I strongly support Net Neutrality backed by Title II oversight of
ISPs, preventing these heavily monopolistic corporations from controlling
and marionetting the way that the U.S. public utilizes the internet.
The internet has existed for many years as a free and open medium for information exchange,
education, innovation, and creative self-expression. Repealing the legislation put
in place by the Obama administration to safeguard net neutrality will place
these social institutions in jeopardy, severely limiting the potential of the
internet as an open platform for creativity and innovation on all levels.
Indeed, the internet has grown to such levels of ubiquity in modern society as
to easily be considered another public utility comparable to electricity and water.
For this reason, it is to me only logical that the ISPs who provide this service to the
overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens (290 million out of the 323.1 million as of 2016)
be considered as common carriers subject to the regulatory oversight under title II of the
Communications Act of 1934. Internet service should be provided to the public in a manner
that is equitable and fair. I remain highly suspicious as to the motivations behind the
current FCC leadership's highly zealous efforts to repeal the net neutrality focused
legislation that was and continues to be backed by an overwhelming majority of the U.S.
public. Particularly, I must question the level of disinterest that can be embodied by an
FCC chairman who was formerly employed by Verizon Communications Inc. as Associate General
Counsel. Surely such an individual must have biased motives behind dismantling the net
neutrality rules that protect the fair and equitable internet access of hundreds of millions
of users. I urge members of congress to strongly consider the long standing consequences
that undermining these protections will have. Enabling ISPs to commit insidious practices
such as zero-rating, traffic shaping, and premium packaging will severely neuter the
way that we experience and interact with the internet. Additionally, the argument that
title II regulations have limited the capability of ISPs to innovate and invest in their
infrastructure does not present a cogent argument for the need to abolish net neutrality.
I have experienced first hand how an ISP such as Time Warner Cable (now rebranded as Spectrum)
has continuously milked its customer base via higher monthly charges, while doing little to
no restructuring and modernizing of its internet infrastructure, continuing to rely on and
utilize the same coaxial network lines that were installed back in the mid to late 90s.
I tire of arguments suggesting that repealing net neutrality regulations will enable ISPs
a greater level of freedom to reinvest in infrastructure, when these same companies
have a long standing history of having neglecting to do so well before the 2015 legislations
were enacted. I know that my opinion is shared by the vast majority of U.S. citizens. For
this reason, I sincerely hope that the FCC does its due dilligence in considering the voice
of the people who will be most severely affected by the repeal of the net neutrality laws
currently in place. Thank you for your time and consideration of this filing.

Respectfully,

Billy Troy Wooton