I am in favor of keeping the Internet classified as a Type II service and oppose FCC 17-60. -------- Regarding section 2 In paragraph 25 the document makes the claim "Our proposal to classify broadband Internet access service as an information service is based on a number of factors." A very clear thing to note, and one that will appear to be ignored later in the proposal, is that this proposal is about broadband Internet access, not about the services that ISPs provide. Paragraph 28 makes a number of misleading statements about the notion of what the Internet fundamentally is, and seems to confounding the idea of "broadband Internet access" and "ISP". Here I will address a number of statements in that paragraph. This will also in detail address the idea that broadband Internet access meets the definition of a telecommunication service as in paragraph 26, not an information service. Regarding the notion that "[The Internet is] useful to consumers today primarily as a conduit for reaching modular content, applications, and services that are provided by unaffiliated third parties" and the associated question about Internet usage: There are a number of services which rank Internet website usage, the most popular of which is Alexa.com (http://www.alexa.com/topsites). This is one way of determining what websites people use. Comcast, for example, does not appear in the top 100 (I do not have access beyond this). It is more difficult to determine email domain usage, but according to OnlineEmailVerify (https://email-verify.my-addr.com/list-of-most-popular-email-domains.php) the highest ranked broadband Internet service provider email domain is Comcast at 11th with .76%. For comparison, gmail.com, yahoo.com, and hotmail.com are at 17.74%, 17.34%, and 15.53% respectively. To note, AOL is at 3.2%, but only provides dial-up Internet. If unclear, the definition of broadband explicitly is noted to be higher speed than dialup (https://www.fcc.gov/general/types-broadband-connections) It is clear that ISP provided content and email account for a vast minority of Internet usage. DNS is a means to get information between points specified by the user, and is well in line with the definition of a telecommunications service. This is consistent with the idea that it is part of the "operation of a telecommunications system" and thus also a service explicitly excluded from the definition of an "information service". Regarding the last sentence of paragraph 28, broadband Internet does not provide the capabilities for "generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information". It is instead a necessary but insufficient condition for doing these things. As noted earlier, the vast majority of what is done by ISPs is communicate information between services that do not involve the ISP itself. In fact so long as https or a similar protocol is used, the ISP cannot even read the traffic being sent. Next, the question conflates the concept of ISP and broadband Internet. Because an ISP provides email services does not mean ISP provided email service is a condition in the definition of broadband Internet. This is clear from the fact that this would imply that if one does not use ISP provided email services they can still be using broadband Internet. This would be similar to claiming that if ISPs began selling cookies, then broadband Internet would be a bakery service. Most importantly, as noted above, is that the question itself relies on a fallacy of the idea that because something is a necessary condition for a service, that it provides the capability of that service. To make another food analogy -- in order for one to use a service to "generate, acquire store..." information as defined by an "information service", they must also eat. This is another example of a necessary condition for that service, but not a sufficient one. In order to perform the functions of an information service, one must also have a means of storing, processing, transforming, etc the information as desired, which is done by services such as Netflix or Google. Broadband Internet performs these functions only for " for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service", and thus is excluded from being an "information service". Paragraph 28 attempts to conflate the idea of an ISP and of broadband Internet service. It also attempts to deceive the reader into believing that because broadband Internet is necessary for information services, that it must itself be an information service, which is a fallacy. Instead, broadband Internet service clearly matches the definition of an telecommunication service, and should be classified as such. Note that this analysis also addresses a portion of paragraph 27. Broadband Internet access is not a sufficient condition for providing each of those services, but is instead integral to those services in its function as a point to point communication system. Regarding paragraph 30: Firewalls are not addressed in and are unrelated to the 2005 Internet Policy Statement. Maintenance of the network through updated to IPv6 protocols are fundamental to the functioning of the network, and are not a service beyond point to point communication. This is similar to claiming that the updated phone number requirements to include the area code at all times is beyond a telecommunications service. To change the form of information would be to modify the content that the user intends to be sent to the recipient. Often ISPs cannot even read the content due to encryption, and ergo cannot meaningfully modify the data. All other handling done by the ISP for broadband Internet service is for effective point to point transmission of data. To further address this document by paragraph would take more time than I have to provide. The key points of my thoughts on section 2 are: 1. Services that ISPs provide beyond broadband Internet service are not a reason to reclassify it otherwise. 2. Broadband Internet service, while necessary to the function of some information services, is not sufficient, and thus not equivalent to an information service. 3. Data modification during the processing of packets during transmission over the Internet is exclusively "for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service", and does not "change in the form or content of the information as sent and received". Thus services such as DNS are excluded from the definition of an information service, and do not modify information in a way that excludes it from being part of a telecommunication service. Note that a key point in the definition of a telecommunication service is the information is not modified as "sent and received". Processing to transmit the information is not included by that definition. This document displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of the Internet which can deceive readers into believing the Internet serves functions it does not. It is clear from the definitions of a telecommunication service and information service that the broadband Internet service is an example of the former. -------- Regarding paragraphs 76-91: As is consistent with the document, I oppose blocking lawful material. Having such a rule should not be burdensome to small providers. Such a rule should be necessary, as blocking content results in the ability of ISPs to implicitly promote their own material, and if we assume that they would not block material without the rule, the rule is in no way harmful. It is strictly beneficial. I believe in the need for a no throttling rule. Throttling is harmful to consumers essentially any time it is implemented, as it results in a slower receipt of data for the consumer. The no throttling rule does not prevent providers from offering differentiated broadband service, as that is achieved through paying for different quality Internet service. The no throttling rule does not harm latency-sensitive applications -- no throttling prevents throttling for specific users or devices. Network congestion in general will still result in higher or lower speed depending on certain conditions. The no paid prioritization rule is necessary, as not having it would harm consumers, as well competition, and innovation for businesses. It is not clear from paragraph 85 how it is apparent that paid prioritization is a nonexistent problem. Paragraphs 85 and 86 are inconsistent. Paragraph 85 claims "the record evidence confirmed that no such rule was needed since several large Internet service providers made it clear that that they did not engage in paid prioritization and had no plans to do so." Paragraph 86 then says "Is there a risk that banning paid prioritization suppresses pro-competitive activity?" Given that even this document is proposing that paid prioritization is potentially financially beneficial to ISPs, I would argue that such a rule is necessary if paid prioritization is considered harmful to consumers and Internet based-businesses. In fact, if a smaller Internet streaming service could not afford to pay what is necessary for paid prioritization, then it could not compete at all with current services and would immediately fail. Essentially, it is easy to see how any small service that competes with a service that an ISP provides could be destroyed by such a system. To trust in the integrity of the ISPs to not do this is entirely unnecessary and can be easily abused. -------- On a more general note, I am in strongly in favor of net neutrality. The document appears to work on the premise that a lack of regulation implies more freedom for Internet users. To the contrary, removing these regulations allows ISPs to regulate the content of the Internet itself. Paragraph 70 claims "Proposing to restore broadband Internet access service to its long-established classification as an information service reflects our commitment to a free and open Internet." However, returning to such status only allows more control of information transfer by ISPs, thereby accomplishing the opposite. The premise that more government regulation leads to a less open Internet is unreasonable and unsubstantiated.