Here Comes "Net Neutrality"...and my comment

Because we have socialists and communists running the Presidency and the Senate, the attempt to shut down the FCCs rules for so-called net neutrality failed and the 30-day comment period on the burden the new rules might place on ISPs (conforming to the Paperwork Reducation Act, or PRA) has begun. So, I set about to register my extreme dissatisfaction. I can only pray that legal experts will mount an all-out attack in the courts once the rules become law 60 days later. Below was the email I submitted to the Office of Management & Budget:

Regarding: OMB Control Number:3060-XXXX; Title:Disclosure of Network Management Practices, Preserving the Open Internet and Broadband Industry Practices, Report and Order, GN Docket No. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52.

I want to lodge my complaint against the FCC and its ill-informed, socialistic and misguided effort to stifle business in the form of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) via the “Disclosure of Network Management Practices” rules submitted for implementation. I am a consumer. I am a consumer who primarily uses wired internet services for personal use but I do have a business-class service because part of the time I do use it for business purposes. I also use wireless internet services through AT&T. My complaint is that the rules you are proposing to put into place provide NO BENEFIT TO THE CONSUMER and, at the same time, INFLICT ADDITIONAL AND UNEQUAL BURDEN upon businesses that provide internet services. As a taxpayer, as a consumer, THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE and I demand you rescind your proposal. Once again, you are exhibiting an example of gross and negligent misuse of the “commerce clause” of our Constitution.

Contrary to the clearly liberal-leaning attitudes the FCC and our federal government demonstrates, internet service is NOT a public right. It is a commodity. PERIOD, end of that line of discussion. It does not matter how much you think our economy, our society “depend upon” it. It is still a service provided at a cost by companies that must make profit to continue to be an ongoing concern. You are interfering with that right of businesses to conduct their affairs, and you are doing so unfairly with no real justification for your actions. I remain convinced that you are NOT acting in the best interests of the consumer but, rather, are acting in the best interests of certain, well-paying lobbyists. Market forces are the best determinant of whether a business—of any type—is providing value to the customer. If you wish to create a “public utility” version of the internet, then I suggest you try to get taxes or bonds passed to create a separate internet that operates that way. Ultimately, every single premise you are basing the so-called “net neutrality” rules and philosophy on are false, and are firmly rootedin a socialist/communist mindset. This, too, is unacceptable.

We already have many rules in place—burdensome enough to business operations—that provide for a fair degree of transparency. Aside from that, consumers don’t take long to determine if an ISP (or any business, for that matter) is providing the service they expected for the price they paid. As a result, consumer choice and Voice Of the Customer (VOC) is spread and said business lives or dies by what customer perceptions are. You are creating a burden through the reporting rules and related that achieve no value to ME, and force ISPs to incur even more expense just to operate and satisfy your ignorant and misplaced sense of service to the public. As for prohibiting blocking, again, you create an unequal and unfair difference, between fixed-line ISPs and wireless carriers. Even if I agreed with the premise of no-blocking, your implementation is unethical and unacceptable. As it is, you insist on treating the internet and, more specifically, ISPs as if they are a right. They are NOT. Each company must manage its resources as it best sees fit. If they have certain limitations, implemented as a network management philosophy, in order to continue to provide service to the most profitable consumer base while still provided a level of service the consumer is satisfied with, then you do not have the right to interfere. Finally, regarding the idea of unreasonable discrimination, I refer you to market forces being the preferred method again. I was just as disgusted when satellite service companies were forced to carry so-called “local television stations”. This was unethical. Value is NOT determined by the government. It is determined by ME. I do not wish to pay for local TV stations. In fact, in my case, there ARE no local TV stations, and the stations the sat providers were forced to carry --- and me to pay for --- were for a city 150 miles away. And every last one of those stations were stations you could not PAY ME to carry, yet I’m forced to pay for them. So, if and ISP determines that it’s reasonable to discriminate against certain applications, etc., and the consumer disagrees, then it won’t be long before consumer choose to spend their money elsewhere. When an ISP has to make network access and bandwidth decisions in order to maintain a certain level of service, discrimination is a matter of course. Until someone comes up with a new paradigm in communications, we will always run into some degree of limitations within which companies must engage management philosophies that balance their ability to provide the service, make a profit, and keep consumers happy. It is NOT your place to interfere.

With all that said, these rules add insult to injury by placing unnecessary addition burden and cost upon ISPs and, therefore, transfer it to me, the consumer. This is unacceptable. I demand you rescind these rules. I am the Voice Of the Customer.

I guess let's see what happens. If nothing else, I am exercising my duty as a citizen to stop the oppression of an ever-overbearing federal government. So, what have YOU done lately?