The Internet IS a utility
-------------------------
Internet access should continue to be regulated as a utility under Title II. The Internet has become a necessity of modern life, just as the telephone and electricity services once did. People use it to vote, to contact their representatives in government, to get local and national news (because they no longer have local newspapers), to apply for jobs, to open and run businesses, to work remotely, to communicate with distant colleagues, to stay in touch with their offices while traveling, to communicate with customers, to do their banking, to pay bills, to make purchases, to renew licenses and access other services, to take classes, to do research, to get student lesson plans, to upload student homework, to consult with their children's teachers, to consult with their medical professionals, to stay in touch with family and friends, and that's just for starters. Many businesses and agencies require people to deal with them via the Web for customer service, technical support, and other purposes. One of the reasons people living in rural areas are at a disadvantage today is that they have no easy access to the Internet (and the ISPs apparently do not find it to their advantage financially to provide rural access). Just today I heard a parent complaining that she couldn't get Internet access in her rural area and had to drive her children to the nearest wi-fi provider so her children could upload their homework assignments to their teachers. (This is the state of the world today, and we have to get used to it. The Internet is not all fun and games.)

The ISPs' claim that they should control the Internet is unjustified
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The big ISPs' claim that they are entitled to control the Internet does not have a leg to stand on. Did they innovate the Internet? No. Did they create the Internet? No. Do they provide the bulk of the worldwide infrastructure needed for the internet? No. Do they provide the Internet exchange points that span continents? No. Do they provide the connection between these Internet exchange points and themselves? No. Do they provide all the content available worldwide on the internet? No (And they should not be allowed to mix Internet access with providing content, as Comcast has been allowed to do). They are tier 3 Internet service providers that only provide the last mile of service from their servers to consumers. As such, they are the most problematic part of the whole system because they can infringe on Net Neutrality, introduce artificial congestion into the system, and slow or block the delivery of content that's not their own. The Great Firewall of China, which restricts the access of the Chinese people to 
Internet content, is an excellent example of how the last mile of service can be manipulated. Yet,despite all they don't do, the big ISPs somehow believe the Internet should be under their control. (By the way, without Net Neutrality the big ISPs could even interfere or prevent our ability to communicate with our legislators.)

Consumers support Net Neutrality
--------------------------------
Have consumers demanded a repeal of Net Neutrality? Quite the contrary. More than 22 million of them have loudly called for and supported the protections of Net Neutrality. Any action to repeal Net Neutrality would be in direct opposition to the will of these millions of citizens. Will repealing Net Neutrality result in any benefits to consumers? Clearly not. The big ISPs repeatedly violated consumers' rights prior to the adoption of Net Neutrality by favoring certain services over others and actually blocking access to services. That is monopoly behavior, not the actions of businesses interested in and dedicated to serving their customers. Expecting the big ISPs to behave and regulate themselves is like asking a rattlesnake not to bite you. Or to paraphrase an Aesop's fable: "You knew what I was when you set me loose." Do not put consumers at the "mercy" of the big ISPs by replacing Net Neutrality with a "voluntary" compliance program that the big ISPs will most assuredly violate at the first opportunity.

If, after the clamor in favor of Net Neutrality, the FCC goes ahead and repeals it, we'll know that the fix was in from the start. The FCC might also take the trouble to name its proposals honestly. "Restoring Internet Freedom" indeed! Was the FCC being ironic?

And by the way, the last time the FCC requested comment on this issue, it was flooded by anti-Net Neutrality comments from bots (not the real people whose names were illegitimately attached to these comments). The FCC decided to take no action to disregard these phony comments and apparently to prevent them. Well, it the FCC can't prevent these bot attacks, then what business does it have regulating the Internet in the first place? Clearly the FCC doesn't know what it's doing.