In my opinion as a consumer, the Title II Order makes two important points: broadband providers (1) act as gatekeepers of information and (2) have a virtual monopoly on comsumers' access.

As mentioned in n. 128 of the Title II Order, companies such as Netflix were not satisfied with the broadband providers' actions in their position as gatekeeper. Netflix provided actual content to the consumer; Nobody says "I am going to watch this show on Netflix through my CenturyLink broadband connection." We simply say "I am going to watch this show on Netflix." All we expect from the broadband provider is the fast, reliable service for which we pay them, allowing us to access content from other companies.

Paragraph 81 of the Title II order explains a very real scenario for the consumer; when we have slow or unreliable service, we don't know who is to blame, and we have to make a difficult decision if we aren't satisfied with our broadband service. Although the Commission may denigrate Title II's hypothetical examples, latching onto the word "may" (Restoring Internet Freedom, paragraphs 50 & 74, although the word "may" is for some reason misquoted as "might"), I can attest that all of these reasons in fact *do* limit consumers' choices. Set-up costs, equipment purchases, and early-termination fees all play a role in consumers staying with a broadband provider that provide less-than-stellar service. For a personal example, Comcast's cable broadband service was spotty and would disconnect frequently. The only other choice in my location is CenturyLink; the service is more reliable, but the bait-and-switch techniques and horrible customer service have caused me to join in a class-action lawsuit aginst them. Whenever there seems to be a problem with my service or my bill, I usually don't call them because I am afraid that whatever they do will just create more problems. I would boycott CenturyLink in a heartbeat, but there are no other options available besides Comcast's unacceptably choppy service. I wonder whether the distinction between mobile and home-based service will become less important, and I'll someday be able to drop home internet altogether and simply use my T-mobile wireless data plan for everything.

I am no expert on the history of differentiating a telecommunications service from an information service, but my opinion is, in these modern times, people don't get information from their internet service providers. Citing precedents from 1996 or 2002 is laughable; a service from ancient history such as AOL may have provided information, but nobody wants information curated by their broadband provider. It's so quaint to log out of AT&T's or CenturyLink's website (which we visit only to check on or pay our bills) and see a page of suggested news articles. Does anyone actually use an email address provided by their ISP? (This brings up another strike against CenturyLink -- I can watch NBC Sports with my cable tv package, but I can't stream it on my phone because I need to enter my centurylink.com email address, which as far as I know doesn't exist, to access it.)

The intent of Title II is to protect the consumer; the clear intent of the Commission's proposed rollback is to enable broadband providers to make profits. Restoring Internet Freedom repeatedly mentions that broadband providers have not expressed any intentions to block or throttle content, or to implement paid prioritization. Frankly, I don't trust any of the providers. The phrase "service-related innovation" mentioned in paragraph 73 reads to me as "new ways to extort money from the costumer, once those pesky regulations in Title II are removed". A non-exhaustive list of harmful practices protects the consumer from these so-called innovations, whereas an exhaustive list would simply give the providers a framework of loopholes to exploit. If providers are afraid to implement new services for fear of running afoul of regulation, it raises suspicions that they are hoping to continue their customer-unfriendly practices. In the next few paragraphs -- I see that 78 & 83 end with the same rhetorical question -- the Commission attempts to abdicate its responibility by placing the burden of regulating broadband providers on the Department of Justice, strongly suggesting that anti-trust laws will cover any future problems. Paragraph 78/83's mention of "pro-competitive business deals" makes it clear where the Commission's sympathies lie: not with the consumer. (Another example is its reference in footnote 110 to the paper from Copenhagen Economics -- a reference which includes a dead link, I might add -- which was "completed with support from Broadband for America", a group populated by AT&T, CenturyLink, and the like.)

In closing, the Title II Order appears to be looking to the future and trying to anticipate unfair business practices, while the so-called Restoring Internet Freedom wants to cling to the past -- again, ancient history.

Thank you for your time.