Dear Commissioners,


I want to state my objection to the FCC plan to gut net neutrality rules. Internet infrastructure can be an intimidating topic for non-experts, and many Internet users aren’t aware that it would not exist in it’s current form had it originated as a series of proprietary ventures, rather than in an environment public investment and de facto network neutrality. I say “de facto,” because in it’s early stages, neutrality thrived as a voluntary rather than regulatory framework. As you surely know, the launch of the Internet came about through the initiative of various government programs in cooperation with academic researchers across the globe, and it was in the the self-interest of these research oriented groups to maintain a user neutral protocol that would maximize information access. But another result of this neutral approach was the explosive growth of the Internet as an infrastructure for commerce and public discourse once the general public gained access. As with other commercial conduits, e.g. highways and ports, the Internet has become an ideal springboard for businesses of all kinds precisely because of its interoperability and the overall absence of user discrimination.


I believe that this fundamental quality of the Internet must now be supported by regulation because, even though private parties are stakeholders, the Internet in the sum of it’s parts is still a public good. As the commercial stakes become higher, it is increasingly in the self interest of private stakeholders to do everything they can to control access to the network in order to secure dominance in the marketplace. However, because it is a publicly developed system, the public still a clear stakeholder as well. If the existing rules are gutted, and, even more importantly, their intent undermined, users will quickly come to understand that “deregulation,” in this case will not mean increased efficiency and better service, but rather replacement of the old Internet with a new system where each “road” is treated as private property with endless checkpoints, where nothing gets done unless it plays into the interests of infrastructure owners and is to their own advantage as system users.

The very existence of the Internet as a widely used, non-proprietary information space is a testament to the fact that open information exchange plays a critical role in our culture and economy. However, as the Internet has matured, this fact has become obscured, especially for a generation who takes for granted the idea that everyone should have access to the Internet but has no reason to be aware of it’s origins or founding principles. Executives who claim they should have exclusive control Internet traffic in their chunk of the system simply because they “own the pipes” choose ignore their dependence on the system as a whole. The Internet we know today, a system of such massive connectivity and interoperability, would not be available for their use and profit if the protocol that underlies it had been developed as a non-neutral venture.


Commerce is critical to innovation, expansion, and development of the Internet, and if “rules of the road” do not address all users’ interests, innovation and competition will suffer. A current example: Internet service providers are in many cases also content creators, which means they have a very rational business incentive to privilege their own content. However, as with transportation infrastructure, the Internet simply can't function as a shared public space without strict rules of the road that apply equally to everyone. Few question the need to regulate public roads and highways for efficiency and fairness, and while many don’t yet understand how the same logic applies in the realm of electronic communication, almost everyone knows that the Internet has become a critical system for human interactions of all types; that increasingly, that everyone depends on it.


Companies have every right to control access to proprietary services and content, but they should not be in the position to decide who's content gets prioritized, or whose gets sidelined if traffic is heavy. This is a very real threat and not an abstraction. I believe that commercial investment in Internet infrastructure should have its rewards, but it angers me when CEOs claim that they "own the pipes" and should have 100% control of their use. These pipes in most cases are housed on public land and in many cases their "ownership" is the result of publicly subsidized projects or monopolistic legacies that originally came about through government regulation. With legacy advantages and a high barrier to entry, this is not a sector where real competition or optimal innovation can exist without rules of engagement. As stated above, I believe strongly that the public is a stakeholder when it comes to the Internet, an "owner," if you will,  and commercial players have benefited enormously from the very advantages of net neutrality that they now question. As with any product, the creating entity (in this case the public) should has very real rights.

The best thing you can do for the our economy and democracy is to leave the rules intact or promote their intent through other rational legal structures. We are not talking about regulation for regulation's sake. This is about the public having a place at the table for an asset that we have developed, supported, and depend on for our freedoms and material well being, for ourselves, our families, our businesses, our society. If you don't provide a strong legal basis an open Internet, one that will survive the test of time and changes in the political winds, you are doing a great disservice to innovation, to strong, sustained economic development, to education, and to our democracy. 

Respectfully,

Laura Hulscher