FCC "Net Neutrality" Feedback
C.A.M. Gerlach, University of Alabama/NOAA National Severe Storms Lab
(Note that this does not constitute an official statement from either organization named above)

Hello. I am writing with regards to the significant negative impacts this proposed rule, if enacted, may have on my livelihood and my scientific studies in the service of the American people. As a research meteorologist currently working in academia, very often on government-funded work for the public benefit, I make heavy use of the internet to gather much of the data I need for my research, from a variety of sources, including public/government websites, universities, commercial and non-profit services, and private collaborators, and in varying formats, from web pages to bulk file downloads. Enabling ISPs to discriminate between traffic from these various sources, throttling them or perhaps even disallowing access to them entirely, would severely harm my ability to conduct the work I do, much of which is used to aid in saving lives and preserving property of American citizens across this nation. 

If providers are allowed to negatively prioritize, throttle, or otherwise discriminate between traffic from different sites, this could limit me to only using those services that can afford to "grease the wheels" of my ISP, rather than those that provide the most comprehensive or accurate data to ensure my research is reliable. Further, given in many cases the only resources available may be operated by universities, government agencies, or other researchers who simply don't have the funds to pay such debilitating fees, my work may grind to a halt at whatever throttled speed the ISPs may arbitrarily dictate, as the bulk downloads of the data I need may take hours or days rather than the seconds or minutes at the speeds I am rightfully paying for.

Further, I take issue with the claim that an ISP does not constitute a "telecom service," as it misunderstands the fundamental nature of how the Internet is built. While some ISPs may choose to provide "information services," like email and file hosting, in the OSI model these, like the "information services" a myriad of other parties may offer, are all positioned at the top of the stack, at the Application layer. The core service an ISP provides is not this, but rather physical/data link/network access to the internet backbone, in the same manner by which a telephone provider's role is to connect the user to the PSTN backbone, with any actual navigation done by the user, whether dialing a number, entering an IP address, or typing in a hostname. 

The fact that many users choose to access websites, a particular set of servers connected to the internet, through domain names that may be translated to IP addresses or routed through caching servers in no way invalidates this assessment, as such translation is not inherent to the network access being provided, as a user may enter an IP manually, bypass caching servers, or use  third party services to perform DNS translation (as myself and many, many users do, using services such as OpenDNS and Google Public DNS, among others) rather than what their ISP happens to offer as a courtesy, demonstrating this is clearly an entirely separate service from the actual Internet access the ISP is offering and the consumer is paying for. In the same vein, users do not directly choose which phone exchanges, trunk lines, satellite links, or underwater cables their call is routed through when using POTS telecommunications services, and while the user may dial a certain number, the desired endpoint may redirect this internally to any number of services and means inside or outside the traditional telephone system, such as to answering machines, through IP/packet based phone networks, to answering machines, help lines, and phone trees; just like caching servers and DNS lookups (which are not inherent to the internet service being provided, while the former are), these do not invalidate telecom status. Therefore, internet access provided by ISPs is not an "information service" but rather a telecom service providing access to any one of an innumerable number of destinations the user may freely select from, which themselves may provide information, entertainment, a wide range of other services, or even further network access to additional nodes.

Finally, unlike the myriad of oniine services provided by providers large and small, commercial, governmental, nonprofit, or educational, and public or private, a consumer cannot simply choose another ISP in the same manner as one would switch between these various competing (or complementary) options, if they disagree with such practices. By the FCC's own definition of broadband, 25 Mb/s / 3 Mb/s down/up, and around the minimum necessary to access resources for my research (and entertainment) at a satisfactory speed, I've lived in both large cities and smaller towns, but have never had access to more than one such qualifying service. Therefore, with such monopolies or duopolies in play, many if not the majority of consumers such as myself may have no reasonable access to any alternatives if an ISP is not required to provide non-discriminatory service. What's more, even when a choice (typically but a single one) is available, it is a long and arduous process to switch between providers, requiring a host of contract negotiations (which may not be able to be severed without large penalty fees), returning modem and router devices, finding and ordering from the new company, installing and setting up new customer premise equipment, and reconfiguring customer equipment to access the new service. This is grossly different from the few keystrokes and mere seconds or minutes it may take to switch to competing online service, or even set up one's own using freely available tools. 

Finally, if ISPs are allowed to discriminate against such services, consumers will have little to no leverage, economic or otherwise, to compel them to change, and this will likely also greatly impair a citizen's current freedom of choice between such services in what is today a vibrantly competitive onine market, thanks to the principles of net neutrality enshrined in the internet's foundation many years ago that have allowed it to transform our society, open up incredible new economic opportunities, connect the world, and position America in a position of leadership in the 21st century.