFF) and by politicians considering legislative changes in response to regulatory failures. Ajit Pai was forced to publicly dismiss comments containing only facts related to the technical details of the Internet, which made it harder for the FCC to defend its decision in court (as they are supposed to consider those technical details).
Also, it may seem hard to believe, but some regulators do actually care and they do pay attention to expert comments that the FCC (or whoever) receives. Sometimes they will invite the author of a well-research comment to meet with their staff and discuss the issue in more depth. The system is not as completely corrupted by money as people sometimes claim (not that there is no corruption at all; it is almost obvious that deep-pocketed corporations have outsized influence in these processes).
I think the vast majority of regulators really care, and almost none are paid shills doing it for the money. It seems they're happy to discuss the academic nuances of their positions, but vanishingly unlikely to switch sides.
This is not accurate, and it feels like it is the only clear detail provided in your post:
Ajit Pai was forced to publicly dismiss comments containing only facts related to the technical details of the Internet, which made it harder for the FCC to defend its decision in court (as they are supposed to consider those technical details).
It is also worth mentioning that Ajit Pai differed from his predecessor Tom Wheeler. Wheeler had intended to introduce rules that allowed various NN violations but changed course in response to public comments and went with the stronger regulations. Pai never cared what the public had to say and made that very clear in his public statements, where he basically said that the only thing that would change his mind would be comments concerning the FCC's legal authority (not that there was any serious dispute about that legal authority).