As a economically conservative-minded individual, I can agree on some things with those in favor of the "Restoring Internet Freedom" plan. The Free Market is a wonderful thing to promote and protect, and it's possible that Title II protections are outdated and stifling innovation from Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The current restrictions are too broad, and the internet should have more up-to-date protections.

HOWEVER.

The plan that current FCC chairman Ajit Pai is proposing goes way too far in the other direction, removing too many protections and giving ISPs too much power. Although it may not seem like it due to current Net Neutrality protections being a relatively recent development in US law, the Internet NEEDS protection from ISP exploitation. There are several well-documented cases of ISP overreach in the US (several of which are documented here: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history). Without the FCC having the authority to prevent future exploitation attempts like this, ISPs will have too much power over the Internet in the US, which affects ALL users of the Internet in the US as well as all people throughout the world using services on the internet that are based in the US. The FCC needs proper definitions and the authority to challenge exploitation from ISPs that threaten the concept of the Open Internet. Title II protections may be too harsh, but the proposed plan is WAY too weak, and every single person who rely on or use the internet in any capacity (big businesses, small businesses, entrepreneurs, individuals, the rich, the middle class, the poor) except for ISPs and their parent companies will suffer should this plan be enacted.

You may be thinking that in a free market, if an ISP were to exploit its customers, then other ISPs would combat this by offering better services and taking away the offending ISP's customers. In a true free market environment, you would be correct, and the open internet would guarantee itself due to the massive backlash that any offending providers would endure should they choose to abuse their positions as gatekeepers to the internet.

Unfortunately, however, this is not the case. In many areas (such as in my area in Miami), Internet Service Providers (particularly Broadband internet providers) act as regional Natural Monopolies, being the sole provider of internet (or stable internet) in the area. Due in part to established local laws (developed in part due to cable company lobbying) and in part to extremely high entry cost, it is exceedingly difficult (and, for many, impossible) for new internet providers to enter the market. Utility towers are owned by local cable companies, and, in many cities, are not allowed to be used by other ISPs. This means that in order to provide a competing service, aspiring new providers would need to build utility towers of their own in order to be able to lay down wire, which is a cost that has become exceedingly expensive in recent days due to government regulation. Meanwhile, different established ISPs in a region often choose not to compete with each other, instead claiming a stake on a particular subregion and offering service to that subregion. (For example, my only choice if I want a high-speed internet plan in my area is Atlantic Broadband. If I moved to another house a few blocks away, my only choice would be Comcast. The only other choice I have is a DSL connection, which is unusable for my purposes as someone who makes income in part through live-streaming.)

A recent example of an aspiring ISP running into these issues is Google Fiber, which ran into several lawsuits when trying to provide a competing service to many cities and regions, and eventually was forced to put expansion on pause (which means its plans to branch out to my area in Miami were halted and the chance of a competing service improving my overall internet experience through free market competition was shot down). If a company such as Google struggles this much with providing a competing service, how can you expect the market to be "free"?

ISPs, as Natural Monopolies, require regulation in order to protect consumers from exploitation. Title II regulations may be a little too strong, but they're much preferred to Ajit Pai's plan to strip all power to regulate the internet from the FCC and put it in the hands of the FTC, where it does not belong. The FTC would act in cases of companies offering media partnerships and becoming large distributors of information, but it would not have ground or proper definitions to regulate net neutrality violations and would not be able to protect the notion of the open internet.

I ask you to NOT support this plan. Ask the FCC to go back to the drawing board and devise a new plan that would replace the Title II protections on the internet with appropriate up-to-date protections that make sense, and keep the power to regulate ISPs in the hands of the FCC. The American people have voiced their concerns, and the vast majority of those who understand the way that the internet works agree that this plan would be disasterous for the internet, and that the strong (if not overwhelming) protections offered by the Title II classification are much preferred to Ajit Pai's alternative.

This should not be a partisan issue. Please stand with the people instead of with the ISPs.
- Orlando Fernandez