To Whom it May Concern,

I submitted the netneutrality campaign's default letter a couple weeks ago. I would like to add this:

To me it seems a simple matter to distinguish between "telecommunications services" and "information services". Telecommunication occurs when the exchange of information between communication participants includes the use of technology. 

Information services, such as periodicals, radio/television networks, or websites, create content and offer it for reception by those who are interested. And freedom of speech and of the press says that one can say what one wants, to whomever wants to hear it. A piece of information doesn't need to stand up for itself in court and prove it is true or worthy of being shared. And the price of the **natural processes involved in providing that information** is usually borne by those who create the content. But never, in America, should a piece of information be hindered in the absence of a premium paid.

Common carriers are third parties that provide an avenue for communication between two parties. I cannot figure out a reason to justify allowing a common carrier to have any control over the content, delivery and assimilation of information passed through their channels.

The postal service cannot adjust their service prices arbitrarily depending on the nature of the content. If the USPS were to charge double for delivery to addresses where the registered voters are of a certain party, people would be in an uproar. They also cannot decide that they will not deliver any particular periodical because its content is objectionable (yet legal), or perhaps because it advertises a competing delivery service.

A delivery person transports a product and has no right to look at the product, let alone hinder its delivery, based on what is in the box/envelope. That would surely be considered a crime. The delivery person is paid for their unbiased and unhindered service.

Just as a delivery person provides a method of transport of product/information between parties other than itself, telecommunication services do the same. And internet service providers do not stand distinctly from this classification.

Telephone companies cannot intentionally degrade the line signal then require an additional fee to be "upgraded" to a clear signal, and they surely cannot interrupt your current call with another one because a caller paid a premium.

Internet service providers receive payment from both ends of the information delivery channel that they provide. How can they also justify being free from regulation that keeps them from prioritizing information arbitrarily?

Internet service providers profit from the transfer of information. Transfer of information IS their business. Mediating information is NONE of their business. Prioritizing information is NONE of their business.

The airwaves cannot charge a toll for a voice. 
Delivery of a love letter is handled the same, no matter who it is addressed to/from. Likewise for an angry letter.
A thought written for sharing, on a web page on my personally-owned computer, should be available to any who search for it without hinderance from the intermediary connector.
If that ability degrades or disappears, so will the free flow of information. I know I don't need to explain why free communication is significant to our society and democracy.

We are not North Korea. No one owns the Internet. Keep information free!

Thank you.
Amber Baker