[Daseal]

I agree with the general statement in this thread. Net neutrality must be preserved and the free and open internet is critical to our economy and way of life. Currently ISPs are paid by consumers (you) to provide a service. They’ve started throttling traffic unless companies pay a ransom to the ISP as well to improve their connections. So the ISP’s are essentially double dipping to get money from both sides, the consumers and the companies.

I’m in support of the nuclear option, which is labeling ISPs as Title II common carriers. Declaring them Title II characters preserves net neutrality by ensuring they provide an equal level of service to all internet services. The FCC can ensure these companies aren’t giving priority to providers willing to pay. The internet is currently an incubator for innovation, when the internet becomes the haves and the have nots, we will lose that competition and innovation.

Ironically, I’ve seen arguments from the telecoms that labeling them as common carriers would stifle innovation. Please raise your hand if your ISP has been innovating lately. The only place I’ve seen ISPs push to increase their capabilities are areas that have provided actual competition via Google Fiber or a local ISP. Otherwise, they know you have no other options and there’s no incentive for them to provide upgrades. Their primary goal is to accumulate territory and protect it from other providers.

I live in a fairly populated area and have a grand total of one broadband provider. That is an issue. There is no competition and the internet, as I see it, is a necessity. The internet is no longer optional. It’s necessary. I would be happy to see a system reminiscent of the telephone companies of yester year. Have service providers outfit a home with the necessary infrastructure based on territory. From there, the consumer can use that infrastructure to purchase whichever ISP service they desire. The ISP then leases the connection from the owner based on a pre-arranged standard fee per user. This reduces redundant infrastructure and gives consumers real competition.

I’m greatly concerned with censorship of the internet. Censorship is a slippery slope, and banning anything makes me nervous. Please keep in mind, I still support legal repercussions of the actions/contents on the internet, but do not support the banning of anything on the internet. There are some terrible and disgusting items on the internet, but believe banning them undermines the ideals of a free and open internet.