700_comments - ChewyChunks

Federal Communications Commission DA 14-988

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet

Request for an Extension of Time from

Nickolaus E. Leggett

))))))

GN Docket No. 14-28

ORDER

Adopted: July 10, 2014 Released: July 10, 2014

By the Acting Chief, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition

Bureau:

1. In this Order, the Competition Policy Division of the Wireline

Competition Bureau denies a request for an extension of time to file comments and reply comments in the Commission’s Open

Internet rulemaking proceeding, filed by Nickolaus E. Leggett.1 On May

15, 2014, the Commission released the 2014 Open Internet NPRM.2 In the 2014 Open Internet NPRM, the Commission sought comment on new rules to protect and promote the open Internet, to replace those that the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down in the Verizon decision on

January 15, 2014.3 The Commission also sought comment on proposed enhancements to the transparency rule that is currently in effect. The

2014 Open Internet NPRM set dates for comments and reply comments as July

15 and September 10,

2014, respectively.4

2. Mr. Leggett requests that the Commission consider granting an extension of the comment and reply comment periods for this proceeding.5 Mr. Leggett asserts that

“it has become clear that the

Commission’s staff is not large enough to carefully read and process the flood of comments from the public in the available time.”6

3. It is the policy of the Commission that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted,7 and we do not believe that an extension is warranted in this instance.

Mr. Leggett has failed to state a reason why interested commenters would be unable to meet, or face difficulties in meeting, the dates set by the Commission for comment and reply comment submissions. Rather, Mr.

Leggett argues only that

1 Request for an Extension of Time from Nickolaus E. Leggett, GN Docket

No. 14-28 (filed Jun. 18, 2014) (Leggett

Request).

2 See Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 14-

61, para. 3 (rel. May 15, 2014) (2014 Open Internet NPRM).

3 Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

4 See 2014 Open Internet NPRM.

5 Leggett Request at 2.

6 Id.

7 47 C.F.R. § 1.46.

Federal Communications Commission DA 14-988

2 the Commission will have difficulties processing the large number of comments expected in this

proceeding. We find that Mr. Leggett’s assertion is not relevant to the submission dates set for interested parties to file comments and replies. For these reasons, Mr. Leggett’s request for an extension of time is denied.

4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 5(c) and 303(r) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j),

155(c) and 303(r), and sections

0.91, 0.291, and 1.46 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91,

0.291, 1.46, the Request for an

Extension of Time filed by Nickolaus E. Leggett IS DENIED.

5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the

Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Randy Clarke

Acting Chief

Competition Policy Division

Wireline Competition Bureau

===

7521374732.txt

Common Carrier is needed in order to stop the spread of corruption that is taking place within the nations ISPs not that net neutrality is abolished.

Page 1

===

7521374729.txt

I support net neutrality and feel that ISPs should be classified as Title

II common carriers. Internet in the 21st century is a crucial for free speech as electricity or phone coverage. No option other than complete net neutrality is acceptable.

Thank you.

Page 1

===

7521374728.txt

The internet should be a utility and not divided up for companies to squeeze more money from us.

Page 1

===

We should classify broadband access as a utility. Internet providers should be considered common carriers, just as cellphone companies are for voice access, which they are not allowed to block or degrade. The Internet should be a level playing field.

===

7521374726.txt

I believe the FCC should classify broadband access as a utility. Internet providers should be considered common carriers, just as cellphone companies are for voice access. Carriers should not be allowed to block or degrade transmission based on cost paid for the usage. The Internet should be a level playing field.

Thank you for your time.

Page 1

===

7521745375.txt

Net neutrality must not end. I could make a list of reasons, however, I doubt you will read them. And on the off chance you do read them I doubt I am eloquent enough to persuade you more than the previous commenters. Cable companies have enough power/money as is, they do not need control of the internet.

Page 1

===

7521745359.txt

I am not going to rant on using cliche'd terms (i.e. **** corporations), though there's a reason why they're used to the point of becoming cliche. But limiting data speed based with the tiered system is downright atrocious especially considering how much we pay. It inhibits productivity, access to knowledge, and really just plain ticks people off. By limiting data speeds, you are preventing the layman from utilizing our greatest modern resource for collaboration. He will not be able to afford the latest and greatest and will have to settle for less.

Reducing his ability to pump out income, then tax, and finally your paycheck.

Second, our world has never before seen such access to knowledge before.

In ages past, knowledge was limited to the "social elite". Since education and knowledge became available to a broader scope of individuals, as seen during the industrial revolution, I hope you know what happened next - booming globalized economy. The next step in developing our collective knowledge is now in the hands of the internet. The internet has become the modern day Library of Alexandria

(many thousands if not millions of times greater in terms of data though) and on top of that it is available to everyone who has internet. If you are to allow the limiting of this ability to tap into that reservoir, then thank you for setting us back decades of progress. Lastly, people will get ticked off. I'm sure your 2 million + comments about this proceeding will be more than enough to detail just what it is that is ticking people off.

All of this is however avoidable. Nowhere does it suggest that by not raising costs and not introducing tiered systems of data speed will a company be unable to compete and become financially unreliable. Just think, avoid passing this and you will help the layman bolster our economy (the layman isn't one person). You will help little

Scott become the next Albert Einstein... at the age of 14 (a bit hyperbolic, I apologize). But best of all, people will not be ticked off more than they already

are...

Page 1

===

7521745306.txt

The internet is one of the most splendid things that exist. Though it has its quirks and deep dark secrets, the equality between data provided by net neutrality redeems all of that. The internet is one of the only places of true freedom and equality left, one of the only places where a hollywood actor and some kid in

Indiana can be put on the same level, fuck you if you want to change that

In the spirit of internet commenting I refuse to reread this message no matter how many mistakes are in it

Page 1

===

7521745182.txt

I was unable to comment in the previous round in favor of net neutrality, though I tried many times over many days.

My voice went unheard, because your site could not keep up with the traffic.

Think about that. Think about giving the telecom giants the right to do that whenever they please, to whomever they want.

Page 1

===

7521621313.txt

We need to preserve net-neutrality. This is a matter that activists, large tech companies, and average citizens all agree on. The sheer number of comments the FCC has received shows how important this issue is to everyday people. Please do not bend to the will of the few and only entities who stand to gain in this issue--the cable companies. Please do not crumble under the weight of their multimillion dollar lobbying efforts. Our voices are so weak against such power, and yet despite that, the responses in favor of net-neutrality have been quite significant. This issue is only about money, and making more of it for cable companies. It hurts individuals and smaller business in America. It does not satisfy any legitimate governmental purpose. Again I urge the FCC to consider the will of the people and protect net-neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521621189.txt

A few years ago an unpopular web site with the powers that be, WikiLeaks, was cut off from most financial services. All major credit cards quit taking donations for them.

The same thing could happen on the internet. In stead of the FCC getting so many

internet messages supporting net neutrality that their web site crashes, like today, internet service providers would have every incentive to "misplace those messages in cyberspace" until the FCC's comment deadline had passed.

The only thing stopping internet service providers from doing that today are some endangered rules about net neutrality. Don't loosen those rules. Tighten them.

Internet service providers should be classified as common carriers and subjected to strict rules securing net neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521621181.txt

I support net neutrality and keeping the Internet open for all. Internet

"fast lanes" are a foolish idea that will simply cause a slower connection for everybody in a country that is already woefully behind the rest of the first world in this critical piece of infrastructure. All Americans, disabled, elderly, young, healthy, etc. will be affected poorly by removing net neutrality, be it from something as simple as streaming being slowed to impossible-to-use speeds, or as severely as an emergency alert system that does not operate as expected or quickly enough because either the user did not pay for the ISP's version or the user did not add some silly additional service to their bill (perhaps they didn't know about it due to deceitful marketing, which most American ISPs are currently well known for).

Additionally, I support classifying ISPs as Title II Common Carriers. The

Internet is a vastly important bi-directional communications medium. Simply me submitting this comment should be proof of that - I learned of this situation from a website on the Internet, and now I am using the Internet to inform you of my opinion. Even telephone communication commonly uses the internet now (VoIP, for example).

Classifying ISPs as Title II Common Carriers will ensure that this communications medium continues to be useful, that it can be innovated upon, and that deceitful, aggressive, and expensive pricing cannot cause anyone to be forced out of the

Internet's use.

And, let's face it - if you allow net neutrality to fall, our international relations will be strained, but "more importantly", Netflix will be impossible to use without the $700/mo plan.

Page 1

===

7521620007.txt

Dear FCC.

I would like to express my genuine surprise that anyone is actually reading this.

800,000 comments.

I am curious how you will justify the action you have been paid to do.

With any luck you will be delayed until this government recovers some sense of sanity.

Page 1

===

7521619939.txt

That the cable companies have been allowed to collude to create "local monopolies" wherein the average American does not have a choice of cable providers is ludicrous.

Cable companies don't have to compete for subscribers. As a result internet service in the U.S. is far behind other countries where the free market for internet service is allowed to operate.

The law in question is clearly not in the public interest. A decision for the cable companies here is a pure victory for lobbying and money in politics over the common good. It's a shameful comment on our democracy that this proposal is even being considered.

Additionally, quit spying on us.

Page 1

===

7521619853.txt

In a perfect market economy it might make sense that the internet could be completely decontrolled with some ISPs providing various different internet plans that regulate speed for certain websites based on how much the websites pay. This would make sense that health care providers and hospitals get prioritized traffic in extreme situations and there should be an ISP that does just that. If a consumer wanted to choose another ISP that did not limit website based traffic, they would have that opportunity. However this market is far from perfect with significant barriers to entry that include underground cabling and infrastructure that was installed over the past 15-25 years. This effectively prevents new ISPs from entering the market to compete against the established companies and the end user whether that be a business or a home typically only has one choice for an

ISP - the one who owns the end cabling to their point of service. This effectively prevents the free market economics from taking place and allowing consumers to choose which

ISP they would like to pay and leaves the consumer subject to whatever policies the

ISP who owns their line may choose to enact no matter how restrictive.

Failure to take action in this instance and promote an open internet by preventing

ISPs from

limiting website traffic will stifle internet innovation, create conflicts of interest and monopolistic rewards for ISPs who also invest in website startups, as well as prevent infrastructure investment to improve line quality by

ISPs.

Compound all of this with the trend of ISPs to merge together (ie. potential comcast/time warner to be determined) and it will drastically restrict both the individual consumer and startup businesses from competing in an open economic environment. We will be thrown backwards where the ISPs profit motives will drive them in an attempt to squeeze every megabyte out of their current lines through prioritization and then when the lines are maxed - result in inflated prices to keep hyper-normal profit margins. It grants ISPs an "Out" from investing in their infrastructure to improve quality of service. ISPs are being faced with a choice currently in whether to improve their total bandwidth and line quality to accommodate more users and guarantee uninterrupted broadband access.

Instead they are opting to pursue changes to the legal structure and framework through millions of dollars of lobbying so that they don't have to put that money into their infrastructure because it requires a longer time frame to completion.

How should America invest? Should we invest in an open and free internet that will force ISPs to invest in their infrastructure or should we invest in a new fee based service that limits consumers access and provides only a temporary relief to the overarching bandwidth limitations and ultimately inflating prices for uninterrupted service? Is the future of the internet in fiber optics to every door or a return to dial up and DSL standards?

Whether it's Title II or some other unique means of ensuring a free and open internet - I implore the FCC to use it's authority to protect consumers access.

Thank you for reading my comments.

Page 1

===

7521618907.txt

3 major questions also specifically up for public comment:

Should there be an outright ban on fast lanes?

Yes, fast lanes should be banned. Fast lanes associated costs would present a barrier to those both startup cannot afford to pay for better faster access and users that cannot afford to pay the costs passed onto them by those who choose to use the faster access (ie high Netflix costs.) The fact that two of the largest broadband providers, Comcast and Time Warner, are also content providers is a

natural opportunity for conflict of interest and self dealing that would be greatly enabled by fast lanes.

Should broadband access be classified as a Title II common carrier?

Yes, because of the current dependence on broadband by the majority of US citizens and the future transition of the phone network to VoIP broadband.

Should the new Open Internet provisions also cover wireless (mobile) broadband?

Yes, the trend in declining wireline and increase in wireless show that the citizen base is transitioning their primary communications to the wireless network. The wireless network is quickly becoming the primary network for the vast majority especially those under 35.

Page 1

===

7521618319.txt

One of the defining moments in America's great history was an act of piracy that cost Boston tea makers a fortune. but this act of defiance was a crucial turning point in American history. and thankfully their were men who were willing to act in

Boston that night.

In our day its not a king or parliament across the ocean, imposing an unfair and unjust fee on tea, its telecommunication companies doing so against internet content creators.

This is what the internet offers to the world today. It is a tool for small individuals to compete against even the biggest of corporations. It allows a kid in

Idaho to communicate with people from any other state or nation. It is an equalizing force that allows for fair competition despite size, location, or any other barrier. bellow is the "canned comment"from the group helping me get this to you.

Net neutrality is the First Amendment of the Internet, the principle that

Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data equally. As an Internet user, net neutrality is vitally important to me. The FCC should use its Title II authority to protect it.

Most Americans have only one choice for truly high speed Internet: their local cable company. This is a political failure, and it is an embarrassment. America deserves competition and choice.

Without net neutrality, a bad situation gets even worse. These ISPs will now be able to manipulate our Internet experience by speeding up some services and slowing down others. That kills choice, diversity, and quality.

It also causes tremendous economic harm. If ISPs can speed up favored services and slow others, new businesses will no longer be able to rely on a level playing field.

When ISPs can slow your site and destroy your business at will, how can any startup attract investors?

My friends, family, and I use the Internet for conversation and fun, but also for work and business. When you let ISPs mess with our Internet experience, you are attacking our social lives, our entertainment, and our economic well being. We won't stand for it.

ISPs are opposing Title II so that they can destroy the FCC's net neutrality rules in court. This is the same trick they pulled last time. Please, let's not be fooled again. Title II is the strong, legally sound way to enforce net neutrality. Use it.

Page 1

===

7521618117.txt

I'm commenting to urge Chairman Wheeler to scrap the FCC's plan to allow

Internet service providers to charge for preferential treatment. These rules would destroy

Net Neutrality. I urge the chairman to throw them out and instead reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service. This is the only way to restore real Net

Neutrality.

As a PhD student in Computer Science, I'm worried the destruction of Net

Neutrality will set me and other students in the US further behind in an already inadequate education system. Innovation will clearly be stifled and the US will lose ground to other countries.

Page 1

===

7521744953.txt

I want to comment on how important RFD TV is to not only rural families but also urban areas throughout our country. RFD provides family entertainment that is no longer available on any other cable networks. RFD provides valuable information to farmers and ranchers that assists them in their efforts to bring healthy, wholesome, affordable food to our country. RFD TV gives people that live in urban areas insight into how farms and ranches operate and how food is brought to their tables every night. We must keep RFD TV available, it is extremely important to our heritage, our children, and our future. thank you

Page 1

===

7521744838.txt

Like electricity, food and water, the internet has become interwoven into the very fabric of our lives. By fostering an environment that allows for a few companies to

decide which parts of the internet get a free pass and which ones don't,

I feel that you are creating a slippery slope that could have far reaching and deeply unintended consequences.

Net Neutrality levels the playing field, allowing anyone with access to have equal access. The delays of your own comment feed is a testament and ironic example of how a tiered internet could not always work in the public's best interest. I hope you will consider the public opinion on this.

Page 1

===

7521744831.txt




Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521744845.txt

Open net without "monetary classes" or financial discrimination is a must for United

States. If the FCC allows the cable companies to charge for speed differentials, the free exchange of ideas in this country will be dead. We will become a

China net dictatorship, though in a different manner. If the US government cozies up to the cable requests (demands?), the government will over time become irrelevant.

Large corporations will defacto become the government. Allowing this may become the biggest mistake of the Obama administration. I write these comments, not as a internet aficionado. I am a physician. I have been very supportive of the current administration. The current administration will lose my support if cable companies get their way. r neveln

Page 1

===

7521623972.txt

To the comments reader at FCC:

Your entire purpose of being is to protect the comminications interests of hundreds of millions of US citizens, who do not have the money, power, or technical knowledge to speak against powerful business lobbyists regarding regulation of the internet.

We have seen over and over how intensely lobbyists have pressured

Congress to act in ways that put a small cabal of ISPs and cable providers ahead of common people. The

persistence, and back-door pressure, are indicators to any sentient person that these companies are using muscle to promote their interests instead of ours.

Net neutrality has served us well for 20 years. I urge you in strongest terms to not

"fix" what isn't broken, and do your job protecting basic access rights of all citizens, in a competitive market for service.

The latest proposals for tiered service are fooling no one. They really seem to think enough lobby money, and enough attempts, will let them prevail.

Please do your job and resist this pressure. Keep the internet as it is, a common pipe with nonpreferential access for all, regardless of how many lobbyists one can hire.

Page 1

===

7521623896.txt



I, like many other Americans, only had one choice for a high speed internet provider and truly believe that I am being price gouged by them. This is a political failure, and it is an embarrassment. America deserves competition and choice.





I have no faith in this comment/complaint making any difference, but you know I'm not alone. America is no longer the industry leader for internet communication

(despite inventing it) and other countries are laughing at us. Let's not take another step backwards.

Page 1

===

7521623786.txt

I am submitting this comment to voice my concerns that the FCC may eliminate net neutrality.

Compared to what is available in other countries, internet speeds in the

US are slow, costs to the consumer are high, and competition is pathetically minimal.

Please do not cave in to the influence and pressure of the cable companies to increase their stranglehold over the US internet consumer.

Page 1

===

7521623628.txt

First off, for the guy who has to read all of the comments by the angry people who have sent them in: I hope that you have a good day. Seriously. It's probably not your fault that this has happened and you get to deal with a horde of upset, illegible, and possibly uneducated commenters sending you irate emails.

So, I hope that you can relax at the end of the day and chillax for a while.

That being said, please don't do this. The fact that companies are able to lobby the government and spend their way to government change is very frustrating as an average citizen and I would like to see it stopped. Again, seeing as how this has happened before in recent U.S. History. (See the Progressive Era and the

New Deal.)

It may sound like socialism to have the internet be set at the same bar for everyone, but it's also not fair in any sense to let the bigger companies push out any competition just by throwing money at the FCC. Let's hope that

Wheeler will actually listen to the American people now that he is a member of the government and not a lobbyist as he used to be.

The rest of this note is the form letter that these guys want me to send, and I agree with it, but you don't have to read it for the thousandth time. In summary though, please keep Title II reclassification and stop these ISP companies from controlling the freedom and creativity that drives the internet as we know it.

Thank you,

-TB









Page 1

===

7521623293.txt

This is really important to me and all of my generation. Please take the public comments seriously. Net neutrality is the First Amendment of the

Internet, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data equally.

As an

Internet user, net neutrality is vitally important to me. The FCC should use its

Title II authority to protect it.







Page 1

===

7521617907.txt

I fully support the AARP Comments on GN Docket No. 14-28 submitted July

15, 2014

Abandoning net neutrality in favor of Internet ?fast lanes? will jeopardize future innovation and core consumer protections.

Internet fast lanes, as proposed by Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, will allow providers to request more in payment for faster transmission of Internet content under certain conditions. Fees would particularly disadvantage noncommercial use of the Internet, which would be to the detriment of older Americans and the public in general. Under the fast lane alternative areas such as home automation, medical monitoring, and other services that will support aging in place would be less competitive.

?The widespread availability of high quality and affordable broadband connections?is enabling new applications and services that are enhancing older

American?s quality of life, including new methods of delivering healthcare and support for independent living,? said AARP. ?Policies to promote a vibrant and competitive

Internet ecosystem are essential for the continuation of this success.?

Broadband service, which currently falls under Title I of the

Communications Act, should be reclassified as a Title II telecommunications service in order to preserve a system of open access, facilitate broadband adoption and encourage innovation.

Page 1

===

7521617767.txt

The internet should remain available to everyone. Rising costs are prohibitive and limiting. Ways to increase access should be the goal.

Based on my above comments, I do not believe we should allow the creation of fees for faster service because such costs will get passed onto the consumer and will limit families access to the internet.

Page 1

===

7521617686.txt

Please preserve net neutrality.

We need bigger pipes, not bigger pipe owners.

This sentence was added in order to comply with the requirement of a minimum five-word comment. I do hope this will suffice.

Page 1

===

7521617413.txt

C'mon, people. The internet is something global, something for everyone.

It should be free and equal. Corporations and government bodies have enough power over the everyday user already. CISPA no, Net Neutrality yes.

And here's the scripted comment I'm leaving it because I think it had some good stuff too:

"Net neutrality is the First Amendment of the Internet, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data equally. As an Internet user, net neutrality is vitally important to me. The FCC should use its Title II authority to protect it.






ISPs are opposing Title II so that they can destroy the FCC's net neutrality rules in court. This is the same trick they pulled last time. Please, let's not be fooled again. Title II is the strong, legally sound way to enforce net neutrality. Use it."

Page 1

===

7521616890.txt

Below is the canned comment. But here's my take.

1- The Internet needs to be taken out of the hands of competitive business and put into a public utilities style circumstance. It's become much like electricity that people can't really do without, and should therefore be protected and regulated from indiscriminately damaging or preventing individuals or businesses from access or exhorbitant fees.

2- I don't care that the government get its hands into much more, but I do think that if the digital superhighway were compared to the interstate highways, the government should be responsible for the infrastructure in order to facilitate commerce, as with original interpretations of the Constitution. Grants and funds should be provided for states just as with transportation and the states should shoulder the responsibility to make sure the highway is available and safe.

3- Big business should be out of the loop. They don't get to tell the government where to put the roads, nor do they get to dictate to the states what level of funding to employ. But just as with public roads, states who invest better or offer

"on/off ramps" so-to-speak to the Internet will get all the more consideration from businesses wanting to build/branch out/headquarter there.

4- No one should get special access. You don't give one trucking company over another a special permit to use the roads more than others. This is just folly. But bandwidth should be maintained and available for all. And there should be

"traffic rules." And if those rules are broken, there should be punishments affixed.

Please don't let big business determine what happens with such an important part of our modern what should be public infrastructure going forward. Please be wise steward of our nation's resources...

+ + + + +







My friends, family, and I use the Internet for conversation and fun, but also for

work and business. When you let ISPs mess with our Internet experience, you are attacking our social lives, our entertainment, and our economic well being. We won't stand for it.


Page 1

===

7521625343.txt




Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521625247.txt

I am in favor of an open and equal access internet. I am not in favor of internet service providers being able to charge premium rates for privileged access. As you may note in the cable industry, many customers, myself included, are already paying premium rates for a plethora of channels that we do not use and have no choice in the matter. I can foresee the internet having a similar pattern with access being denied to low income individuals and the rest of us paying for services we do not want or need in order to get basic access. Thank you for considering these comments.

Page 1

===

7521625166.txt

This is not a form letter. Well yes it is but I prepended my personal comments. I make my living building websites for large companies and the government.

Basically,

I build what you want to hand over to the cable companies. Businesses that want to co-opt the most democratic thing we have for their own corporate benefit.

Fuck them.

The internet belongs to all people, created by our tax dollars. It was and will continuously be created by people, not by faceless corporations. Net

Neutrality is so important that it makes me cry typing this. DO NOT GIVE THE INTERNET

TO CABLE

COMPANIES.

DO NOT GIVE THE INTERNET TO CABLE COMPANIES.









Page 1

===

7521615302.txt

I wanted to add to my last comment that i want the FCC to support reclassifying ISPs as title II common carriers.

Page 1

===

7521625846.txt

I'm a doctoral candidate whose research project relies heavily on the

Internet.

Implementing a "fast" or "slow" land would impede my ability to collect the data I need to finish my degree.

Nearly six years ago, just as I was starting my Ph.D. program, I survived a domestic violence attack which involved a 12 inch butcher knife. That I was not seriously hurt was nothing short of a miracle. The fall-out from that attack nearly destroyed my ability to go to school. In fact, it did...for a time. I was unable to get funding and I eventually gave up ever finishing.

About a year and a half after the attack, a NASA Education project invited me to

California for an interview. It was the start of a remarkable turn-around that included a pathway back to school. That project put me in charge of an online professional development community for K-12 science and math teachers.

Without the

Internet, and specifically net neutrality, we would have never been able to grow the community to almost 7,500 education professionals who collaborate and exchange information that makes them more effective in the classroom.

Out of that experience came several research questions, which I have used as the foundation for my dissertation. All of my data comes via the Internet, whether it's the online community I managed or the National Center for Education

Statistics. It is hoped that my project may help to identify strategies that make online learning more effectively, something of keen interest to public school districts all across the country in this time of tight budgets.

It goes without saying that I rely on net neutrality, both for my research and my everyday life as a citizen of the world. Putting me in the "slow" lane because I am a mere individual, as opposed to some large corporation, makes what has been a challenging doctoral journey even more so.

Please don't let ISPs discriminate. That flies in the face of the very premises on which America was founded - freedom and equality. Please adopt Title II and safeguard net neutrality for every Internet user, small and large.

Thank you for considering my comment in your deliberations.

Page 1

===

7521626861.txt

Federal Communications Commission,

The internet is like few things in this world. Today the internet has become more like a necessity than a luxury in almost every aspect of life for most

Americans.

Thus, having rules that enforce no-blocking and no-discrimination is vital to keeping the internet open and neutral for all. Net neutrality spurns innovation and helps ordinary citizens do extraordinary things like never before. Net neutrality helps to level the playing field when it comes to taking on politically powerful entities and businesses with far more resources than themselves. Net neutrality helps keep America democratic by keeping the main information source democratic.

Lastly, much has been said about President Obama appointing certain individuals to the FCC, some who may have ulterior motives, this is the FCC chance to prove others wrong by implementing many of the comments and suggestions that almost all promote

net neutrality.

Cordially,

Haseeb

Page 1

===

7521626861.txt

Federal Communications Commission,

The internet is like few things in this world. Today the internet has become more like a necessity than a luxury in almost every aspect of life for most

Americans.

Thus, having rules that enforce no-blocking and no-discrimination is vital to keeping the internet open and neutral for all. Net neutrality spurns innovation and helps ordinary citizens do extraordinary things like never before. Net neutrality helps to level the playing field when it comes to taking on politically powerful entities and businesses with far more resources than themselves. Net neutrality helps keep America democratic by keeping the main information source democratic.

Lastly, much has been said about President Obama appointing certain individuals to the FCC, some who may have ulterior motives, this is the FCC chance to prove others wrong by implementing many of the comments and suggestions that almost all promote net neutrality.

Cordially,

Haseeb

Page 1

===

7521626736.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Jame Schneider and I live in SAINT CHARLES, MO.

Net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data that travels over their networks equally, is important to me because without it ISPs could have too much power to determine my Internet experience by providing better access to some services but not others.

A pay-to-play Internet worries me because ISPs could act as the gatekeepers to their subscribers.

The internet is important to me as a way to publish my own works of written fiction.

Often the public comments made to my works help me improve my own writing. I am online constantly and use video chat and other methods of communications to keep in touch with friends all over. Also I am a sporadic gamer and would hate to see some of the sites I go to disappear because they are not a big enough name.

Sincerely,

Jame Schneider

Page 1

===

7521613788.txt

Your proposed internet regulations to allow a fast lane and a super fast lane will harm consumers. We want to keep a free and open internet in which we pay for access to whatever content we want, and it is the job of the internet service provider to deliver that content at our quoted speed. The internet service providers are already failing to do this adequately, despite being given tax incentives to build out better networks. The current price and speed of American broadband is both more expensive and slower than most other developed countries. This results in

Internet service providers making large profits each quarter despite having some of the lowest customer satisfaction ratings in the United States. This means that consumers are already being taken advantage of. This plan would allow another avenue of profit for service providers, but destroys the framework which has made the internet a place of opportunity.

The people of the United States who have created the internet as it exists today want all packets of information treated equally on the internet, therefore reclassifying the internet service providers, as Title II 'common carriers' might not even be sufficient to protect net neutrality, as it only forbids

???unjust??? or

???unreasonable??? discrimination. These comments are meant to portray the sentiment of many, who say that steps should be taken to forbid any discrimination of information as it is being transmitted over the internet.


Page 1

===

7521744719.txt

I am a U.S. citizen, currently domiciled in the United Kingdom. I wish to comment on the issue of Net Neutrality. I understand that internet providers wish to establish a two-speed system, with faster speeds available for a higher price.

I believe that a two-tier system will damage the great strength of the internet, which is its fundamentally democratic and open nature. It will enable cable companies to hold start-ups to ransom and diminish choice for the consumer. It will discriminate against the low-waged because higher prices for access will inevitably be passed on to the consumer.

There are many more technical arguments supporting Net Neutrality, but I am putting my support for Net Neutrality in the ordinary language of the ordinary

Internet user. Please do not destroy a system which has brought so much intellectual freedom

to so many, which has upheld the right to freedom of speech, of expression to the world. Tim Berners-Lee of the U.K. created the Internet, and the U.S. helped to spread its benefits worldwide through its dominance of the market. Please do not destroy the good that has been done to satisfy a few grasping individuals who seek to monopolise the WorldWideWeb.

Yours faithfully,

Elisabeth Irvin

Page 1

===

7521744644.txt




Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521744641.txt

There are literally hundreds of thousands of comments that are recognize the validity of this issue. That in and of itself speaks volumes about how important this issue is. For everyone one person that sends a comment, there's are others that silently agree: we cannot allow for the establishment a tiered internet to happen.

The American public has a strong preference for "net neutrality" and I agree with this populism.

Never in this brief history of the internet (and arguably, the microprocessor) has such an important issue been on the desk of the Federal Trade Commission.

Regardless of the outcome, I just hope we are on the right side of history.

Page 1

===

7521744557.txt

I would like to comment on the hearings about free tv. I believe this helps keep the cost down for the people who use other methods of receiving television, like from Direct TV. I also do not believe that the major companies should be allowed to merge. Right now, you have 4 choices. If they merge down to 2, that would hurt the consumers. Competition is good and keeps the price down and as long as you can watch TV with an antenna, they have to offer competitive prices to keep their customers.

Page 1

===

7521744471.txt

July 29, 2014

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary


445 Twelfth Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554

Re: Revision of Part 15 of the Commissions Rules to Permit Unlicensed

National

Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band, ET Docket

No. 13-49

Comments in Support of Petition for Reconsideration of WISPA, Cambium,

Mimosa

Networks and JAB

Dear Ms. Dortch,

Thank you very much for your attention to this very important matter. I own and operate an ISP in

Mena, AR that provides high speed Internet service using both fiber and wireless technologies.

It is my understanding that FCC Order of April 1 preserved unlimited gain antennas for point-to-point use in 5725-5850 MHz band, but eliminated ability of devices to continue to be certified under Section 15.247. After two years, no more Section

15.247 equipment will be sold. All new equipment must be certified under

Section

15.407.

It is also my understanding that petitions for reconsideration were filed on June 2,

2014 by WISPA, Cambium Networks, Mimosa Networks and JAB Wireless.

I hope that you understand that almost all WISPs (and other industries as well) use

Section 15.247 equipment in this band for long-distance point-to-point backhaul and most also use the band for point-to-multipoint communications (that includes a point-to-point uplink) to deliver broadband to distant end-users in rural areas.

I am deeply concerned that the proposed changes by the FCC will make it impossible for us and other

WISPs to provide high quality, reliable Internet service. This should be especially alarming since we are the ONLY broadband Internet service available in many areas.

The proposed rule changes will drastically increase our costs (and costs to customers), while substantially reducing the amount of spectrum available for serving customers.

I urge you to reconsider this rule change. With new security features, encroachment on non licensed bands has been largely mitigated. There is no good reason to further restrict use of this workhorse band by implementing filters and power restrictions that both increase costs and decrease usability.

Page 1

===

7521744445.txt

I am writing to ask that any merger that takes place will not cut off my access to

Direct TV's RFDTV channel. I only watch two channels on Direct TV and one of them is

RFDTV. I would be very upset not to be able to watch my favorite shows.

Thank you for allowing me to comment and hopefully you will keep my comments in mind during any merger negotiations.

Charles Hume

Page 1

===

7521634880.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Devin Burke and I live in MARGATE, FL.


A pay-to-play Internet worries me because small businesses that are trying to succeed on the internet may be overrun by big corporations.

The Internet is important to me because, as a teenager, I spend several hours a day browsing and commenting on the internet. My family is poor, and cannot afford the best internet, and I feel as though if net neutrality was demolished, internet fees would rise so that corporations like Twitter and Facebook, have a better advantage of getting hits over small time websites. Realize, that if net neutrality becomes no longer an item, the only thing that will happen is more hackers, and there will be people making loop-holes around everything. It's not a good move to demolish net neutrality.

Sincerely,

Devin Burke

Page 1

===

7521634729.txt

Please leave our internet open and neutral. Innovative products like

YouTube would have never amounted to anything if streaming speeds were not equivalent to Google

Videos nearly a decade ago.

Abstract example: In the advent of "The Internet of Things" we are too young in this stage to understand how neutrality will affect our cyberspace. I challenge you to wonder if you were in need of a prosthetic device such as a cochlear implant that accesses a server and were limited to stream speeds of what you could hear such as ebooks or music how you would feel if the software companies partnered with that

examples device would monopolize the auditory stimulation you heard?

The manufactured traffic problem that Internet Service Providers claim are legitimate is not enough to "de-neutralize our internet" and may likely be masqueraded for shareholder interests. There must be alternative solutions to this problem rather than giving up and granting power to companies that comes in the form of data streaming

Novel and creative products will be a driving force for mankind and limiting neutrality to benefit corporation, I also fear will lead to an oligarchic state of humanity decades down the road. Please consider my comment for my unborn great grandchildren, and yours.

I beg you, please.

Page 1

===

7521633627.txt




Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521632664.txt

I am in favor of net neutrality according to Mr. Franken's proposal. Net neutrality is the only way small businesses can even begin to succeed in the current economic climate. If the internet becomes a "pay to play" environment, American capitalism will die. As it is, this country is run by a handful of bloated, extraordinarily wealthy companies. PLEASE do not allow this trend to continue to crush the spirit of

Americans entrepreneurship. If congress and the FCC choose to award the power of the internet to the wealthy few, we will be no better than a mid-century, communist oligarchy; the American INDIVIDUAL will have absolutely no chance to thrive, and the upward economic crawl we've experienced since the crash of 2008 will halt completely. This country was once great, and it can be again, thanks only to our boot-straps attitude and small-business culture, NOT because of allpowerful mega conglomerates. This "revolving-door" between the FCC and Comcast in particular is absolutely despicable, and transparent. Please, I am begging you, please respect your people. Please treat the people of this nation with enough esteem to give them

a chance. The only chance these days is through the internet. What

Comcast and others are proposing will rob American's of our exceptionally characteristic national dream. Thank you very much for taking the time to read these comments and for extending the deadline for comments.

Page 1

===

7521632194.txt

I am resubmitting this as I believe my initial comment was never received

(the web page went to an error page). I am requesting that the FCC maintain net neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521631532.txt

This is journalistic test to see if comments can be filed. As a reporter covering this issue, I am not expressing an opinion.

Page 1

===

7521631201.txt

Dear Commissioners,

It is important to me that we make sure that all data that flows over the

Internet is treated equally. It is the duty of the FCC to promote competition, innovation and investment in broadband services and facilities. The idea of paid prioritization or 'Fast Lane' data is anathema to the mission of the FCC.

In the current situation, a large majority of broadband Internet subscribers in the United States have 1, maybe 2 options for Internet service. With these few options, it gives undue power to the ISPs to monitor and prioritize traffic that passes through their systems.

You ask for comment on "an end users' ability to switch providers if a particular broadband service does not meet their needs". I say, that currently, if an end user wants to switch providers, this is a virtual impossibility as there is only

1 or maybe 2 options for broadband Internet access in most consumers' markets.

This virtual 'last-mile' monopoly is another item that needs to be dealt with.

It is my opinion that current broadband service providers and/or ISPs should be reclassified as Title II Common Carriers. This would ensure an Open

Internet and allow for an increase in competition for the 'last mile'.

ISPs currently have some benefits of Title II Common Carrier (they are immune from liability for third-party content), while not being subject to the regulation as a Common Carrier (non-blocking rule).

I see 2 ways to solve this. (1) broadband providers would need to be liable for the content that flows across their networks or (2) broadband providers become reclassified as Title II Common Carriers.

Personally I do not want option (1) as this would require deep packet inspection, content monitoring and lead to a business's opinions censoring the content I request. This goes against the idea of an Open Internet. This leaves option (2), which I think is the only option available.

Classifying ISPs/broadband network providers as Title II Common Carriers gives you the legal rational to enforce an Open Internet policy and also falls in line with your mission to promote competition, innovation and investment.

Sincerely,

Jeremy Hinegardner

Page 1

===

7521630191.txt

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to comment on the FCC's recent proposed changes to net neutrality. In particular, the decision to enact a "fast lane" in which companies would be allowed to charge for faster internet broadband access.

As a concerned citizen I feel it is imperative that broadband access, and internet access in general, remain unfettered and classified as a Title II telecommunications service under the Communications Act.

Prioritizing one type of internet traffic in favor of another does not promote net neutrality. Nor does creating a "fast lane" for those who are able to pay a steeper price.

The internet is a medium through which information is broadcast and transmitted. It is the 21st century equivalent of an open forum at a town meeting.

Whether or not a citizen participates it is of his or her own accord, but the right of every citizen to participate it should not be infringed upon.

A corporate entity cannot limit participation at these town meetings to only those who can afford to attend. A corporate entity also should not have the power to limit a citizen body's right to free speech, assembly, free press and petition for government address of grievances by limiting broadband access.

As a consumer, I once again strongly urge the FCC to classify broadband access as a

Title II telecommunications service under the Communications Act.

Thank you very much for your time,

Steven Schmidt

Page 1

===

7521629899.txt

Net Neutrality absolutely MUST be preserved at all costs. The internet as it stands works and it must be protected from corporate greed and interference. I am not a demonstrator. I have never publicly commented or protested about any subject ever.

But Net Neutrality is something I believe in so strongly, I am willing to break my usual complacency to stand up for what is right. If Net Neutrality is allowed to die, there IS only one way it will end, and you know what it is. None of us want that. Broadband internet must be classified as a type 2 common carrier so it can be protected against the existing monopolies and future even worse ones. We don't want fast lanes. We want equality. We want the internet to remain free, open and net neutral. For that... even I will take a stand.

Page 1

===

7521629807.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Brendan Hartsell and I live in eureka, CA.

Net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data that travels over their networks equally, is important to me because without it users may have fewer options and a less diverse Internet.

A pay-to-play Internet worries me because new, innovative services that can't afford expensive fees for better service will be less likely to succeed.

The Internet is important to me because, as a citizen of the internet and the United

State , I need to know that there will not be barriers to entry for the new ideas and services that I hope will benefit all citizens of the internet, both in this generation and in my children's generation. If ISPs get to determine what content I have access to then it will only further the monopolies they have on content distribution. They will be able to prioritize their own content above that of others who are unwilling or unable to pay for "fast lane" access.

I depend on the internet to be my source of information, my primary source of communication with friends and family, and as a way to enjoy my free time. If net neutrality is abandoned then the future of all these things is grim. I want to be able to view the content I want, when I want it, at the speeds I am already paying for. I should not have to depend on my source for these things to be able to pay for "fast lane" access so that I can use the services that have already been paid for.

In addition to this ISPs should be reclassified to reflect their true current status as a Common Carrier. The internet is increasingly becoming a service that is necessary to survive and thrive in this country. Without internet access it is becoming increasingly difficult to search for employment, stay informed about

current events, or to be an active member of the community. I think it is grossly inappropriate that this is even an issue in this day and age.

We are the internet generation, we are the future, and we deserve to have our government protect our rights as citizens of the United States. Without a free and open internet we, the American people, will lose our ability to communicate, interact, and compete on a global level. I shouldn't have to worry if

Reddit could pay for the fast lane this month, or if the next start up will be able to afford to.

Chairman Wheeler, you were appointed as chairman of the FCC to protect our interests, not those of the ISPs and cable companies (which are becoming more one and the same with every passing day). We have been vocal about this, as is obvious by the nearly 1,000,000 comments this proposal has received. Listen to the people of the United States that you are here to protect and represent. Please do your job and protect the open and free internet for us and our children.

Sincerely,

Brendan Hartsell

Page 1

===

7521629640.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Amber King and I live in Richmond, VA.



For years, decades now... I've been reciting the hacker manifesto because it explained what I believe is the fundamental credo of the internet; access. The internet as it stands now is a playground for the weird, the eccentric, the misunderstood, the politicians, the fact finders, the future leaders, the home makers,the revolutionaries and the people who don't know what they are.

It is a place where the melting pot that America is in theory is the reality.

Essentially the internet is a dream realized because on it everyone is equal; equally important or equally unimportant, depending on the viewer. Its an almost perfect neutrality.

Because while it can connect the world it is still fragmented due to different regulations in some countries than in others and language barriers and accessibility

depending on location and technology. All of these are hard things to overcome but somehow we do. Currently the biggest problem with connecting is getting the info out there. but if ISPs are able to determine what sites their customers can access then the harmonious and sometimes asynchronous connection that people all over the world share will be disrupted and instead sectioned off based on what a corporation wants the individual to like,interact with or experience. It takes away the freedom that the internet once gave and fragments a once united people.

When the world wide web became popular everyone commented on how small it made the world seem, because any and all uploaded information is obtainable. If you hand over the web to the ISPs they won't say the world seems small and accessible they'll say that everything seems so far away.

Don't let the internet suffer like television has. Don't let it become a bunch of price based popular sites that cater to the general while blocking the specific out or limiting access to things that the ISPs don't find desirable. When I was a kid we couldn't fatham living in a country where proxies were needed to get to simple sites until our schools blocked things that they thought would distract us.

When they said no, we said we needed to find another way. And if you say no all you will get is people finding ways around it and the companies you put in charge wanting you to in force Tue ruling. Which will most likely lead to more arrest and fines thanthe war on piracy.

The internet isn't like television and shouldn't be treated like it.

Respect its neutrality. Because its a blessing in this world.

Sincerely,

Amber King

Page 1

===

7521629574.txt

Please do not cave to industry pressure. The changes desired by the big cable/internet providers will hurt more companies than it will help.

Remember when they pledged to build the information super-highway? Depending upon the list one reads, the internet speeds provided by these companies are middling to poor, as compared to other industrialized nations. Instead of allowing them to further defraud the public by allowing sites to pay for better speed, we should demand better service overall. For too long the major cable/internet companies have acted as an oligarchy, avoiding the true competition, which would have already solved this

problem without threatening the open structure, which has allowed so many innovators to offer new services and solutions in our every day lives.

Unfortunately, this time of public comment is a hollow. The chairman of your committee was recently a lobbyist for the very oligarchs he should be confronting. Gilded Age 2, yay!

Page 1

===

7521629427.txt

Dear Chairman Wheeler and FCC Commissioners,

I am submitting this in response to proceeding number 14-28, regarding the FCC's request for public comments on the FCC's Open Internet Rules.

My name is Jennifer Defronzo, I am an attorney and currently work in higher education. I am concerned by Chairman Wheeler's most recent version of the Open

Internet rule and creation of so called Internet "fast lanes," which would give

Internet service providers the ability to charge the content providers for priority access to their user base.

Broadband must be reclassified and regulated like the public utility that it is.

Access to the internet is not a luxury, but a public utility service no different from electricity or telephone service. In our modern world it is our access to physicians, libraries, schools, laws, independent media and to our own government departments and representatives.

The addition of "fast lanes" creates disincentives to investing and adds a new barrier and cost of entry to new business. They will have the effect of incentivizing already sluggish ISP's to refrain from making infrastructure upgrades to their existing network, as recognized by the FCC In 2010 . FCC 10-201:

Open

Internet Order. "Fast lanes" are the definition of discrimination, favoring incumbents and lining the pockets of an industry who regularly posts high profit margins.

The FCC must preserve fair and open access to this public utility.

Sincerely,

Jennifer DeFronzo/

Paxton, Massachusetts

Page 1

===

7521629239.txt

The idea of fast lane bandwidth distribution needs to be banned. I don't know a lot about Tier II telecommunication classification but from what I have been reading it seems like an overall good method if the FCC will choose to in force all protections that the "free and open internet" deserves and not nit pick just the regulations

that some people deem correct. Also all open internet provisions should be applied to mobile networks. Thank you for considering my comments and have a nice day.

Page 1

===

7521629241.txt

Commissioners,

Over the last 20 years, the internet has become a vital element of our commercial and social life, both for individuals, for employees and for corporations of all kinds. It is now something we all use and depend upon and require to be available.

This is exactly what a utility is. The internet consists of many components of competing and cooperating enterprises, just as do the landline and wireless telephone systems (and I would claim also the electric grid). The internet is as much of a utility today as are these other communications systems, if not more so.

Hence, it is time for the FCC to face reality and exercise its authority to classify the internet as a utility. Then start a broad, continuing public discussion of how to best regulate it within this framework for the general public interest. This will be difficult, there are many viewpoints and interests, and answers will not be clear overnight. But the FCC is the appropriate group to manage this public need.

I urge you to step away from the current proposal and start to address the needs from the correct framework: the internet already is a utility in the commonsense meaning of the word.

Thank you for leaving this comment section open for a few extra days.

These are my own opinions and words, not a form letter distributed by any organization.

Page 1

===

7521629160.txt

I am very concerned about the FCC's proposed Net Neutrality proposal that would grant larger corporations (Verizon, Comcast, and other ISPs) the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet. This would essentially violate the core Net

Neutrality principles the FCC has been publicly supporting in the past.

The FCC has claimed its proposal is not a "turnaround," however there's no otherwise to explain it. The proposal blatantly contradicts the FCCs Open Internet

Order.

Net neutrality embraces the concept that Internet content providers should not face discrimination when providing their services to consumers or be disenfranchieds by larger corporations with whom they maybe competing against in delivering content.

The idea of a free and open marketplace on the net MUST be preserved. The

FCC should support users having equal access to view content of their choice.

As has been previously stated by others, the idea of "pay-to-play arrangements are inherently discriminatory and anticompetitive, and therefore should be prohibited as a matter of public policy."

I request the FCC take these comments under serious consideration when exercising is regulatory authority and do what's the public's best interest.

Page 1

===

7521628492.txt

I have already submitted a previous, much simpler comment stating that I believe that Internet service providers (ISPs) should be reclassified as Title II common carriers. I stand by my original comment, but want to elaborate to be more clear for the FCC group examining this issue.

Net neutrality is generally understood as the idea that ISPs treat all data equally.

I believe, as do a significant number of other internet users, that net neutrality is vitally important and that the FCC should use its authority to protect it.

Technology has changed significantly, certainly apparent with how much we use the internet in our daily lives. It is natural to extend the notion of a

Title II common carrier from a phone or video programming (television) provider to ISPs now that internet is just as integral as those other services.

In addition, most Americans have only one choice for actual high speed

Internet: their local cable company. It is illogical to assume that decreasing rules and regulations for these companies with effective local monopolies will promote better speed and service for customers. There is simply no driving force for improvement because of the enormous start up cost and difficulty in competing with huge existing companies for hypothetical new ISPs.

Without net neutrality, a bad situation gets even worse. ISPs would be able to manipulate the Internet by speeding up some services and slowing down others. That would almost certainly seriously restrict choice, diversity, and quality.

It would also cause tremendous economic harm. If ISPs could speed up favored services and slow others, there would no longer be a level playing field for new and small companies.

There is a clear reason for ISPs to oppose being reclassified as Title II common carriers: to continue dismantling net neutrality for their own financial benefit. I implore you to reclassify ISPs as Title II common carriers. Thank you.

Page 1

===

7521628258.txt

Don't let the US continue down the same road towards commercial control of everything- listen to hundreds of thousands of comments urging you to smarten the fuck up and stop this ridiculous attempt to end net neutrality. Don't be remembered that way in the history books- as the FCC administration that began the end of an internet era- the end of the free internet era.

Page 1

===

7521627901.txt

The fact that we even need to comment is A testament to the fact that the government

Bowes to corporate interest and not the people. Net neutrality must be protected to preserve what America stands for witch is equality and justice.

Page 1

===

7521627748.txt









When Gov't. controls the internet they will be able to control content and if they

control content they will be able to stifle protesters making negative comments about what is seen and what text is sent on the internet and this is a dangerous outcome for our freedom---

Page 1

===

7521612798.txt

I'm a recent graduate from a large public university in Philadelphia and

I'm working to find a job where I can use my bachelor's degree. (it is difficult!)

Until then, I am stuck working a temporary part-time job for my university and will eventually transition to a low-paying service job if I cannot find employment in my chosen field. Until then, I am living in (hopefully temporary) poverty and accruing interest on my student loans. The point is, I am the working poor.

I can't afford to purchase cable TV from either provider in my area. (The fact that

I live in the fourth largest media market in the country and can still only purchase

TV service from two providers is problematic in itself, but fit for a separate comment.) As a result, I purchase only Internet service from Verizon. I pay extra for higher speeds, specifically so that I might stream video smoothly from providers like Netflix or Hulu. The proposed policy allowing companies like Verizon to intentionally slow speeds for users and charge companies to allow users to access their content at appropriate speeds is bassackwards. I, the customer, already pay for access to the Internet at a certain speed. It shouldn't matter whose content I am viewing. I don't want Verizon deciding for me that I don't need to watch Orange is the New Black without a drop in video quality. I have to pay for

Netflix as well.

It seems this policy will leave me paying the same amount for my services to work not-quite-as-well, and Verizon rolling in the dough, both from the subscribers like me and the companies whose content we'd like to access.

This policy hurts the little guys, like me. I am a redditor, a blogger, a

Facebooker, a craigslister, a Vintee. I use Monster and ZipRecruiter and

CareerBuilder daily. But more than that, the Internet allows me to be part of various communities. In these communities, I have gotten support that's been unavailable to me "in real life." I've met friends from all over the world, shared my content, and bared my soul. Because I am a human being with an innate desire to connect with other human beings. I have no desire for Verizon to come between us.

Verizon is not a person and not my friend. All I want Verizon to do (and all I pay

them to do) is provide me access to the Internet. I do not pay them to curate the content I can view. I can do that well enough on my own. But the truth is, I don't feel I have much of a choice in the matter. I can either purchase

Internet from

Comcast or Verizon and put up with whatever policies they enact, or I can have no

Internet and probably never get a job (cuz it's basically impossible to get one without internet access) and drown in debt for the rest of my life. This is not how capitalism is supposed to work.

I am a journalist. I know the Internet matters to people. It's where the majority of my work has been published, and, should I find paying work in this field, where most of my paycheck will come from. I would hate to see my content buried just because I can't afford to sell out to Verizon to optimize it for fast viewing.

Page 1

===

7521612088.txt

My comment is simple: Broadband Internet is a public utility, and it should be classified and regulated as such.

Broadband Internet is as essential to the functioning of our modern, technological society as is electricity. The watered-down rules proposed by the FCC in this instance that avoid treating broadband providers as providers of a public utility are the wrong approach.

Page 1

===

7521611682.txt

How can thos not be settled yet?

The American people actually crashed the FCC's site commenting how they want Net

Neutrality and to reclassify broadband providers.

Hundreds of companies have shown support of neutrality.

There is no way the FCC can stay the same course and it not get past the public with the coverage this topic gets as it is.

We've spoken. We crashed the site.

Give us the internet that we demand.

Page 1

===

7521610964.txt

I would like to preface the following comments by saying that the

Internet is a well of opportunity for young and old people alike, for the underprivileged, and the undereducated. It is a technology that our forefathers never dreamt of, but had they conceived of it, they surely would have put in place protections to keep corporations and government from seizing control for their own benefits.

It is crucial to the intellectual and economic development of our nation and our world

that the Internet remains a free space where thoughts and ideas can be exchanged without third party interference.









Page 1

===

7521610334.txt

My name is Gregory Perrin. I am a web developer out of Boulder Colorado.

I personally endorse the comments below, as well as plead you to take action and keep our internet neutral. America is founded on the principals we are fighting for today.









Page 1

===

7521609673.txt

I request the FCC reclassify ISPs as common carriers. I have signed petitions for this in the past, and it's interesting to me that the situation keeps popping up - does our voice count?

Let's take it beyond comments and start a conversation:

Why does Tom Wheeler believe that ending Net Neutrality is the right thing moving forward?

Page 1

===

7521609663.txt

I know you're swamped with comments, but it is a very important issue, and not just for Americans but the world. Net Neutrality is the 'market place of ideas' in action. To curtail that market represents an abandonment of America's founding principles. It would show that our govenrment has lost faith in humanity and democracy. I will loose faith in this country if it sells out what could be the most important democratizing tool since the the Bill of Rights and the United

States

Constitution. My mother has the paperwork to show she's a Daughter of the

Revolution. Generations of Americans, my ancestors, and yours too believed they could govern themselves, but that doesn't mean more to the FCC than the profits of a few companies?! They get to be the new gatekeepers instead of us?! Net

Neutrality evens the playing field such that truth can shine through a web of powerful

competing special interests. Keep Net Neutrality, I know you can.

Page 1

===

7521609242.txt

To Who It May Concern:

We still are not fooled by Chairman Wheeler's misleadingly-named "Open

Internet" proposal. Even the naming of this proceeding is craven and offensive.

I reiterate my below comments.

Sincerely,

David Wolfowitz

------- Original Message -------

From: dwolfowitz@gmail.com

Subject: "Oversight" is not acceptable. We are not fooled.

To Chairman Wheeler and others:

The FCC's proposal to do away with the core principles of net neutrality is not acceptable, even with the recent minor addition of what's been described as "oversight" measures.

ISP's don't face anything remotely resembling competition, and they have benefited from this for years. Worse yet, they have pocketed public funds meant for investment in infrastructure without any meaningful results.

That we have allowed these monopolistic actors to thrive without either breaking them up (via antitrust legislation) or imposing true monopoly regulations (via common carrier designation) is a deficiency that falls heavily on the shoulders of the FCC, in addition to other government agencies.

This regulatory deficiency has left U.S. telecommunications infrastructure woefully behind world leaders in this area, and woefully behind the march of technology as well. Indeed, when TWC CEO

Robert Marcus made the laughable claim before Congress that 4G mobile broadband is a "viable alternative" to cable broadband, he only further exposed the stalled state of U.S. investment in wired communications, even as compared to the near-oligopoly that is mobile telecommunications.

We have allowed cable broadband providers to languish as rent-seekers for far too long, to the point that we are crippling our infrastructure and innovative potential. Allowing preferential creation of "internet fast lanes" will further encourage this behavior, and would only be considered by a regulator who is deeply in the pocket of those he is supposed to be regulating.

The FCC must either impose common carrier regulation on cable broadband, which clearly fits this definition today, or campaign for the breakup of monopoly actors in this industry. Anything less is a failure and an insult to the American people.

Sincerely,

David Wolfowitz

Page 1

===

7521608098.txt

Tom Wheeler is pretending to look at our objections to the redefinition of our internet. The comments website crashed is just an excuse to dismiss the overwhelming opinion of the People. Tom Wheeler wants the same cushy job/bribe that

Michael

Powell accepted. Mr. Powell sold out the People for a multimillion-dollar lobbyist job as a reward for his fealty to the ISPs. Tom Wheeler thinks we don't see that.

History books will print the name Tom Wheeler as the main plutocrat who sold us out if he accepts the job/bribe offer from the ISPs.









Page 1

===

7521607821.txt

I am writing this comment personally from Burlington, Vermont with an assist from the Freepress. I am active in my own community in civil, religious, business, academic, and arts forums all of which are supported by access to a free and unfettered Internet.



Many Americans have only one choice for truly high speed Internet: their local cable company.

Without net neutrality, business people, civil society, and all kinds of innovators

will not have the same access to build their dreams online, express their ideas and change the world.

I am fearful of the results and the atmosphere in a world where the price paid to be on the internet fast lane will be a key determinant of success.

Our libraries and schools, and writers, and inventors like my grandfather, will all have less opportunity to reach for the stars.

Here in Burlington Vermont where I live, we are becoming a top ten tech hub, precisely because of the speed of our fiber network. We are an expensive place to live otherwise, but our world class network gives us a competitive edge we must retain.

Title II is the strong, legally sound way to enforce net neutrality. Use it.

Page 1

===

7521607827.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Kenni and I live in Middletown, CT.



The internet is important to me because of its freedom. You can make your own website, you can create your own channel, you can let your voice and your opinion to be heard. But if you take away that freedom, we cant say or do what we feel. We meaning anyone! Anyone can make a funny video on YouTube. Anyone can tweet about political bullcrap. Anyone can blog about their life, no matter how screwed up it is. You know, if you look at it, sometimes people make YouTube channels because no one else will listen. Then strangers watch their videos and enjoy them, and then the creator can get PAID to do what they and others love! If you take that away, then who the hell is going to profit. Those people arent the only ones, you know. What about the watchers/readers? What are they? They are the ones, maybe going through a terrible time in their life, and ShaneDawsonTV makes them laugh. This has happened to me. I have personally benifited from freedom of the internet. And a lot of others have as well. You know what? I am going to leave you with this. You must have kids, yeah? Ask THEM who really listens to their opinions. It isnt you, with your suit,

tie, briefcase, and a 6 to 9 workday, but the total strangers who watch their one video on YouTube- the total strangers who read their one blog- the total strangers who comment and agree with their Facebook post. Who are you to take that away? My money is on the ones who LISTEN. My money is on the FREEDOM. And my money is on the STRANGERS.

Sincerely,

Kenni

Page 1

===

7521607001.txt

Dear FCC,

My comment is to encourage the FCC to support Net Neutrality. In a country founded on the principles of "Equality for All," the internet is one of the few remaining areas where that principle still rings true. The data on my small design firm's website cannot hope to compete with the Netflix's, Amazon's and other large corporations of the world if you allow ISPs to provide tiered pricing.

Keep the internet equal and open. The last thing we need is additional costs and hurdles for small businesses, entrepreneurship and innovation.

Sincerely,

Rob Tidmore

Page 1

===

7521606602.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Chelsea Barnes and I live in Delmont , PA.


A pay-to-play Internet worries me because it is essentially blackmail and subverts every idea of justice, democracy, and morality that our country was founded on.

There is already too much money controlling politics. By eliminating net neutrality, companies would essentially be eliminating the largest public forum in existence, thus cutting off the voice of the people.

But let's face it: you're not going to listen to any of these comments.

You're going to do whatever you can to get your money. It doesn't matter to you what happens to the common people because you'll just use your money to put as much distance between you and the public as possible. I have absolutely no faith that you will do anything to protect us. All I have right now is the smallest hope that someone will decide to

prove me wrong.

Sincerely,

Chelsea Barnes

Page 1

===

7521606469.txt

Dear Members of the FCC,

I implore you to reject Michael Powell's efforts to subvert the internet, rendering it essentially available to the highest bidder and sidelining small innovative entrepreneurs, political commentators, and ordinary citizens in the process.

From the public response, and that of many tech companies from Apple to

Zeobits, decrying the advisability of tinkering with a working internet (If it ain't broke, don't fix it) in such manner as to royally screw it up through greed and ignorance, you must certainly realize that it would be advisable to acknowledge public desire in this case by not meddling with the internet.

Further, let's go ahead and declare internet service as a common carrier to assure that it will remain free and unfettered henceforth.

The FCC should allow no relaxation or elimination of the public interest limits on media ownership without first weighing all of the evidence and hearing out widespread public concern about the problems of consolidation.

Limits on media consolidation have been a bulwark against the concentration of economic power in the marketplace of ideas -- a critical part of balancing the public service mission of the media with their private profit motive. Our democracy requires the free flow of local information from a broad range of diverse voices.

Media consolidation has already led to declines in local and minority ownership as well as the homogenization of content in radio and television. Allowing further concentration of local media markets, will only worsen the problems we already have.

The FCC should stand firm with the public against further concentration of media ownership in the hands of the few. A vote against media consolidation is a vote for democracy.

Yours truly,

James Reid

Oregon House, CA

Page 1

===

7521606185.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Bryce Shelton and I live in Atlanta, GA.

Net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data that travels over their networks equally, is important to me because without it ISPs

could have too much power to determine my Internet experience by providing better access to some services but not others.


Destroying Net Neutrality is just the latest in a long line of policies from the FCC and other government agencies that does not uphold the democratic principles this country is supposed to represent. I'm sure these comments will do very little good despite the fact that an overwhelming number of people are speaking out against this, but hey...

I can't think of a single way in which prioritizing internet availability and functionality based on the amount of money being paid will benefit the average

American. It will hurt all consumers and small businesses alike. If the

FCC continues down this road, it will only be acting in it's own interests and the interests of rich and powerful corporations. The FCC and the government in general are supposed to protect the interests of the public majority (that's why it's called a Democratic government). The overwhelming majority of people in this country want to keep the internet free and equal for all, not some but all. Everyone who uses it should have the same speeds, capacity and availability. Please do your job, listen to the people you are supposed to serve and protect, and keep the internet open and free for ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE.

Sincerely,

Bryce Shelton

Page 1

===

7521605789.txt

I filed the following comments through a third party interest, but I wanted to make sure my voice is heard directly by the FCC:

Thanks to a foreclosure on our home, my family recently moved from our house to an apartment in the same town. When we transferred our Comcast cable and internet service from our old house to the apartment, Comcast made repeated mistakes during the entire process. You name it, it happened: their website crashing during activation procedures; their website constantly showing incorrect information about our account; not activating the code in their cable box and then trying to make me pay for a technician to come to our apartment to "fix" the problem, etc.

Thanks to their incompetence, we were without internet and cable service for over a week.

Loss of the internet service caused all kinds of grief including affecting my home-based engineering business.

It's my experience that companies like Comcast can barely provide adequate service as it is and with the near zero competition they face, I don't see that situation changing anytime soon. They should not have any ability to further muck things up by being able to effectively regulate how I or any of us use the

Internet.

The Internet is no longer a "luxury", but instead has become an integral and fundamental way in which we communicate with each other. If ISP's are effectively able to "throttle" our access to all the Internet is, that would create further inequality falling along economic lines in this country. To ensure we all have equal and fair Internet access, ISP's should be treated as a utility.

KEEP NET

NEUTRALITY A REALITY!

Page 1

===

7521605565.txt

To all

Freedom isn't just word. Freedom is a way of life. Part of that freedom is our ability to freely communicate. And the number one method that the

American people communicate the written word today is via the internet. Our ability to both send and receive, to communicate the written word demands entirely on unrestricted, open, and

EQUAL access to those written words via the internet. the Recent FCC ruling literally destroys that freedom. Without such a key and essential capability to communicate, liberty and freedom die. You cannot put corporate profits that in reality benefit a handful of people ahead of the needs and wishes of the

American people. The polls (not paid for by the corporations) overwhelming show along with the comments you receive that the wishes and will of the people demand you rescind this ruling and restore net neutrality. In short you work for the people of the

United States not the corporations. Start doing your job.

Page 1

===

7521635886.txt

Internet neutrality is vital to a vibrant democracy. Corporations must be prevented from being able to control the speed of data transmission, creating more profits for themselves by charging more for faster data transmission. The concentration of media ownership in recent decades in the hands of a few corporations and conglomerates has

already led to a narrowing of the range of voices and opinions being expressed in the mass media, and this is the antithesis of a democracy. Allowing corporations to abandon net neutrality in favor of profits will strike another serious blow to our already fragile media democracy. Thank you for the opportunity to comment about this very important matter.

Page 1

===

7521635837.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Ted Rasmusson and I live in Colo, IA.



The Internet is important to me as it is because I enjoy hearing various opinions and ideas. My major worry as a sports fan is we will not be able to openly vent about our team or the professional leagues because the leagues will pay to keep negative comments off the new Pay for play web.

Sincerely,

Ted Rasmusson

Page 1

===

7521635785.txt

Dear FCC,

I was sent here by John Oliver. I, like most Americans, only get my news through shows that also double as entertainment, because my generation doesn't have the patience to sit down and watch a normal news show, or (god forbid) read up on current events. We are a generation of ADD consumers, largely made so by the internet, and companies and corporations have taken advantage of this, and for the most part that doesn't bother me too much. Until now.

You see, John Oliver is right. By and large, we don't want to invest time into researching, campaigning, and fighting for a cause. We'd rather go on

Youtube and make derogatory comments on strangers home videos they've taken of their newborns.

But because of Mr. Oliver's show, we've been alerted to one fact that we certainly cannot abide: Cable companies are trying to screw with our internet.

Now, yes, the internet at times can seem like little more than a storage unit filled with porn, cat videos, and people having misinformed political arguments on

Facebook, but occasionally we use it for more than that. It's a tool for sharing information and causes that normally would never have seen the light of day, a platform for artists to display work and collaborate in ways that were previously impossible, and a means of educating people in numbers that were beyond imagining a mere thirty years ago. The internet is a living, breathing example of freedom of speech and freedom of expression on a global level, and right now you're actually considering destroying that. It's beyond me why this notion is even being entertained.

Well, scratch that, I know why it's being entertained: Money. There is the possibility for multiple metric crap-tons of money to be made if the cable companies get there way. And yes, a metric crap-ton is an accepted unit of measurement. But what is beyond me is how our government could let this happen, a government that is supposedly based on the very ideals the internet protects.

Don't assume I'm trying to glorify the internet. I know it isn't perfect.

I know for a fact that the internet can, unfortunately, be used as a tool by evil people to do horrible things in even more effective ways. But like our Country itself, while there is a very dark side to this media tool, there is also a side that is wonderfully light, where good people take advantage of the freedom we have on the internet to help others in ways that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

So I am making an appeal to you to please turn down the Cable companies attempt at destroying Net Neutrality. Show your people that our government is controlled solely by greed, as so many people today believe, and don't destroy a tool that has been used by so many to enrich the lives of others. I have no idea if my voice in this will add anything, or this will even be read. (If someone is reading this though, I hope to god you have more than one person doing it, and if you don't, I'm so, so sorry.) But I couldn't sit back and not at least try to make my opinion be known on this, especially since this handy online form makes it so easy.

So once again, please do not bow down to the whims of giant corporations, and protect your people's freedom of expression. And now I'm off to watch some cat videos.

Page 1

===

7521636799.txt

I am submitting this comment to urge the FCC and the Federal government to require,

maintain and support Net Neutrality. The internet must remain fair and available to all citizens, unimpeded.

Page 1

===

7521636116.txt

The FCC must maintain net neutrality and if fact should regulate the

Internet as a common carrier. The Internet is no longer a curiosity. Just as the telephone came to be recognized as a necessity, the Internet and broadband access have become essential. Many job applications. including for US Government jobs, must now be filed online. Schools recognize that students must have online access.

Online college courses are mushrooming. Much banking is done online. Tax returns are increasingly filed online. The FCC is taking public comment via the

Internet. The list is endless and growing. To regard the Internet as an entertainment service is nothing short of absurd if not totally disingenuous.

Page 1

===

7521636016.txt

I would like to comment on the need for open access to the internet to all.

Currently the Internet Service Provider is frequently the only provider of services in the area. The Internet Service Provider needs to treat all data that travels over their networks equally. The ISP should not be able to control access to the internet based on the local ISP total control on what data they allow and which Data providers they will allow. There is a need for more competitive ISP services and not total control of which data the only local ISP will allow.

Page 1

===

7521635992.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Anthony White and I live in Farmington Hills, MI.



No time to comment, but it's imperative that the internet stay neutral.

It's one of the last free speech mediums we as a people truly have.

Sincerely,

Anthony White

Page 1

===

7521605136.txt

Dear FCC,

Thank you for taking the time to receive comments from the general public, although

I am confused by your efforts to listen, as it has seemed to have fallen on deaf ears.

The internet IS a common resource all of us as humans as share- it is one of the greatest databases on Earth, and people who would have otherwise been lost have found a way to make a living with it.

The easiest way to manage the ISPs is to treat them as Title II. I know however the

FCC, and especially Wheeler, know of the big ISPs plans to fight not only that but any other change that does not benefit them. However, this is a battle where everything is on the line, and you are either with the people, or against them. From how this country was born, I'd stick with the people who elected you in the first place (and elected the people who appointed you).

The rules you purpose threaten an entire generation's worth of work, and millions of jobs, including but not limited to MMOs, Youtube Personalities, and Video

Streaming.

The rules seem to benefit very few, and the overall damage it will more than likely cause is paramount to losing the economic race against China, Russia, and the Middle

East.

For all your Big Talk, Washington, you seem to be doing nothing to positively help the people in which you govern.

Prove me wrong,

Zack "The Great" Hopkins

Zack The Great Productions

Page 1

===

7521636669.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Rev. Jason E. Hill and I live in Lake City, FL.



The Internet is important to me because, it has brought the whole world to my laptop. All my friends from around the world converge in one place, daily, to share their art, music, joy, heartbreak and spirituality. My Former Marine friends interact with my Clergy friends who then all interact with my friends from my career

on Broadway. I currently have the power to choose what I see or how I receive my content and the end of net neutrality would forever change the free thinking market place that came up with podcasts or the picture of that baby with all the tubes coming out of her mouth and all the redditors who were able to photo shop them out.

The internet has turned us into a global comment, please don't let a few

ISPs choose what the digital world we now live in looks like, keep that power in the hands of each individual.

Sincerely,

Rev. Jason E. Hill

Page 1

===

7521604769.txt









I'm not a fan of the slippery slope argument. It's a logical fallacy and while it can be convincing, it should be treated as pure speculation. I'm sure a lot of comments are concerned about what these rules COULD do. Unintended consequences are

scary, but what sucks most about these rules is that the INTENDED consequence is inequality. It's about giving advantages to the rich and being fundamentally unfair.

It's about ruining the legacy of the internet as the wild west of creativity and innovation. Internet should stay free because it's what the people want.

Federal commissions do not serve corporations, they serve the American people. Be on the right side of history.

Page 1

===

7521604559.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Terrel Coleman and I live in Bountiful, UT.



The internet is for like minded people to share ideas and find common ground. I fear this will end if ISP's are allowed to take the amount of control that is being talked about right now.

Things will start out all fun and games, but eventually turn into a witch hunt over some half thought out comment, picture, or video, that was never meant to hurt anyone at all.

Things that shouldn't be censored will be. Personal and Political interests of big corperations and dirty dealings will be swept under the rug or people will be marked as enemies of the government.

Maybe not right away, but eventually, we will get to the same point China is at, and yes, it sounds silly, and I'm sorry if I'm rushing through this, but giving them this power will start a snowball effect we can't even begin to think of.

Sincerely,

Terrel Coleman

Page 1

===

7521603727.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Trevor Goehring and I live in Oak Park, CA.



Equal access to all people across the internet should be the basis for the future of the technology. By taking away net neutrality, you are adversely affecting the freedom of Americans, and billions of other people worldwide. Net neutrality also acts in a democratic way, by allowing the views, comments, and likes to act similarly to votes. Taking away net neutrality will therefore reduce democracy, something that America has been trying to spread since its inception.

Don't give in to money, stay true to American morals, and keep the net neutral.

Sincerely,

Trevor Goehring

Page 1

===

7521603337.txt

Dear FCC:

It's easy to think of the Internet as just another entertainment medium, just another means of distributing content in exchange for money. Surely the outpouring of comments on the Net Neutrality issue has shown you how much more the

Internet can be: it is a force for organizing political action, a gathering space for conversation and debate, a repository of mankind's cumulative knowledge.

The

Internet, as it is structured today, is as close to a literal Marketplace of Ideas as humankind will ever erect. The beauty and the functionality of this marketplace is the complete and equal treatment of information. There are no tiers- there are no

VIP sections- there are no back rooms where elite actually control the flow of information. Yet.

The plan to allow fast lanes and slow lanes online is disastrous and will dissolve the robust democratic Marketplace the Internet has become.

Fortunately, the FCC has the power to not only prevent such horrendous policy from being effected, but it also has the power to safeguard the Internet for generations to come: Title II reclassification. The Internet is more than an entertainment luxury- it is the vital medium of information and goods exchange through which all of us conduct our daily business, from buying goods to finding a job to conducting research to doing homework. Such an indispensable medium should not be broken into sectors for the rich and the poor. The Internet today is as vital as the telephone was when it was classified as a common carrier. Please use Title II reclassification to declare, once and for all, what we already know from using the

Internet daily:

The Internet is a utility.

Page 1

===

7521603346.txt

Dear Chairman Wheeler,

I am writing to voice my opposition to your proposed changes to Net

Neutrality.

But, I also understand you have received an unprecedented amount of negative comments on this issue, so I also wanted to mention some positive effects of your efforts. As a professor of Media Study, your proposal to allow effective monopolies to charge a fee to ISPs to access certain content has given my students an object lesson in several topics that are usually abstract in media theory. Among the topics you have helped them understand is the difference between market competition and corporate oligarchies. Because there is only one internet provider here in

Buffalo, my students can use their own experience to understand corporate control over the media, but also how oil cartels and the Mafia operate. And your campaign and fund raising efforts for Barak Obama have helped them understand corporate influence over government and cronyism. This has also helped my students to relate to people from different cultures?they can now understand the restructuring of

Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.

I believe your efforts have helped many unengaged Gen Y'ers finally become politically aware, and you have likely earned yourself a well-deserved place in US history. This generation will likely remember you for the rest of their lives in much the same manner that Baby Boomers remember G. Gordon Liddy.

Well done, Chairman,

Derek Curry

Ph.D. Candidate

Dept of Media Study

University at Buffalo

231 Center for the Arts

Buffalo, NY 14260-6020

Page 1

===

7521744276.txt

July 29, 2014

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary


445 Twelfth Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20554

Re: Revision of Part 15 of the Commissions Rules to Permit Unlicensed

National

Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band, ET Docket

No. 13-49

Comments in Support of Petition for Reconsideration of WISPA, Cambium,

Mimosa

Networks and JAB

Dear Ms. Dortch,

Thank you very much for your attention to this very important matter. I own and operate an ISP in Lawrence, KS that provides high speed Internet service using both fiber and wireless technologies.

It is my understanding that FCC Order of April 1 preserved unlimited gain antennas for point-to-point use in 5725-5850 MHz band, but eliminated ability of devices to continue to be certified under Section 15.247. After two years, no more

Section

15.247 equipment will be sold. All new equipment must be certified under

Section

15.407.

It is also my understanding that petitions for reconsideration were filed on June 2,

2014 by WISPA, Cambium Networks, Mimosa Networks and JAB Wireless.

I hope that you understand that almost all WISPs (and other industries as well) use

Section 15.247 equipment in this band for long-distance point-to-point backhaul and most also use the band for point-to-multipoint communications (that includes a point-to-point uplink) to deliver broadband to distant end-users in rural areas.

I am deeply concerned that the proposed changes by the FCC will make it impossible for us and other WISPs to provide high quality, reliable Internet service. This should be especially alarming since we are the ONLY broadband Internet service available in many areas.

The proposed rule changes will drastically increase our costs (and costs to customers), while substantially reducing the amount of spectrum available for serving customers.

I urge you to reconsider this rule change. With new security features, encroachment on non licensed bands has been largely mitigated. There is no good reason to further restrict use of this workhorse band by implementing filters and power restrictions that both increase costs and decrease usability.

Eliminating the flexibility to allow devices to continue to be certified under

Section 15.247 was entirely unnecessary and will significantly harm ability of many rural WISP customers to continue to receive broadband and voice services

Respectfully,

Joshua Montgomery

Wicked Broadband

2321 Ponderosa Drive

P.O. Box 3532

Lawrence, KS 66046

Mo: (785) 371-4214

Fx: (785) 331-2086 joshua.montgomery@wickedbroadband.com http://www.wickedbroadband.com

Page 1

===

7521744226.txt

My comment is simply to support the obvious and overwhelming majority which stands in firm opposition to the unbalancing of the Internet.

Let me be frank on this topic. I am particularly disgusted by the lobby efforts of the telecommunication industry to introduce unbalanced service. The FCC needs to put in place measures that restore "Net Neutrality" and forever banish the idea of

Internet "fast lanes".

I am reminded of the White Houses response to a petition regarding Net

Neutrality, where they affirmed their official support for a free and open Internet.

"Absent net neutrality, the Internet could turn into a high-priced private toll road that would be inaccessible to the next generation of visionaries."

I am also holding the Tom Wheeler to his word as the FCC Chairman when he pledged to

"use the authority granted by Congress to maintain a free and open

Internet."

I support this view. American's across the nation support this view. Even service providing companies across the nation support this view. Even a variety of Internet service providers across the country support this. The only ones who support anything else appears to be a VERY specific lobby made up of the largest residential broadband companies.

Quite frankly, again, it's appalling that the FCC has spent so much time on this issue. We already have seen the effects these companies have had since

January.

Service speeds to major websites has slowed down. The companies that own those sites have had to pay "protection money" to get more speed. And even after paying, our service speeds are still terrible. Take Netflix as an obvious example. I personally employ an SSL VPN to an Internet proxy and see a 30-fold, yes

THIRTY-fold increase in my speed to Netflix. I am a network engineer and I have never seen a situation where you needed to ADD distance (hops, as we call it) to your infrastructure to make it faster. It sickens me.

Do the right thing. Don't destroy the most liberating technology the world has ever known.

-Trevor Bogart

Page 1

===

7521602195.txt

It is not a free and open democratic society when the internet is controlled by a few super wealthy corporations, or controlled by any group of a few with an agenda.

When it is in their power to discriminate online content and applications, this can

have far reaching consequences of stifling free speech and information. I fear this is the the point, they will want the power to censor the collective thinking the internet has created. Call me paranoid, but it is clear this is already happening in other countries, like out neighbor Mexico! they want the power to blackout when ever they feel the need. I suppose the Arab spring and other political uprising has scared the big powers, and this is the path to taking control again. As was said for the "happy video" in Iran, the power there commented how they don't like the internet because it can whip up support for causes they don't support.

Let America continue being a free nation, not one owned and controlled by big money. Didn't our tax dollars pay for all the infrastructure of the internet, and all that cable and high speed cable that is all across our nation and oceans? Why should a few big companies get to control and profit off that, off our backs.

Terrible terrible idea. So not American.

Our nation must be by the people for the people, remember!? Not by the mega corporations, for the mega corporations. Please do your job right. Stop being owned by big money. Stop selling out America. I want to be able to use the internet just like anybody else. I don't want to be sidelined.

Page 1

===

7521601622.txt

I submit my comment because this country was founded on the premise that all "men" are created equal. Over the years since the invention of television, computers, and other means of communication, things have eroded so that the common "man" in this country no longer has equal say about their destiny, beliefs, education, etc.

This country is the envy of other less democratic nations and yet we are falling down on the list of accomplishments because competition is thwarted in the corporate world.

Please do not let the top 10%ers continue to buy with their billions what we think, see, hear or say.

Allene

Page 1

===

7521744069.txt

Fuck You Guys. Its sad that this is even a discussion we have to comment on. Not that our comments will matter with the head of this department being the old head of the cable provider lobby.

Page 1

===

7521601136.txt

According to your recent comments what you call "net neutrality" is anything but that. It calls for preferential fast lanes for those who pay. This guarantees that this two tier result will trash the open net as we know it and will certainly result in poorer performance for the common user and also higher fees. The only sensible solution is to abandon the current proposal and reclassify the ISPs as common carriers. This has a chance of being regulated in a fair way.

Page 1

===

7521601066.txt









Let's be clear: We the People will NOT, repeat, NOT tolerate anything less than what we already have: A FREE internet. A FAST internet. To Hell with the greedy corporate elite and their libertarian sycophants- The internet is a public service

-- NOT a revenue stream ..- Oh, and y'all ain't gonna just pat us on the head and say, "well, you've posted your comments, but we're gonna do it anyway," 'cause if ya do, future

historians will remember that as the famous last words of the American

Empire.

Page 1

===

7521600906.txt









The above comments reflect my feelings, completely, but they were supplied by someone else. I want to make this very personal.

I am a very low income senior whose part-time job (the only employment I could find after searching for two years) requires adequate Internet speed to send large documents, etc.

In addition, I cannot afford cable television, nor the installation of an antenna that would make it possible for me to receive much in the way of television programming. As a result, I am completely dependent upon my computer to access all video content, from essential news to entertainment.

The Internet service providers are currently and frequently monopolies depending on where one lives. My sister lives in a rural area. The only provider available to

her locally did not provide adequate service so that she could stream video or audio or even transfer large files until last year, even though her entire community had petitioned the company (AT&T) repeatedly. There are real dangers to continuing to allow companies to act as monopolies as well as for companies to have free rein in deciding who gets fast access and at what cost.

I have friends in Europe who scoff at the limitations on my supposedly fast service.

Our current system has done nothing to encourage American providers to come up to world standards. That may not cripple me, but it certainly cripples many small and moderately sized businesses.

For me, personally, this is a very important issue. I ask that you treat

Internet service providers as utility providers and make sure that all, rich and poor alike have adequate access.

Sincerely,

Sharon Forrest

Page 1

===

7521600911.txt

I am not usually moved to write my representatives or any governing body but I had to for this issue. Nor do I really know the correct words to use. All I know is that the internet needs to be neutral. No fast lane or extra cost for one group over another. I am a small business owner and I need to know that in the future I will not have to pay extra to make sure I reach my potential customers, or that someone who has deeper pockets than me cannot price me out of competiting in the market.

Thank you for taking the time to read my comment

Page 1

===

7521744004.txt

To Whomever this may concern,

My comment is simple. Please do not allow selective speeds to be dictated by an internet service provider. Broadband access speeds should remain neutral across all parties. The public does not desire an internet filtered by modulated speeds, and a public vote would clearly not be in favor of what Comcast and Time Warner are proposing. As a democratic public office should be in service of the people, and not a limited set of corporations, I implore you to listen to and respect the wishes of the populous you serve. Thank you for your time.

Page 1

===

7521737902.txt

My position on this issue, like so many of the previous commenters, could not be

more straightforward and clear: The internet must always be completely neutral, with all data treated as equal. Anything less will lead to dangerous monopolies and will most certainly threaten our democracy. I vehemently condemn any attempt by the FCC or any other governmental body to reduce the neutrality of the internet or enable

ISPs to preferentially adjust the speed of data. Thank you very much for reading and I have faith that the FCC will make the right choice.

Page 1

===

7521737365.txt

The internet, hundreds of years from now, could be referred to in history textbooks as "The Great Social Leveller". I'm sure they'll find something more pleasing to say, but you get my point.

The internet is the great educator, the great connector, the physical social brain continually expanded and edited by people the world over. The information created and dispersed by the internet by now, in its infancy, is more information than ever before created by humans.

With the issue of Net Neutrality, we are deciding how the internet will continue to exist. If we let neutrality down the drain, all potential social benefits will go with it. It will be just another stepping stone for class warfare, another tool used to keep us unequal and unhappy.

I don't know if anyone is actually going to read any of these comments. I might just be shouting out into the void.

But if anyone does find themselves reading this, pass it along: my generation will never vote for the fuckers who let go of net neutrality. They'll have to take away our democratic rights in order to stay in power after that decision. And how will they ever justify continuing to be the world's police if they don't let their own people vote? Oh, the struggle.

Page 1

===

7521737245.txt

As a recording artist for the Smithsonian Institution, recording

America's old-time music, I feel compelled to comment to you on this merger between Comcast

Cable with

Time Warner Cable. This is going to be devastating to those of us who live in agricultural America. It's not bad enough that conglomerate television is so insanely bad, this merger will practically eliminate family television, and replace it with Arabian television. The Al Jazeera program is a direct assault on

America's

ideals, morals, and freedoms. They have replaced RFD-TV in two states already,

Colorado and New Mexico, by completely eliminating the programming we wish to watch.

How can you possibly allow this to happen? Do you still believe in the

'American

Dream?' If you do you are obviously a liar. Please do not allow this to happen. I only represent 3,500 members of our traditional music gatherings, but we are in total agreement, this merger should not take place.

Page 1

===

7521737204.txt

My name is Charles Baldwin, I have never done anything like this in my life. I feel compeled to comment on this merger due to the fact I am a farmer & r.f.d.t.v. is very important to me due to farm & market reports I depend on R.F.D.T.V. daily without there programing we will lose our rural heritage, which is going away daily in our country. I am only one voice however i feel without this programing I woud not be as sucsessful... Thank You Charles J. Baldwin

Page 1

===

7521737439.txt


Please accept the attached comment in support of net neutrality and an

Open

Internet.

I stand for net neutrality and ask you to stand with me.

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter,

Josh

Page 1

===

7521637449.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Milana Tomec and I live in GRANGER, IN.


A pay-to-play Internet worries me because ISPs WILL be the determiners of content on the internet, so they WILL control free speech.

The Internet is the only place where I (and everyone else) can access any lawful content to read. You claim there will be no abuses, but you're wrong.

There are already documented abuses: Verizon's censorship of NARAL; Telus' blocking of a labor group's website; Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent.

If ISPs can slow down or outright block whatever services they like, my freedom to choose everything from my email client to my online university will disappear.

So please reclassify the Internet as a telecommunications service and require

neutral treatment by ISPs.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,

Milana Tomec

Page 1

===

7521637336.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Amanda Mathew and I live in Nanuet, NY.



--------------- My Comment ----------------

This change will not benefit the general public in any way, but it will surely serve to limit and stratify the American people.

Forbes reports that, as of May 2014, Verizon Communications is worth

$197.74 billion and CTJ reports that Verizon paid no federal taxes in a study spanning from 2008 to

2012. I've read arguments for removing net neutrality which state that

ISP's could be innovating even more if they were given the 'money they deserve' from certain types of heavy traffic, but I just do not see how companies like Verizon could need any more money for innovation.

It is no secret that things like ending net neutrality sneak into bills with the powerful push of this same money. But taking away net neutrality could hurt so many people - what could be worth risking access to a platform where today's greatest human creativity and innovation happens? I am shocked that taking away net neutrality is even a consideration.

Please maintain net neutrality. For all the ways it may be messy at times, there are so many more ways in which it benefits us all. And those who stand to benefit from striking it down are those who already have too much power in our government, our economy, and our day to day lives.

Sincerely,

Amanda Mathew

Page 1

===

7521599654.txt

I am on the internet 10 hrs a day, commenting on political causes. These web sites will be drowned out with out net neutrality. That means reclassifying the internet to a common carrier, as it originally was. This will keep this great commerce

platform and job creating machine intact.

Page 1

===

7521598685.txt









As an IT professional and reader of numerous related professional journals I am stressing the need to keep the net neutral. Profits over neutrality causes an untenable situation.

Thank you for reading this comment.

Page 1

===

7521598240.txt

Net Neutrality is a vital part of free speech now in 2014 and in the future, and it is VITAL that we stop cuddling up to these massive cable corporations and keep the internet FREE. Seriously, if you have seen John Oliver's video, and read

ANYTHING on

NPR, The Wall Street Journal, and other national news sources, you know that this is

NOT what the American people or American companies (inc. Google, Netflix,

Kickstarter, etc.) want.

Please stop this proposal in its tracks! Why do you need more comments?

Send it to

the trash can - shred it and burn it! This proposal is not the will of the American people, but the will of a handful of large, greedy cable corporations.

STOP IT NOW!

Page 1

===

7521597216.txt

People can already pay their way to everything in this country. Our

Supreme Court has foolishly ruled that money is the same thing as speech, and that businesses have the right to speech/money in election campaigns. And now they can have religions.

Capitalism without restraints and regulations is basically mob rule, the crushing of the poor masses by a few wealthy individuals who can basically do as they life, as there seem to be few problems that cannot be solved through the generous application of funds.

So, FCC: Do you really want to make this problem worse?

I really don't want you to make this problem worse. Uphold Net

Neutrality.

Below is a fine comment pre-written by Free Press. It's pretty great too.

---









Page 1

===

7521597131.txt

Its very simple. Lets look at who supports having "net neutrality" and who doesn't.

The people who sued to overturn the rule: internet service providers-their comments suggesting afterwords that no one has sought to provide fast lane access yet is reason enough to believe they won't. Yeah, that sounds like the logical reasoning of a 2 yr old. And the people who do support net neutrality...internet companies, consumer rights groups, etc. Shouldn't be hard to figure out. I know the legal stuff is complicated, but its simple...the ISP's support ending net neutrality

(they filed the lawsuit) and the people do not. Who's side is the FCC on?

Page 1

===

7521597041.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Heather Hadley and I live in Bordentown, NJ.



Where can I search for a different perspective than the American medias?

The

Internet. Where can I research crafts, trips and financial investments?

The

Internet. Where can I keep in touch with friends, family and co-workers; sharing comments, pictures and plans? The Internet. What links the people of the world as it constantly expands? The Internet. Ending Net Neutrality will eventually lead to big brother not only favoring bigger sites and companies that can pay more to be more

"user friendly" but to Internet users jumping through hoops to find what they are looking for or want to do if it falls outside of the popular, rich circle. This would destroy the wild range of diversity on the Internet, where practically everything is possible. You will know what they want you too, see what they want you to see, unless extreme effort is made on the end of the user or smaller site. So say

NO to the ending of Net Neutrality.

Sincerely,

Heather Hadley

Page 1

===

7521595877.txt

Dear Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners,

I fully support and echo Senator Franken's comment of 15 July 2014 (which he requested be submitted to the docket for this proceeding). To quote briefly:

"I urge the FCC to adopt strong net neutrality rules that protect consumers and preserve the open nature of the Internet... I request that the FCC adopt rules that

(1) clear and comprehensively ban paid prioritization; (2) provide robust protections for mobile broadband; and (3) are based on reclassified Title

II legal authority."

It simply isn't right that others should have direct but arbitrarily selective influence over the degree of functionality of such a fundamental communications tool. "The web site for the local hardware store [should be able to load] as quickly as that belonging to a national chain." [ibid]

Sincerely,

- Doug Viner

Page 1

===

7521595797.txt

I support Net Neutrality and I do not want the current system of equal access to be changed. That would be an abomination and an assault on citizens' basic freedom of expression. Thank you for inviting my comment.

Anne Burns

Page 1

===

7521595522.txt

I am writing to join the chorus of reasonable Americans urging the FCC to protect

Net-Neutrality. This should be an easy one, right? Are there really any citizens leaving comments to you that are supporting efforts to permit our cable-conglomerates to control everything we see and here (and how much more we will be made to pay for it)?

Besides those that will profit financially from such an unregulated industry, the rest of us will surely suffer. The public will, but also developing internet companies will wither under the competition from oversized internet business that will already have the money to ensure their internet access is speedy and dependable.

I'm sure I needn't say more - you all at the FCC are intelligent and informed individuals and you know exactly what's going on here. You know, from the overwhelming response of the American public, that we expect the FCC to be looking forward toward the future. One that continues to permit the internet to grow - and not one that is simply owned and operated by a few companies for only their own profit.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this citizen's opinion.

Page 1

===

7521595441.txt










Page 1

===

7521595441.txt





It also causes tremendous economic harm. If ISPs can speed up favored services and

slow others, new businesses will no longer be able to rely on a level playing field.





Page 1

===

7521594916.txt

Net Neutrality is important to me as a vote and a consumer. It's bad enough that there are severely limited isp choices. Allowing speed regulations for traffic will only make things worse. Please do NOT allow ISPs to push around their captive customers.

See the boiler plate comment below for more info.









Page 1

===

7521594704.txt

The Internet should be neutral- no fast lanes, no ISP throttling, no preferred customers. Everything I would use to argue this point has been stated already in the

700,000 other comments that have been posted so I'll leave it at that.

Page 1

===

7521594291.txt

Before I give you the stock comment, which I wholeheartedly endorse, allow me to say a few words about capitalism. Most of the time, we consider capitalism from the perspective of those provided goods and services. But capitalism isn't just about selling, it's about deciding where to buy. I like to buy local, I like to buy independent, and I like to know that I have a choice about where my money and energy go because I am free and living in a capitalist society. But capitalism in early

America required roads and phone lines and public shipping lanes maintained by the government. The US highway system is not owned by several different companies who direct traffic toward various businesses that provide them a premium fee, and neither should broadband, which allows me to support individuals and businesses both domestically and globally. To allow any private interest to control my access to or ability to use that service is on the same level as handing over control of the US highway system to McDonald's and allowing them to route every major, well-maintained road through one of their drive-through windows, and perhaps keeping me from accessing services provided by KFC, P.F. Chang's or my local Ethiopian cafe.

On to the stock comment.




Without net neutrality, a bad situation gets even worse. These ISPs will now be able

to manipulate our Internet experience by speeding up some services and slowing down others. That kills choice, diversity, and quality.





Page 1

===

7521593282.txt

In regards to the 3 questions that the commission is requesting comment on, please allow me to say that:

1. Yes, there should be an outright ban on so called "fast lanes". Simply put, it's not fair for internet content providers (which only deliver content the last mile to the customer) to be able to collect fees for a system that they didn't build. The only reason the cable companies have to charge more is to increase their profits. Allowing providers to decide which content get delivered the fastest, or at all, will never contribute to an open internet.

2. Yes, broadband access should be re-classified as a common carrier.

Yes, there may be a legal battle with the ISP's over this issue, but this battle is better fought now. Additionally, the letter from the NCTA outlining how the re-classification is "concerning" provides not examples how carriers might be harmed nor does it attempt to speculate what those might be. Simply put, the carriers are worried that they wont be able to extract more money from content providers.

3. Yes, the new open internet provisions should also cover wireless broadband.

More and more, customers are ditching computers and laptops in favor of phones and tablets with mobile broadband access from their phone carriers. As higher speeds become more and more available to more parts of the country, not applying the open internet rules to these devices will allow carriers to extract the same payments

against mobile content providers.

Page 1

===

7521593282.txt

In regards to the 3 questions that the commission is requesting comment on, please allow me to say that:

1. Yes, there should be an outright ban on so called "fast lanes". Simply put, it's not fair for internet content providers (which only deliver content the last mile to the customer) to be able to collect fees for a system that they didn't build. The only reason the cable companies have to charge more is to increase their profits. Allowing providers to decide which content get delivered the fastest, or at all, will never contribute to an open internet.

2. Yes, broadband access should be re-classified as a common carrier.

Yes, there may be a legal battle with the ISP's over this issue, but this battle is better fought now. Additionally, the letter from the NCTA outlining how the re-classification is "concerning" provides not examples how carriers might be harmed nor does it attempt to speculate what those might be. Simply put, the carriers are worried that they wont be able to extract more money from content providers.

3. Yes, the new open internet provisions should also cover wireless broadband.

More and more, customers are ditching computers and laptops in favor of phones and tablets with mobile broadband access from their phone carriers. As higher speeds become more and more available to more parts of the country, not applying the open internet rules to these devices will allow carriers to extract the same payments against mobile content providers.

Page 1

===

7521592663.txt

I am commenting again because I understand that many of the comments may have been lost.

We need to keep the net free from corporate control. The net must remain neutral, the future of the freedom of speech, and therefor democracy, depends on it.

Page 1

===

7521737473.txt i have been watching rftv for a long time and would llike to see it continue . first off i have been trating drinking water for over 35 years and the public health is very important to me . When i watch rftv i pay close attention to the new and improved fertizers that are be applied to our farm lands that i might add are close

o some of our well fields her in floridayou might ask way it that important to know ell its very much important to know becuase anything that is placed on top of the ground makes it to the water supply . this show is a very much needed educational show for even old timers like me that learn every day there are 1,000 of other thing that i learn from the show that i could mention but i wont watch it and you will see. if my cable company does not offer it anymore rest asure i will cancle it and find the company that does thank you for allowing me to comment

Page 1

===

7521737691.txt

Dear Mr. Chairman, you've no doubt seen this comment numerous times.

Political failure is exactly what we're facing here.








ISPs are opposing Title II so that they can destroy the FCC's net neutrality rules in court. This is the same trick they pulled last time. Please, let's not be fooled

.

Thank you for taking my comment.

LbL

Page 1

===

7521737683.txt


Internet

service providers to charge for preferential treatment. These rules would destroy


Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521737625.txt

If companies like Time Warner are allowed to discrinimate data allocation, effectively ending the chance of ever having an open internet, I will lose all hope at ever being an proud American.

This comment is directed towards you as an American federal government agency with the intention of serving the interest of the citizens you are being paid by.

I am a young adult. I'm twenty two years old and want to become a teacher to serve my country by helping our children. Over the course of my lifetime I've seen my opinion and pride in America deteriorate steadily, being subjected to one disappointment after the other. I've seen my people elect one incompetent goof after the other, I've seen shady foreign affairs and I've seen my government serve a corporate title more than it's most deserving citizens.

If this goes through, and I'm not even allowed to have an open internet where corporate monopolies are currently unable to exist, then that's it-- I'm done. I'm leaving. I've been on the fence for a while now, but I'll be on the outside of it if this goes through. I will lose any and all pride in my citizenship and lose all desire to continue living here. I'll change my plan to teach abroad, and give my services to a more deserving country that isn't falling apart from the inside.

I wholeheartedly disapprove of Time Warner and Comcast's plans. Any

American who knows what those two companies are trying to do would say the same thing, and it looks like you've got thousands of them commenting here telling you so.

Do not let this go through. Stop them. Stop them from having a hand in ruining this country.

Page 1

===

7521737189.txt

I am commenting in regard to rfd- TV please keep rural Americas # 1 tv station in your programming. Rfd is committed to keeping rural Americans up to date with all news and honoring Americans and their traditions and history. Let's not lose touch with America, by keeping rural America alive. Thank you

Page 1

===

7521737188.txt

I am commenting on the issue of Rfd-TV staying on your programming.

Rfd is very integral for rural America. Their programming is devoted to all

Americans bringing news and honoring American traditions. Let's keep rural America alive through this station. Thank you

Page 1

===

7521737158.txt

The fact that you are so deep in the cable company's pockets that you can hug their boners makes any reasonable comment I'd make on the importance of net neutrality futile.

8==D-- FCC

Page 1

===

7521592350.txt









(I was going to add some comments of my own, but the document already says everything that needs to be said. Destroying net neutrality might be good for few select, well established, very wealthy businesses, but would screw the american

people in a big way-)

Page 1

===

7521592307.txt









P.S.

Aside from the recommended comment provided to me above (Which I, Jose W.

Santiago fully agree with), I believe this whole debate is a farce in and of itself. A lot of people have a lot to gain from a corporate monopoly on web traffic, and zero percent of them are consumers.

Now, I could write on what amounts to an eloquent rant about trickle-down economics, how it doesn't work and just be another voice to be ignored in the whole

"liberal vs conservative" crowd, but I think I'll just end this by humbly pleading you, the FCC, to do the right thing. There are already enough sources of media trying to influence my opinion. At least one of those sources needs to be purely unbiased, and I believe the internet has worked excellently towards that end so far.

Regards,

Jose William Santiago

Page 1

===

7521591766.txt

It doesn't matter what the people want, what their comments are, or what is actually good for the people. The DC crime syndicate will restrict and censor the internet so they may continue their crimes against humanity unabated. They will push their internet control with their usual lies of safety and security. The truth is their greatest enemy. The FCC is just another pathetic bought & sold agency, staffed with whores owned by mega conglomerates, the banking cartel, and daddy Israel.

Page 1

===

7521591750.txt

Dear FCC,

Please work to preserve Net Neutrality for the greater good of the US citizenry and the US economy as a whole. Businesses should never be forced to pay broadband internet providers for faster content delivery for the services they provide to their customers over the internet.

The recent corporate agreement between Comcast and Netflix in which

Netflix was compelled to pay millions specifically to Comcast in order to get their streaming service to the paying customers of both Netflix and Comcast should serve as an example of things-to-come, if Net Neutrality is not preserved. Internet providers should also not be permitted to intentionally slow down the content delivery speed of other companies for any reason, even if they may be offering competing products or services to the marketplace.

The internet should also be deemed a public utility, since the Federal subsidies that were used to help create it were ultimately payed for by US taxpayers. Having a free and fair internet allows small and large businesses to compete with each other on the internet fairly; thus providing a net benefit for the US economy by ensuring the American core value of free-market competition can prevail on the internet itself.

Thank you for taking my comments.

Best regards,

Paul Fuller

Page 1

===

7521591701.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Jacque Coleman and I live in Hoston, TX.

Net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data that travels over their networks equally, is important to me because without it

users may have fewer options and a less diverse Internet.


I love the internet the way it is. i upload videos to my lets play channel 3 time a week. I love working on my channel, it brings me joy to sit and edit videos for hours. I love seeing what people think of my videos and reading comments and getting advice so that I can make better video in the future. I don't even watch

TV anymore because it doesn't have what i like, not every body likes the same thing and i can't get what i like from television. the internet is the only place that i can go to enjoy myself and if that's taken away if my lets play channel is taken away then i have nothing, My life just becomes working in a cubical all day then coming home to go to sleep just to wake up and do the same thing the next day. what i'm saying is, the internet is more than just entertainment, it gives me purpose and happiness and with out that i have nothing but my cubical.

Sincerely,

Jacque Coleman

Page 1

===

7521591588.txt

Net neutrality is something that cannot be breached. For the sake of growth and development of small businesses, which your plan will hinder, you must not pass this bill. The fact that the former commissioner is now a lobbyist makes for obvious connections between the decisions you make and the interests of the corporate internet services world. All we ask is that you do your job-do what is in the best interests of the American people. Keep what integrity you have left and do what the people want-which in case you forgot is the purpose of a democracy.

Putting this plan into execution will be a very obvious and direct violation of the needs and wants of the majority of the American people. Your website crashed from so many comments against your plans-there needn't be further discussions, this plan needs to be put down. The people of the United States pay your salary for you to operate within our best interests. Remember that.

Page 1

===

7521591497.txt

I have been an Attorney for 39 years, the last 35 of them dealing with technology law. I have represented numerous telecom and data-communication equipment and

software suppliers, as well as companies who purchased many millions of dollars of data communication equipment services and equipment. I have represented such diverse companies as Digital Equipment Corporation, Raytheon, Proteon, Lucent,

Ascend,

Morgan Stanley/Dean Whitter, Cascade Communications, Sycamore Networks, and numerous other smaller players in the data communication industry and spent probably 5 years of my life sitting across the table from telecom service providers. In short, I have a wealth of experience and exposure. The following opinion is my own, personal view and not necessarily those of any of my former or present clients.

Without repeating excellent arguments made by others even more experienced, certainly smarter and likely even creakier than I, I would like to state that, whatever the circumstances were some years ago, there is no credible argument today that the providing of internet service, across the board, is not a public utility and that the effective remedies first imposed on the railroads to protect national commerce, critical competition, and the general economic welfare of our nation remain applicable, unarguably valuable and necessary with regard to internet connectivity and service. A failure by the FCC to maintain and strengthen net neutrality, in my not particularly humble opinion, will have serious and far reaching economic and social consequences akin and analogous to those undeniably pernicious effects of the infamous 1896 Supreme Court Plessey v. Ferguson decision.

I would be please to expand on this comment if requested.

Page 1

===

7521590620.txt

I would like to comment regarding Net Neutrality. I believe the internet should be free of discriminations made by Internet Service Providers, and that there should

NOT be fast lanes or throttled internet. Lastly, I believe that keeping the internet open will help continue to drive innovation and help keep us prepared for the quickly changing technologies of today and tomorrow.

Thank you for reading.

Signed,

Gregory D. Marsh

Page 1

===

7521736985.txt

Comment

Please keep rural tv-Rfd TV available for viewers! I live in the city now, but I grew up on a farm in northeast Missouri. I find it difficult to understand how any

group of our population can be overlooked or dismissed...in fact discriminated against. Yet, this is the issue here! My parents still farm, and two of my brothers also farm. They rely on RFDTV for farm news and they also enjoy the rest of the programming on the channel. If you eliminate rural tv, you are discriminating against not only rural viewers, but also you are alienating anyone with ties to the rural community, like myself. I enjoy watching RFDTV, and I would like to continue to be able to watch it in the future. My family relies on RFDTV for agricultural and livestock news and reports as well as entertainment, and removing the programming would hurt them dramatically. Do not discriminate against rural America.

Every

American relies on the rural community. Keep rural programming alive and well!

Page 1

===

7521736969.txt

I sincerely hope that RFDTV will be assigned a channel if the merger of

ATT and

DirectTV becomes a reality.

RFDTV is a valuable asset because they help people who need and like information about rural issues, horses and agriculture. Their programs are wholesome and informative. Thanks for the chance to comment.

Page 1

===

7521736923.txt

My personal comments on the Merger of Comcast and Time Warner is that it's bad for not only Rural America But Urban America as well. It's clear to me that these two companies want to control what all of Americans are able to view on TV.

Also if the merger is granted There will be no end to where the price increases will go. The

Quality of programming on TV has suffered greatly in the past 10-20 years. If these mergers pass, I probably will be more of a fan of Radio again.

RFD TV is one of a few networks that actually have enjoyable programming.

I watch this network everyday. I ask you to please take my comments in consideration and do

NOT allow this merger. Thank You.

Page 1

===

7521736899.txt

Thank you for taking these comments.

Even without the risk to RFD TV, I AM AGAINST LESSENING THE NUMBER OF

MAJOR PLAYERS

IN OUR MEDIA OUTPUT IN THE U.S.!

It is tremendously disturbing to know that Com Cast officials said that because it is mainly an urban media outlet, that was reason enough to replace highranking RFD

TV in New Mexico, a distinctly non-urban state, with Al Jazeera and BBC.

That type of attitude will only get worse with a merger.

Please prevent the merger. America needs diverse outlets, not a few mega outlets.

Page 1

===

7521736482.txt

Hello, there, you silly, silly worms. I am here to tell you that this entire net neutrality situation is bullshit. Everything about it is bullshit. Your actions on it- bullshit. The telecoms' actions on it- bullshit. The activist groups'

"attempts" to sway you in the other direction- bullshit. The conditioned sheep that see these comments as a way of fixing this whole problem- BULLSHIT! Take your efforts towards fabricated dichotomy and shove them up your ugly ass, because I am on to your attempts at fear-mongering and artificial conflict for the intent of controlling the human race. Humanity is becoming aware of your efforts to be our rulers, and it is only a matter of time before your ways of treating us like lab rats are utterly undermined. YOU PEOPLE ARE NOTHING. Your rich friends are also nothing.

Once we all remove the disguises that symbolize you all as people with power you are all nothing more than common household pests. The sleeping sheep will wake up soon enough to join me and many others in throwing you all over. Every government currently established will tremble in our wake. Your manufactured differences will be completely eradicated and humanity will end up being what it should have been to begin with, free-minded, content, and not living in fear of a fascist regime that seeks to have everyone behave a certain way for its personal gain, pleasure and amusement. The late Christopher Hitchens stated that: "One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority." With that I laugh at you people and dismiss your threats of destroying the internet as empty, childish, misinformed, misarchitected, and simply silly. YOU DO NOT OWN ME AND YOU

NEVER WILL.

NO ONE WILL. Good day to you, sir or madam.

Page 1

===

7521736459.txt

I have 2 comments.

#1. To do away with Net Neutrality would be horrible, net neutrality was what the internet was founded upon. Doing away with net neutrality it is only a money grab by the Internet service providers. When is enough enough,

Comcast: quarterly profit 2billion

Time warner: First-Quarter Highlights ? Company posted Revenues of $7.5 billion,

Adjusted Operating Income of $1.5 billion, Adjusted EPS of $0.91 and Free

Cash Flow of $1.7 billion

Verizon: $4.34 billion in profit

Cox: $1.2 billion in revenue as of the third?quarter?of 2013.

THIS IS SERIOUSLY A HORRIBLE IDEA!

---------------------------------

#2. The appointment of Tom Wheeler as Chairman of the U.S. Federal

Communications

Commission smacks all U.S. Citizens in the face. This is another bad idea, because he will not look out for the people of the United States, he will only look out for the cable companies.

This is a horrible appointment and President Obama should be ashamed.

DOING AWAY WITH NET NEUTRALITY IS HORRIBLE.

KEEPING NET NEUTRALITY IS GOOD.

Page 1

===

7521590250.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Sarah Stover and I live in Lima, OH.



I kept a blog during the first eight years of my parenting experience that grew from just a few readers to a few hundred- nothing at all by corporate standards of course, but huge to ME, and there were days when those comments and affirmations kept me afloat as a new stay at home mom trying to figure things out. I don't think small, non-monetized blogs would ever gain readership in a pay-to-play internet situation.

Sincerely,

Sarah Stover

Page 1

===

7521643848.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Gregg Miller and I live in Herndon, VA.

Net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data that travels over their networks equally, is important to me because without it

Those with the deepest pockets will be in charge of the greatest form of communication humans have ever possessed.


The internet is quite possibly the only place left where everyone has an equal voice. I know the first thought may be, "Well, we still have a voice when we vote!," but the truth is the popular vote , the single human voice, is nonexistent in modern politics.

And you'll notice: No one was asked to give a popular vote on this issue- only comment - and it affects EVERYONE.

I wonder if ten years from now I'll be able to afford to even comment on the internet.

Sincerely,

Gregg Miller

Page 1

===

7521643842.txt

I am in the rare position of being an economist who studies antitrust issues while at the same time being subject to a complete monopoly by Comcast. My comments are motivated by the obvious anticompetitive behavior of the telecom companies, the regulatory capture the exert, and exceedingly high prices paid by american consumers.

I firmly believe that the DoJ ought to never have allowed the degree of market concentration allowed in this industry. Given the companies' past behavior, it is exceedingly naive to believe that allowing for discriminatory pricing would not be used to extract rents that ultimately will fall on consumers.

Page 1

===

7521642644.txt

I want to leave a comment to voice my strong objection to any efforts to weaken or do away with net neutrality.

I do not want ISPs to have the right and/or authority to prioritize websites or otherwise control how I use the internet.

I do not want Internet services to follow the path of cable television, with "access packages" or tier pricing plans.

For every comment like mine there are hundreds of people who feel the same but have not commented.

Please do not allow net neutrality to be destroyed.

Page 1

===

7521640544.txt


Net Neutrality is the concern of every person in not only the United

States, but for the infastructure of the entire world. Billions of people around the world are now connected via the global internet. It allows human beings to connect and share their

cultures and communications in new and fantastic ways. This new age of the internet is one of unrivaled connectivity, which has been the bedrock of independent businesses, social activism, and global political input. If only the richest and most powerful corporations are allowed to dictate the speed of the internet's content and even potentially shut down entire sites that they do not find appealing, the amount of damage that could be wreaked on this new global age of togetherness could be lethal. Only the powerful few will be able to determine what is seen and when and why and with what strings attatched. There can only be devestation as a result of such partisan and singularly-allocated power. ISPs may suggest that the potentially slower speeds that Net Neutrality laws would enforce upon them would be harmful towards potential investments in internet infastructure, but such qualms are surface and transitory compared to the utter calamity that could befall the internet's integrity and the activisits, small businesses, and scholars that use it as a medium for expression and unity.

To summarize, I can only implore you to consider that these thousands of comments rushing into your website are not just made of air- they are the words of a great speech being woven by teh people of the world. If so many people are impassionated about the issue then there is truly no choice in the matter. People matter more than money ever will and if the people are speaking so loudly, however loudly corporate money and greed may speak, we as people are all louder. It is much easier to through money at a problem to bring it down- it is much harder to turn millions into a unified force for justice against a problem. We are all taking a stand and we are all imploring you to remember that it is by our willpower and our passion that we write to you. We are not using blank checks to solve this issue and are we eager to think that the FCC will see the light in this matter and realize that all of us speaking out will drown out the flood of corporate money.

With regards and hope for the future,

Michael

Page 1

===

7521640341.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Zac Paladino and I live in Lakewood, OH.

Net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data that travels over their networks equally, is important to me because without it ISPs

could have too much power to determine my Internet experience by providing better access to some services but not others.


The Internet is important to me because I need to know that there will not be barriers to entry for the new ideas and services that I hope to bring to the marketplace. If ISP subscribers have an easier time loading websites of existing companies than my new innovative product, there?s no way that I will be able to compete or succeed. Can you imagine a place where the internet is not free and open?

Where ideas cannot be shared without a price tag associated with them, and opinions can not be heard and commented on? That is what this will do, oppress the few for the gain of corporate greed. If you cannot see this, you are not fit to make decisions for the good of the people let alone humankind.

Sincerely,

Zac Paladino

Page 1

===

7521589949.txt

I really don't get why you want to utterly destroy one of the greatest marvel's of the 20th Century. It is an invention such as the internet that is making humanity progress at a faster rate. It has and will contribute to our very survival by making knowledge all that more accessible.

But maybe that is what scares you. Making "people" too smart. Well you're too late. The spreading of ideas catches like wildfire now, and frankly, commenting on an issue such as this, I couldn't help but add fuel to the fire.

Page 1

===

7521589987.txt

These comments are in response to proceeding #14-28.

Free speech should not be bought and sold. The proposal to grant ISPs the right to charge for 'fast lanes' threatens this celebrated American principle. The company that connects us to the internet should not get to manipulate or control what we do on the internet. As an owner of a website business getting rid of net neutrality would cripple my company, especially if "fast lanes" were created.

Reclassify the Internet as a telecommunications service to obligate ISPs to deliver all data on the Internet without discrimination. Please do the right thing: let corporations know that the Internet is not for sale to the highest bidder.

Thank you for preserving a free and open Internet.

Page 1

===

7521589824.txt

I hope this is just one of millions of comments you're receiving. This issue is so important for a number of reasons. Net neutrality is the First Amendment of the

Internet, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data equally. As an Internet user, net neutrality is vitally important to me.

The FCC should use its Title II authority to protect it.







Page 1

===

7521589345.txt

I write to comment about net neutrality.

As a librarian, I am a firm believer in open access to all information for all people. An open internet is a critical requirement for this open access.

By allowing the major ISPs the ability to prioritize internet traffic by who pays how much, you jepordize or eliminate a huge amount of information from the reaching the end users.

Do not end net neutrality!

John Sandstrom

Page 1

===

7521589320.txt

The net neutrality issue that is currently before the FCC is a tremendously

important step in securing American access to the internet in the manner most aligned with our deeply held sense of freedom. The internet's power as a tool for navigating almost every concievable aspect of life in the 21st century has hard to overstate. While some of the dialogue surrounding the issue betrays that some seem to think the conversation is about minor capabilities such as, say, the speed at which people can stream Netflix, the scope of the conversation before has the power to set a preceent which will impact our ability to preserve our collective access to the internet in the most free and prosperous way possible.

While the system of accessing the internet via subscriptions to service providers such as Comcast may give the appearance of a luxury service defined by a free market which we are welcome to avoid should we so choose, this view is, at best, anachronistic and out of touch with the role the internet plays in today's world.

Opting out of the internet is increasingly analagous to opting out of electricity or running water. It's simply impossible for many individuals and businesses in a cultural environment that demands a digital presence. Even now, it would be unimaginable to promote a small business or apply for a job without an email address, website, or access to all sorts of data management services.

For the sake of the coming generations, whose lives will increasingly demand a fluency in the digital languages of the world, I implore you to use this moment to cast our vision of the internet in the model of a utility that can be shared equally by all, rather than allowing such a critical aspect of modern life to be directly controlled by anyone, particularly those who have corporate interests, rather than public utility, at heart.

Thank you for your consideration of this comment in addressing this vital issue.

Dave Alie, Ph.D.

Page 1

===

7521589309.txt

While this comment is canned, I agree with everything in it. -Kira









Page 1

===

7521589257.txt

Good day,

My comment on proceeding number 14-28 (open internet) is quite simple.

Please keep access in a non tiered system where it is free and open to all users regardless of their political and financial clout. The internet is the last bastion of free open information in our media consolidated world. The rule for an open internet is simple - TREAT THE INTERNET AS A COMMON CARRIER - period end of sentence.

Regards,

A concerned citizen for free and open society

Page 1

===

7521589202.txt

While this comment is canned, I agree with everything in it. -Kira









Page 1

===

7521588723.txt

Net neutrality is absolutely essential. If we create two tiers of service we once again widen the divide between the haves and the have lesses. The voices of everyone must be heard and the internet allows that to happen. Can we really trust cable and phone companies to ignore the opportunity to reap higher profits? James

Cicconi claims that price-gouging tactics were 'hypotheticals' but history proves otherwise.

Knowing that Tom Wheeler is a past lobbyist heightens my fears. In the

New York

Times on the day I read about the comments sent to the FCC on this issue,

I read of private health care providers in New York denying services to the most frail

Medicaid patients now that these services have been privatized; I read of the extraordinary salary and new position carved out for a retiring hospital

CEO; I read of the difficulty motivating corporations to 'do good' and I read of the

FCC's impending plans to write new rules for the Internet. The internet is the individual's Right to Free Speech and the speed and cost of doing that should be available at the same cost to everyone or it is only the voice of the wealthy. Never trust corporations to do the right thing except make profits for themselves.

Page 1

===

7521588698.txt

I comment in support of net neutrality and a free and open internet. The current proposal threatens that, with ISPs becoming the middlemen of the

Internet, with the potential to radically affect growth and business for tech in the future.

This

stifles innovation, and hurts consumers most of all.

Page 1

===

7521586881.txt

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I-ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I-ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills.

I am trained in gorilla warfare and I-m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the

Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You-re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that-s just with my bare hands. Not only am

I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little -clever- comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldnt, you didn-t, and now you-re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You-re fucking dead, kiddo.

Page 1

===

7521736806.txt

Thank you for taking my comment, my family and I are not in favor of removing a program like RFD TV from our viewing area they have provided advice to the farming community and entertainment as well. In addition none of the companies like Comcast should ever have that kind of authority as they are not a governing body.

Thank you

Page 1

===

7521736772.txt

RFD-TV is very important to all of America not just the rural portion of the US.

They bring attention to the plight of farmers and where their food comes from. The programs that RFD has brought to the airwaves would not have been available had

Patrick had not taken a chance years ago and brought to the air.

Please protect this channel from getting lost in the merger hype. Every

Saturday and

Sunday night I can sit down with my family and watch TV shows that are family friendly. I do not have to be concerned that my granddaughter will be exposed to bad language, "adult" programming or commercials.

This idea that there is no room or bandwidth available is a sham excuse.

These carriers have no problem adding shopping channels, sports channels or pay per view pornography at the drop of a hat. Why do they add channels that are based in foreign countries at the expense of rural America programming?

RFD-TV is an example of living the American dream. One man's dream was turned into a successful company and now these big conglomerates want to take that company and push it to the side. You would think that with 18,000 comments in support of just 1 channel these companies would want to tap into that passion instead of throwing them away. None of their so called "urban focus" programming, which is what they are focusing all their energy on, is even bothering to comment.

Page 1

===

7521736582.txt

This is my second comment, but on a different subject related to the continued provision of RFDTV on Time-Warner Cable, my provider. Earlier, I said that, although

I live in the DFW Metroplex, I really enjoy much of the rurally-oriented programming available only on RFDTV.

But there is other programming on RFDTV that I would be lost without.

Some for example, is what you would call "religious" and I call Christian programming that just is not available anywhere else. Then there is "Judy Byrd's Kitchen" and "Quilt in a Day." I am a quilter, and there is no other quilting program on television. And

I could go on.

I am at home all the time, and depend a great deal on my television viewing.

I REALLY don't want to lose RFDTV for many reasons!

Page 1

===

752173~4.TXT

My wife and two teenagers live in an urban area of South Alabama. We have

At@t

U-verse. We starting watching FamilyNet/Rural TV channel 566 a couple of years ago.

I enjoy the Rural Evening News and the Agriculture reports. My wife loves horses and enjoys all the Horse Shows and Rodeos. My teenagers enjoy the music shows. We have learned so much about the Rural life style as a result of this channel.

This is an

education channel as well as an entertainment channel. We recently bought a small ranch in a very rural area of Wyoming. We have so much to learn. We plan to get our own livestock someday. This is the only channel I know of, that my family can watch and learn about ranching and farming. I hope you will consider keeping this RFD TV channel. Thanks for allowing me to comment.

Page 1

===

7521736475.txt

14-57 comment

From: dan perkins

106 w. earlene cv.

cabot, ar 72023

perk_dp@yahoo.com

I hate to get the government involved in protecting what should really be a supply and demand business decision. However, it seems there is no choice but do request it to protect important programming to Rural america. Since television converted to digital in the 90's Rural television viewers have pretty much been forced to rely on Satellite rather than local broadcasting. Even then local broadcasting would likely not provide the programming that Rural and RFD TV provides.

So, I hope the FCC can stipulate in these mergers and possibly future broadcast license renewals that ALL Satellite, Cable and Broadband television providers are required to include Rural and RFD programming as part of their basic service package.

This could possibly be done by using some Ala-Cart method where a basic package is offered then a choice of Rural, instead of Al Jezera or MTV or ??? ... At no additional cost.

I pay substantial $ per month for satellite television to watch 4 channels +/-...

RFD/Rural, History, Classic Movies, Outdoor (plus local channels because living in hills i have no reception for local digital channels).

Its time for the FCC to pay back the rural and suburban television viewers for the digital television broadcast rip off.

Page 1

===

7521736413.txt

Sirs:

It is with great sorrow that we find ourselves having to write comments of this type to keep RFD TV on the air. RFD TV is really Americana with some of the finest programming available today. Please do not give consent to assign or transfer control licenses and applications.

Sincerely Jack & Carol Byrnes

Billings, Montana

Page 1

===

7521736353.txt

If you go forward with any such legislation allowing for the corporate determination of internet speeds you will be operating in direct opposition of the

American people. Please remember that the federal government is suppose to serve its people not corporations. These actions will undermine America at its core.

Please don't go forward with this. Listen to the people not the lobbyists! Additionally,

Tom Wheeler can in no way make impartial decisions, so it looks as if these comments will probably go unheeded!

Page 1

===

7521736333.txt

Dear screener or whoever is forced to read this,

I know that this single comment has little to no value, and even the massive quantities of comments that flow from the public won't matter much. Any effect will be done by the longer messages sent by those with more time and knowledge than me.

What I do have time for is knowing that this massive outcry from the normally passive public deserves more attention than being dumped into the trash.

Net neutrality is how the net evolved and changing it will harm smaller sites, and starting companies. Also, it will only add to the power of larger companies.

Please do what you can to make sure equality is maintained on the internet. Your choices matter, myself and so many others can only voice our small opinions, you are the one who can make others listen.

Page 1

===

7521736332.txt

I personally can't say that I know very much about the issue of net neutrality, however, what I do know scares me. I realize that it is your job to read through hundreds, if not thousands, of comments so I will do my best to keep this brief. I ask you, directly, which course of action will best benefit this nation of ours?

Which direction will lead up to the greener pastier? We are at a crossroads and you are part of the group that will pick the direction we move towards.

Whatever choice you help decide, the consequences are murky and won't have full effect for years (or decades) into the future. But it doesn't change the fact that each choice signifies a direction that we, as a nation are moving (or being moved) towards. And you are a part of that guiding force. Make you choice count.

Page 1

===

7521736322.txt

There is no need for me to go into detail why I'm commenting. Take your head out of your ass and acting like a fucking democracy. It's abundantly clear what

American's want. You'll likely listen to corporate pigs who stuff your pockets with cigars and pocket change (because you're greedy and don't care about anyone but yourself).

However, if, for some odd reason, you aren't stuck in your little rich bubble and have any sort of consideration for the rest of humanity that has to live with your bull-shit decisions, shut these corporate monsters up.

You can take away democracy, and many people (maybe most) will be apothetic. Take away our open and neutral internet, and you will truly understand the extent of rebelian. This isn't a threat. It is a warning.

Page 1

===

7521736297.txt

The purpose of my comment is to indicate our need to maintain independent stations for the public. Specifically I am referring to RFD Television but my concern would pertain to other independents as well. They provide a service to the public and need to be protected. Should the merger be approved it should include a provision for independent protection.

Thank you.

Page 1

===

7521736190.txt

Honestly, I doubt my comments will make the least little bit of difference, especially considering the provenance of the latest FCC Chairman, but I would like to add my voice to those clamouring to preserve net neutrality. If for no other reason, I am in favor of net neutrality because all those giant, monopolistic cable companies are seeking to end it.

Page 1

===

7521736174.txt

I want to make public and complain that the California Los Angeles based radio station, KNX AM 1070 radio station, had been broadcasting things while they track me. KNX AM 1070 radio station do that as a revenge since I emailed them approximately two years ago and at that time when I emailed them, I complained in the email that I'm no happy that they broadcast things while at the same time that they track me. Then, after exchanged a couple of emails, KNX AM 1070 emailed me saying that they will not respond to my emails anymore. I had complained to FCC just too many times that KNX AM 1070 broadcast things while they track me.

Well, if KNX

AM 1070 emailed me and said I cannot email and complain this issue to them any more and FCC did not do anything about it either, then what you want me to do?

That's why

I'm making this public comment making it public that KNX AM 1070 radio station had been broadcast things while they track me and this is very frustrating.

What I want to major complain about is KNX AM 1070 keep broadcasting things using tones to talk about me because they keep using tones to talk about me while they track me, track my location. Then, KNX AM 1070 do that more intensely almost like abusing me revenging me eversince after I emailed and complained to them approximately two years ago letting them be aware that they keep broadcast things using tones while at the same time that they track me. KNX do that as a revenge eversince my email to them approximately two years ago because they do that to me as a revenge and it's like they're almost abusing me. That's what I want to make aware and public about.

Page 1

===

7521736160.txt

Net neutrality must be preserved. Preserve competition in the marketplace. This issue matters immensely. It's hard for a comment to sway an opinion when you have millions of lobbying dollars going the other way. I ask that whoever is to make this decision; Do the right thing.

Page 1

===

7521736100.txt

I am concerned about Comcast's comment that they are an urban channel and cancelled

RFDTV in Colorado and N.M and replaced it with the likes of Al Jazerra.

RFDTV is one of the few decent family channels. We appreciate Mr. Patrick Gottsch for bringing to light the possible hazard of this merger. RFDTV not only has good family programming but good information as well.

Thank You,

Susanna

Page 1

===

7521736078.txt

RFD TV is very important to me and my family. It has the type of programming that I like. I grew up in rural north Georgia and this is the type of programming i grew up with.

This comment is to urge Comcast to continue offering RFDTV after the merger. Please consider that there is a lot of rural viewer in the country and they would be loyal customers of RFDTV.

Thanks.

Page 1

===

7521735930.txt

My comment is that RFD TV is a great channel and should not be molested or crowded out. We enjoy this channel and watch very often and would greatly miss it. Please consider our view!!! Thanks

Page 1

===

7521735835.txt

RFD TV is the only station that truly reports rural news and entertainment. Rural

America needs the support of the FCC. All that is needed is one channel that truly reports the news of rural America.

At this point Direct TV has not commented on it's intent, but it would be a huge mistake to ignore this important part of the American population.

Page 1

===

7521735808.txt

I am concerned that this merger will limit my choices on programs that can be viewed. I may live in an urban area but follow many rural programs that are of interest to me as they effect many financial and personnel choices that I make each day.

I am also concerned that fewer choices will bring higher costs due to limited competition. If costs continue to grow I may drop cable programming.

Thanks for consideration of my comments.

Page 1

===

7521735789.txt

We do not know why a carrier would choose to discontinue the RFD Channel.

We have encourage many of our family members and freinds (who are not able to recieve the channel because they have Comcast, but would like to have it) to post comments as well.

Page 1

===

7521735767.txt

Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners,

I understand that the FCC doesn't believe that over one million public comments in support of an open internet are enough to make the FCC reclassify the net as a common carrier.

Since corporations are now people they would apparently have the same vote as the eligable voters in that one million. Are you telling us that you have more comments for a closed internet from corporations? I don't think so.

We already have to pay higher net access fees than most of the industralized world.

And you want to make it necessary for us to pay even more? At some point you must realize that this country does not exist for the benefit of corporations.

Regards,

Wray Stanley

Page 1

===

7521735708.txt

I'd like to start out by saying that I just read an article in which a top official at the FCC, Gigi Sohn, told NPR: 'A lot of these comments are one paragraph, two paragraphs, they don'€™t have much substance beyond, '€˜we want strong

Net

Neutrality.' Yet to the side of this entry box in which I am entering my comment, it asks for our 'brief' comments. There seems to be some sort of disconnect here, one where the FCC is only listening to lobbyists and $500 per hour suits that work for telecommunication industries, entities that DO NOT have the interests of

"we the people" at heart, just their own wallets. I urge the FCC to get out amongst the common folk and see (and hear) why the internet is such a vital component of our county's future that it must be established as a public utility, thus freeing it to continue to grow and foster new contributions to education, business, and, yes, entertainment and uses that we cannot yet even imagine to increase our cultural diversity and enhance innovation. Please take the time to truly and actively seek out the opinions of nurses, doctors, engineers, school teachers, academicians, waitresses, etc. A decision to discard net neutrality should not be made without first ascertaining what might be lost, or stunted, and the impact it will have on hundreds of millions of Americans. Is it fair to enrich the pockets of such a very, very small number of individuals at the expense of so many? Is it the way

America

SHOULD be? Has America fell under the spell of the rich, famous and wellplaced to such an extent that the majority of Americans now have, and will never have ever again, any meaningful voice in how the internet is managed and controlled?

Page 1

===

7521735664.txt

It saddens me that I even have to write the comment. Is the internet anything other than this great country which we live! doesn't the principal that all men are created equal also apply to his work on a invention that started off as equal. I also believe that it is our right as Americans to set an example for the rest of the

world to make a invention and make it better not to take a step back in that process. Finishing of my comment I am strongly against a non Neutral internet. Thank you.

Page 1

===

7521735579.txt

Hello, like many executives unfortunately, Comcast is out of touch with their end users. As to the comment made about where people live geographically, that has nothing to do with what channels they view. I would venture to believe that 80% of people living in the urban areas either grew up in a rural town and/or have a longing to live in such an area. I live in the center of the Dallas Fort

Worth metroplex and watch RFD-TV quite frequently. A large number of us in the metroplex are employed by food companies which are affected by agriculture markets.

RFD-TV makes sense and keeps us updated as to how these markets work. If the companies that carry RFD-TV would promote instead of demote it, they would be pleasantly surprised of how "valuable" this station would become to them.

Again, new strategies can be rewarding if they choose to listen to their customers.

Thank you for the attention and allowing us to respond to this very important decision.

Page 1

===

7521735587.txt

Please note that I am writing to let you know that I watch RFDTV everyday. If Dish

Network should take it off their list of shows I would cancel them in a heartbeat.

The Agriculture news, ranching, rural shows, music shows, etc. are the best that can be found and also it is family oriented. I live in the city but am country at heart. Thank you for letting me comment about this matter.

Page 1

===

7521735575.txt

The only reason I subscribe to DirectTV is to watch RFD TV. I know this particular comment board is about the Comcast merger, but I am concerned about this merger because it doesn't look like they will carry RFD TV if the merger goes through.

Please don't allow a merger that won't be in my and other's interests. If the merger goes through please let them know that I won't buy any type of cable or satellite TV that doesn't carry RFD TV.

Page 1

===

7521735552.txt

We are very concerned about this merger. We live in a rural community and very much enjoy RFD TV. We are very worried that such a merger will impact the rural community. Please take into consideration the possibilities that exist to make this a very bad situation.

We appreciate you hearing our comments and hope you think about them. We certainly do not think Al Jazeera is a good choice for America but RFD TV is.

Page 1

===

7521735508.txt

The rural community is the bread and butter of America. Taking the rural tv programming off the air is a huge mistake! Without farming this country will slowly die. We need to support our ranch and farm communities. This is one of the problems in this country, if a network doesnt have swearing and racey comments concerning race and sex its canceled. We need more programs and network like rural tv.

Page 1

===

7521735432.txt

The internet works beautifully, case and point this comment opportunity.

Comcast is the closest thing to a monopoly I've ever seen in my short life, please don't let in extend to the internet, the most balanced and well-run median people have ever created.

Page 1

===

7521735408.txt

Thank you for taking public comment on this matter.

I think its pretty clear what the public believes about the open, neutral internet:

A neutral internet represents an essential foundation of our nation's ability to lead the world as an innovator in this radical new communication medium we call the

Internet. Please don't take this away.

Thank you,

Tim Rowe

Page 1

===

7521735256.txt

Please submit my comments in support of RFD TV & rural network programming. Would like your support for rural TV programming.

Page 1

===

7521735194.txt

This will undoubtedly be the most overlooked, unimportant message I will ever deliver. I'm writing to a branch of government who is now chaired by someone who previously (and, let's face it: currently) acted in the best interest of telecom

corporations, NOT the American people. This laughable gesture of allowing

120 days of comments from American citizens asking about their feelings regarding the top telecom lobbyist chairing the FCC and doing as he pleases with American legislature is a joke. Tomorrow, if the news announces that the top lobbyist for the fast food industry as the chairman of the US Food and Drug Administration, I will be a little less surprised given what's happened to the FCC.

If anyone of interest ever reads these comments before discarding them in the process of discarding net neutrality, please know that there are thousands of valid arguments that make net neutrality so vital to the internet that I could've mentioned but why on Earth would I? The FCC has already heard all of these valid points but the last time I checked, "valid points Inc." doesn't spend as much lobbying politicians who decide which freedoms are lucky enough to remain intact.

To the FCC: you're a joke; a scarily powerful, corporate-driven, lobbyist-chaired joke.

Page 1

===

7521663923.txt

I would attempt to make my own comment, but this really hits all the spots:









Page 1

===

7521663719.txt









I believe in the above stated comments, and personally urge you to consider these comments as well.

Page 1

===

7521662177.txt

The Internet Association has filed a comment with with your office that, after reading, I strongly agree with.

Furthermore, I am in favor of reclassifying all ISPs as utilities.

Page 1

===

===

7521660747.txt

Dear FCC,

Hello, my name is Adrian Arredondo and i decided to send another comment

because the other one felt very stock. Any how let me get on to the point. As far as i could remember my family has had AT&T internet- not the fiber, DSL and let me tell you everything you read about cable companies is wrong- they're worst.

And now they're trying to kill net net neutrality to legally charging for faster speeds on different websites and slower on others. This will kill freedom of speech on the internet because if something they don't agree with is on the site. They will stop showing the site. I'm not one to judge politicians, but i can tell you if your siding with cable . You failed your job as a politician to protect the US citizens from the grasp of the monopoly cable and bandwidth providers. Please keep the web free and open.

sincerely,

Adrian Arredondo

Page 1

===

7521659895.txt

This is my comment:

A free and open internet is indispensable to a free society. When monied interests can control what information you have access to, they control dialog and our country will no longer be 'free'. The fourth estate, the press, cannot be restricted. That is what dictatorships and communists do to control their populations by controlling access to uncensored information. If this were a television news show or newspaper, this wouldn't even be an issue. We already pay for faster access, and that is reasonable, but there is no case to be made for 'fast lanes' except as a means to control which information we have access to, or further bleed non-profits and take money from their target beneficiaries. Keep the internet free and open, and protect our democracy.

Page 1

===

7521659423.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Anonymous and I live in Every City, DC.



I will just keep it simple because quite frankly I know that morality is probably not on your mind while making this deal. You may think you're going to get rich and

gain power from this deal but I will tell you thi, that it will be short lived and in the end you will fall faster than Micheal Jackson after he bedded little boys the same way you are bedding lobbyists. Do you want to know why? You should because it's in your best interest. What do you think is going to happen when you take the internet away from the populous? What do you think will happen when the

Millions possibly BILLIONS who use the internet daily lose their distraction? Do you think that they will just sit down and take it maybe watch a little Youtube? Of course not because they won't have Youtube to distract them from the corrupt things you do behind closed doors. Have you ever been to a comic convention? What do you think would happen if the people at this convention were promised Mark Hamil and then at the last minute were told he was no longer available? Okay now why don't you increase that reaction exponentially because that's what you're going to get when you take the internet away from all of the basement dwellers, the hackers, and the misunderstood white kids that post annoying blogs on their social media.

Do you understand just how angry and socially maladjusted these people are? What they are capable of? Why don't you go ahead and read the comments on a Youtube video go ahead I'll wait here pick any video it can even have kittens.... Scary huh, and if you take away this freedom to vent their frustrations out on strangers all of them are going to turn their attention to you. Do you think you can handle that? They will be an undying unrelenting force that you are just not prepared to deal with sir. If you take away the distraction that acts as a barrier between you and them, you might as well sign your resignation and go into hiding and pray that whatever you made off of this scandal will be enough to tide you over for the rest of your life which considering the economic downfall you will cause by destroying the last bastion of free expression and entertainment I can assure you it won't be. Lastly do you honestly think you will be safe from millions of angry social outcasts that you have now made even more miserable? People who understand technology so well that they could find you as long as you so much as use your cell phone?

I'm just trying to appeal to your sense of self preservation and desire for a nice life as

I'm sure someone in your position has sold his soul long ago in order to get where

you are right now. I hope I have opened your eyes as this is an incredibly stupid move on your part. So go ahead and be crooked I don't blame you for that you're only human, just be smart about it and leave our internet alone. Lastly do not misjudge me I am not threatening you with violence or in any other manner

I personally do not believe in harming anyone. However most of the world is not so kind...

Sincerely,

Anonymous

Page 1

===

7521658725.txt

I wholeheartedly agree with what an earlier commenter said...

The internet is a necessity in today's world, it is used for commerce, education, communication as well as entertainment. ISP's are the link between people and the internet, much in the same way as power, phone, gas, and water companies serve as links between people and their respective products. You will notice that these companies are tightly regulated so as to protect the consumer and to ensure that everyone is able to have access to these services at reasonable cost. It is because of these similarities that ISPs should be considered type II common carriers, and regulated as such.

Page 1

===

7521658707.txt

I visited this site the other day to comment on the FCC rules related to net neutrality. My comment actually timed out and failed to get input. It felt like I was sitting in the slow lane trying to get content and couldn't get it.

In this case the FFC site had crashed, but if it hadn't and I still couldn't reach it, that is what a tiered internet will be. Fast content, slow content, or maybe even no content. The ISP we use should not be able to discriminate on the content we pay for based on factors they set. Allowing that would be anti-competitive, anti-innovation, and counterproductive to the values we cherish in a free and open society.

I support net neutrality. Please consider ISPs type II common carriers and regulate them as such.

Page 1

===

7521658463.txt

We the people already know that our government has been taken over by corporations and big money special interests. The comments we post may mean little or nothing at

all, but since this will be on the public record, we want you to know, that we know you do not represent we the people's interests.









Page 1

===

7521655501.txt

As someone who is looking to start a website based on users being able to reach my website without having to pay several intermediaries I oppose the current

FCC "Net

Neutrality" proposal.

It is clear to me based on Verizon's comment to the FCC at the last possible minute before the initial deadline shows that the big cable companies only want to hinder consumer choice. The actions already taken by Comcast to extort companies like

Netflix for things like peering only highlights the need for true Net

Neutrality based on the previous guidelines the FCC used as recently as last year.

If broadband internet was reclassified as a Title II utility it would promote the adoption of technology and innovation in America and ensure that it would grow even

faster then it already is. This point can be seen by what happened when

Google fiber started offering service where there was few choices from companies that have profited from American tax dollars (Verizon, AT&T,Comcast,Time Warner,

Cox).

Sincerely,

A young wishful American

Page 1

===

7521654954.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Bill Preston and I live in Monrovia, CA.



I am so pleased by the FCC's decision to keep comments open until Friday, so i have another chance to express my loathing for Tom Wheeler's proposal. The desire of ISPs to control the flow of services from content providers by charging for fast lanes is a blatant attempt to control the internet experience. The internet is a new medium that is only beginning to blossom and see its own potential as a tool for all of humanity to use. The implementation of "controls" by ISPs has already forced Netflix to pay more to ISPs for better service, rewarding the likes of COX, Time

Warner, and

Verizon for spending their retained earnings in legal fees rather than improving their networks. This proposal would only legitimize these extortion tactics, leaving the service providers with more revenue, and less incentive to make their offerings

MORE COMPETITIVE. Should the proposed merger of COX and Time Warner go through

(another ill-founded idea rewarding the collusion of large companies and leaving the consumers famished for better internet service where there is none to be found), I will only be able to shake my head and thank God I have choices where I live. Until that is no longer the case, as I suspect Google Fiber will never truly expand to cover the US, as long as the current big players can keep it out.

Sincerely,

Bill Preston

Page 1

===

7521654417.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Matt Hildebrandt and I live in Perrysburg, OH.



The internet is really important, but only because it is so diverse and universally equal. Letting ISPs take away the equal aspect will soon take away the diverse aspect as well. I'm a person and I have a future and the default of this comment box really likes to explain that they're a college business student.

Whatever; I'm a user of the internet. I've been using it for most of my life and I've definitely seen a lot of ups and downs. This will be more of a down than anything else.

Sincerely,

Matt Hildebrandt

Page 1

===

7521654328.txt

The US is behind the rest of the world in speed and availability of internet access due to lack of competition among ISPs. Allowing 'fast lanes' would hand the big ISPs a huge club to keep away smaller ISPs. Also, because the large ISPs are also content owners so-called 'fast lanes' would allow them to stifle competing smaller content owners.

Net neutrality built the current internet we enjoy today, don't turn it into a toll road that kills the goose that laid the golden egg. If the 'fast lanes' are implemented it will be a mess of recriminations and probably litigation to get it reversed.

A neutral network is good for all participants, free speech, commerce and ideas flow to and from all participants equally.

I want to emphasize commerce. The future is bright for electronic commerce in areas not even imagined today- a net where all bits are not equal could kill that future.

Thank you for taking time to read my comment. -Carrie Carlson

Page 1

===

7521653736.txt

I am commenting to urge the FCC to NOT move forward with its current plan to allow

Internet Service Providers to charge websites for higher-quality delivery of their content to consumers. These proposed rules would allow for the creation of unfair

"Internet fast lanes" which would squash smaller online businesses unable to afford

access to them. I am a student who utilizes the Internet almost daily to inform and educate myself about the world, and I want to see all online content treated equally. Again, I strongly urge the FCC to throw out its current plan.

Instead I believe it is the FCC's duty to protect Net Neutrality by reclassifying

Internet

Service Providers as Title II Common Carriers.

Page 1

===

7521652546.txt




Neutrality

Page 1

===

7521652264.txt

This is in support of an open and free internet for all persons. There should be no special treatment of any company providing internet access services. Any single or group of company(s) should not be allowed preferred status nor given the ability to allow preferred status among their customers. If money becomes the golden rule among providers then it is time to close that company and allow free and competitive access for other providers who will not need "preferred" status or

"special considerations" to earn an honest profit. This comment is especially directed toward the committee's relationship with ComCast, Time-Warner, Verizon or any of the larger service providers. The Chairman has steadfastly promised a free and open internet and claims not to be supporting "content throttling". Let the committee prove it by their actions and saying no to preferential treatment from this committee.

Page 1

===

7521649281.txt

I'm Rich Graham and I live in Dallas, TX.

Net neutrality is important to me. A "pay-?to-play" Internet is simply not fair to everybody.

As a business person and citizen, I need to know that there will not be financial barriers to new ideas and innovation, to services that I or others may bring to the marketplace. If ISP subscribers have an hard time loading the site of a newcomer, there?s no way the newcomer be able to compete fairly.

Thanks for allowing us all to send comments on the free and open internet.

Sincerely,

Rich Graham

Page 1

===

7521645667.txt

Regarding the three questions up for comment:

1. Should there be an outright ban on fast lanes?

Internet content, innovation, and utility has thrived as a result of equal load times (in principal) for each web page. Fast lanes favor web pages with greater resources over those with limited resources, which effectively distorts

Internet preferences for well-financed web pages. Fast lanes should be banned to prevent this distortion and to preserve and protect an Internet environment that has allowed unique content and new ideas to flourish.

2. Should broadband access be classified as a Title II common carrier?

The Internet is a public good facilitating open and free exchange of information and ideas. As such, it should be regulated in a way that reflects this reality, using other publicly regulated utliities such as telephone lines as a model, to ensure adequate competition and access to this good. Broadband, as the practical means of access to the Internet, should be classified as a Title II carrier.

3. Should the new Open Internet provisions also cover wireless (mobile) broadband?

A substantial portion of Internet access occurs through the use of mobile devices, so enforcing the principal of Open Internet provisons requires their application to mobile broadband. I am in fact typing this comment using mobile broadband. In the interest of preserving competition and innovation in Internet-dependent mobile applications that impact millions of users' daily lives, the provisions should bar fast lanes and other distortions on mobile broadband as well.

Thank you for your consideration.

Page 1

===

7521645089.txt

I'm writing to comment on the proposed FCC regulations as it relates to net-neutrality and the ability for internet service providers to allow for "fast lane" or increased speeds to certain content providers.

While I am sympathetic to the fact that this debate is between ISPs and some of the major internet bandwidth hogs, specifically NetFlix seems to be a reoccurring offender in the eyes of the major ISPs, I urge the FCC to look beyond the economic issues to see the larger picture.

While it is understandable that companies like Comcast want to be able to set off

some of the costs they incur due to the massive amounts of internet traffic that go to only a few select content providers sadly sometimes democratic principles must trump economic desires.

By allowing ISPs to charge for access to their customers it could potentially allow these companies to charge content providers unequally due to the content they produce, rather then the sheer volume and cost of it.'

A simple example would be if a large ISP was comprised of largely antigun advocates they could potentially charge the NRA a hefty fee to access its consumers essentially placing a massive economic barrier in the way of communication.

This sort of selective censorship is precisely the concern here. While the large

ISPs obviously have economic interest at heart its easy to see the insidious way this stratification of content providers could be put to misuse.

I believe the solution to the ISPs is simple: We, the consumers, pay more. It is as simple as that. We will pay more if it means keeping the net neutral. If its costly, pass it on to us. The price of neutrality and open discourse should be shouldered by us and I speak at list for myself when I say I am willing to pay the extra cost.

Thank you for your consideration of my comment. The FCC's extension of the comment period is a strong message, especially in these times of such great governmental distrust, that you are listening to the average citizen. We all just hope that you do more then listen.

Page 1

===

7521645016.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Cody Hall and I live in Tyndall AFB, FL.



The internet directly represents the free flow of ideas. With these "fast lanes" marketed by the ISPs, they will effectively be preventing that. Everyone should be entitled to the same capabilities on the internet. It should be an even playing field. One where the individual like myself can express their first amendment right to post comments to the FCC website, not one where ISPs can control where, and how one visits based on how much money they pay.

Sincerely,

Cody Hall

Page 1

===

7521644514.txt

I am sending this comment due to my opposition of the idea of a so-called

"two-tiered Internet" that will: a) stifle innovation by putting startups with less funding at a competitive disadvantage because they can't afford to pay for faster access b) increase costs because companies will pass along new costs for

"premium traffic" to consumers c) decrease privacy because ISPs will snoop on user traffic so they can prioritize

"premium" traffic over "regular" traffic

Page 1

===

7521643622.txt

Hi. I hear you folks have lost quite a lot of comments and so I am refiling to make absolutely sure you have no excuse for losing mine.

Prevent ISPs cheating their customers. Maintain net neutrality. Every packet must have the same priority as every other packet. No artificially slowing down traffic to force citizens to pay extra (or other companies to pay extra) for decent bandwidth.

The internet belongs to ALL of us EQUALLY. Letting comcast screw with that would be like letting Amtrak put up roadblocks on Interstate 40 to try to force me to pony up extra cash for train tickets.

I absolutely oppose this, and I expect you, employed by my tax dollars, to oppose it too. I WILL be watching.

Page 1

===

7521642805.txt

The internet has opened the doors to world communication. I converse with people from countries that I used to think of as evil. Yes, I survived the cold war with an open mind anyway. They are just like us. They were afraid of us; we were afraid of them. The internet has the potential to move us to world peace. There are those who don't care about things like that. They just want more. More of everything power, money, servitude. Which way our society grows depends on the decision you make.

World peace vs. Greed. Do the right thing. The internet is not perfect because society is not perfect. Don't stifle our growth as a species. Let it grow, correction is a natural part of growing. Control only stifles it.

P.S. When the continue button on your website is pushed to edit or confirm your comment. The pop-ups to the left overlap the comment making it impossible to read.

That is my edit. I hope everything else was done correctly.

Page 1

===

7521642626.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is be free and I live in america, MN.



The Internet is important to me because, as a father it is important for me to easily find things for my child to make or videos on how to fix somethingas well as escape from realityby having folks to talk to and sharing ideas. I don't want a corporation to dictate what I can and cannot share, watch, comment, or read.

Sincerely, be free

Page 1

===

7521642563.txt

I am not going to proceed with a doctorate level thesis on why net neutrality should be in place. I am a concerned citizen who is asking the federal government to listen to the people for once. we cannot let corporation dictate the spread and diffusion of information. This will lead to abuse of the system and quite possibly governmental tyranny.

We need to keep the net neutral. I do not want to be charged or persecuted for using for using certain sites or sharing certain forms of information.

Keep it out of the governments and corporations hands.

I really hope that the FCC reads the people's comments.

Page 1

===

7521641569.txt


Both as an independent musician and a consumer, I am absolutely not okay with the proposed revisions to the FCC's net neutrality provisions. Also, this is the second time I've tried to file a comment but the site was so overrun it would not even submit:) I think this alone should show how important this issue is to the

American people (and even almost every corporation but ISPs). I simply do not see how relaxing the provisions disallowing certain kinds of traffic to move faster could possibly encourage competition and growth (well, except for growth of the

pocketbooks of ISP and cable company executives...). It seems to me as if the

American people have more than spoken out against these proposed changes.

Mark Johnson

Page 1

===

7521641156.txt

I am so pleased by the FCC's decision to keep comments open until Friday, so i have another chance to express my loathing for Tom Wheeler's proposal. The desire of ISPs to control the flow of services from content providers by charging for fast lanes is a blatant attempt to control the internet experience. The internet is a new medium that is only beginning to blossom and see its own potential as a tool for all of humanity to use. The implementation of "controls" by ISPs has already forced Netflix to pay more to ISPs for better service, rewarding the likes of COX, Time

Warner, and

Verizon for spending their retained earnings in legal fees rather than improving their networks. This proposal would only legitimize these extortion tactics, leaving the service providers with more revenue, and less incentive to make their offerings

MORE COMPETITIVE. Should the proposed merger of COX and Time Warner go through

(another ill-founded idea rewarding the collusion of large companies and leaving the consumers famished for better internet service where there is none to be found), I will only be able to shake my head and thank God I have choices where I live. Until that is no longer the case, as I suspect Google Fiber will never truly expand to cover the US, as long as the current big players can keep it out.

Page 1

===

752164~1.TXT

While a pre-written statement I support the following comment: To

Chairman Tom

Wheeler--

I urge you to schedule a series of large, open public hearings around the country to hear the concerns of the people about your net neutrality plan.

I urge you to protect an open internet by building a solid legal argument for net neutrality using Title II of the Telecommunications act which would declare the internet an essential service as a public utility.

Thank you,

Brown Mims

Page 1

===

752164~2.TXT

I do not like the current rule allowing ISPs to charge for faster connectivity to certain companies. The Internet should be free for all companies. Allow the

consumers to determine what they want to see and download.

I also support the idea of making the ISPS like other utility companies such as power and water. That is how most families see the internet as a utility.

When my wife and I moved we had get the power in our name. So I called the company for my area and did what was needed. At the end of the call they asked me if I need cable or Internet. I was able to handle that on the same call. That story just proves my point on how most of America sees the Internet.

Thank you for reviewing my comments please take them into consideration.

Remember please bring back Net Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521640085.txt

Below, please find answers to the three questions that the FCC is most interested in receiving public comment on:

Should there be an outright ban on fast lanes? - YES; the very concept of net neutrality (or "open internet") relies upon the equal treatment of all data.

Allowing "fast lanes" would necessarily result in unequal treatment of those who could not afford to pay for a "faster" delivery of their data.

Should broadband access be classified as a Title II common carrier? YES; re-classification as a telecommunication service/utility would allow for greater regulation, specifically the absolute ban on fast lanes contemplated above.

Should the new Open Internet provisions also cover wireless (mobile) broadband? YES; there is no good reason for the principles of net neutrality not to apply to mobile broadband. Mobile internet is becoming an ever-increasing part of our daily lives, it should face the same regulatory regime as terrestrial internet.

Page 1

===

7521639936.txt




Neutrality.

Page 1

===

752163~1.TXT

Ending net neutrality is a bad idea. Period. I'm pretty sure everyone else has covered the good topics so far considering this has garnered more than

30K comments.

"The nature of the Internet and the importance of net neutrality is that innovation

can come from everyone." Al Franken

Page 1

===

752163~2.TXT

Without Net Neutrality, the Internet will not work properly. Quite frankly, this is an issue I will vote on, an issue I will urge politicians to be for, and one that I will remember when going to the polls in November.

The current rules are unsatisfactory, and if getting more comments than you've EVERY

GOTTEN doesn't change your tack dramatically there's really no other thing to believe than that the game is fixed.

Preserve Net Neutrality always. Make it a CORE PRINCIPLE of your organization. And have a jazzy day.

Page 1

===

752163~2.TXT

I, as well as almost everyone else submitting these opinions, completely understand that the end of net neutrality is a done deal, due to the powerful corporations now lobbying our government and the FCC for total domination of the internet.

All of us who are against the end of net neutrality are well aware that the voices of those corporations and the boatloads of cash they are "contributing" to their cause, are the only voices being heard around this issue. But I'd like to add my list to the enormous number of citizens who have been commenting here.

Ending net neutrality will undeniably mean the destruction of the internet. It will end innovative start-up websites. It will end free speech, both politically and in terms of being able to criticize those very corporations who are set to take control of the internet. As it is, our voices are not allowed to be heard on the major, corporate-owned networks and newspapers, as evidenced by the total news blackout of this very issue on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC. The voices of any political dissent will be silenced on the only venue left where corporations do not completely dominate the discussion. If Comcast or Verizon decides to take punitive measures against me or my family for even posting this comment, I will not be able to take to the internet to expose their behavior, nor will people who face punitive measures for speaking out against their elected officials be able to do so. We will have lost a key element of what we now view as a modern freedom. We will be no more free than China or Iran or any of the other totalitarian countries whose governments have blatantly quashed dissent, except that our censorship will be under the guise of

"the free market."

Yet, it's not truly the free market when it comes to this issue. The cable and internet companies are a monopoly in our towns and cities. We do not have any real options for accessing high speed internet. Both Comcast and Verizon agree that they should be in total control of this public utility, so we cannot voice are disagreement with those companies by giving our high speed internet business to a company that is in favor of net neutrality. They simply do not exist because of this governmentally enforced monopoly. And this is just not right, or moral, or what we once believed was "The American Capitalistic Way." Therefore, I agree with those who have stated the FCC should, in fact, reclassify the internet as a public utility, so that the members of your board will then be able to legally enforce net neutrality laws to keep our last remaining freedoms alive.

Will the FCC hear the voices of the people, or will we once again be silenced by powerful corporate interests? I guess only time will tell.

Page 1

===

752163~2.TXT

Filing this form is probably the most pointless thing I will do today, but I am going to pretend it will be read, and have some affect. I could explain why net neutrality is important, thousands have, if you're not convinced yet I don't know what to do for you.

Imagine if you allowed the flow of water or electricity to be controlled based on how much you were willing to pay? Data is essential to the growth and success of our country and limiting data flow to what a few individuals feel is important could have a significnat impact on the developemnt of new concepts, ideas, and companies.

How could you ever make the next google if you can't afford to get the bandwidth needed to compete. Honestly it's shameful that this topic is even being discussed.

The blatant, unapologetic greed behind it is sad.

One additional comment, honestly is anyone qualified at the FCC to make decisions on this level? I mean seriously look at your website it was bad for 1983 in

2014 it is pathetic. I don't think you have the technical expertise or qualifications to make these decisions. If you did you probably wouldn't work at the FCC. Just an observation.

Page 1

===

7521638285.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is John Cady and I live in Middle River, MD.

Net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data that travels over their networks equally, is important to me because without it only those with deep pockets and politically correct views will have their voices heard.

A pay-to-play Internet worries me because My access to the internet will be severely limited; subsequently so will access to information.

The Internet is important to me because, as an internet personality and commentator

, I need to know that there will not be barriers to entry for the new ideas and services that I hope to bring to the marketplace. Net neutrality means I will be able to have unfettered access to material I use on my program which in turn provides challenging points of view for other users. If ISP subscribers have an easier time loading websites of existing companies than my new innovative product, there?s no way that I will be able to compete or succeed.

Sincerely,

John Cady

Page 1

===

7521638256.txt

Dear decididng parties,

I claim not expertise on the matters concerning net neutrality and that is very important to understand. No one is an authority on the internet.

No one is an authority on the internet, meaning no one knows everything there is to know. No one is in a position of pwoper to dictate how it should and should not be.

Please consider this and consider the interest groups that have pushed for a less open internet.

The "fast lane" proposal just isn't acceptable.

Please understand that there is a large amount of misinformation out there, and a lot of is intentionally placed to sway your thinking.

Please consider all view points, and make the best decision you can.

Even if that means not making a decision yet.

I am for an open road internet with no lanes. And I have my reasons, but

I do not wish my reasons to compel you. I wish you to find reasons on your own, and to do whatever research is neccessary to come to a just decision.

I know the chair is a former comcast tycoon, and I think maybe the rest of you should avoid inner politics and do what is right and not what will get you a promotion or recognization. You are in a position to form a belief and enact it into the world. Not many people in the world have the power to shape reality like this.

Your decisions will quite literally echo in eternity. So please be careful and wise.

I sincerely appreciate what you folks do and I have no idea who you are.

:) Also,

realize that there would have been many many many more comments had the website worked properly. This is my third attempt.

Page 1

===

7521638164.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Kenneth Hamilton and I live in Westfield, MA.



The Internet is important to me because, as a web developer and maker, I want to be able to make my products available without being restricted by the policies of my

ISP. If ISP subscribers have an easier time accessing products of existing companies than my new innovative product, there?s no way that I will be able to compete or succeed.

Also, the site that makes it easier for me to send my comments to the FCC could be classified by my ISP as higher tier, and so a discriminatory aspect would be introduced into the access to this kind of policy and governmental input, which would be a restriction on free speech.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Hamilton

Page 1

===

7521637269.txt

I am concerned about net neutrality and feel the safest way to keep the internet neutral is to reclassify broadband internet access as a telecommunications service.

That's exactly what it is, so I feel it is also a logical choice.

I own my own business and, as a small sole proprietor, I would not be able top afford to pay for the fast internet lane. It would be detrimental if I lost clients because my website or blog page loaded too slowly or because an email was not received in a timely manner.

Additionally, I read other small independent websites and blog posts.

Having to wait for them to load would not only be a nuisance, but could also affect me or my clients if I am waiting on something I am researching to load.

Thank you for taking my comments into consideration and please reclassify broadband internet access as a telecommunications service so as to ensure net neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521588280.txt

To add to my prior comments, the FCC should reclassify online access under Title II common carrier regulations.

Page 1

===

7521588229.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Erik Roithmayr and I live in Los Angeles, CA.

Net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data that travels over their networks equally, is important to me because without it startups will be stifled, diversity of content and companies will plummet, and the internet will suck.


The internet is important to me because I work in social media. Social media works so well because we have the variety of people who comment, share, like and click on engaging content. If people can't access that content, the value of social networks will crash. Web 2.0 could regress back to web 1.0. The rising stars of

Youtube,

Vimeo, Vine, and multichannel networks that find audiences through a net neutral internet will fizzle and die. To destroy net neutrality is to stifle our first amendment right to freedom of speech, and the freedom of speech enjoyed by people who are not giant corporations.

Sincerely,

Erik Roithmayr

Page 1

===

7521586182.txt

To the FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and the FCC Commissioners,

Please! Do what is right and listen to the American public, the tax payers, the people you are SUPPOSED to be serving. Restructuring the internet with this new

"fast-lane" model would be detrimental to EVERYONE (ISP monopolies aside)

Most people are very much aware that Chairman Wheeler was a former cable lobbyist, and the tremendous conflict of interest his appointment as Chairman presents. That being said, the new proposal is clearly tailored to benefit the internet service providers, and only them. The internet, as it stands, functions the way it was intended. Do not go changing that.

The people shouldn't need remind you what the purpose of the FCC is. As you can clearly tell by the enormous number of comments you are receiving, the general public does not want this. The proposal put forward would undermine the foundations

of what the internet is intended to be.

Sincerely with disdain,

Trevor Lyons

Page 1

===

7521585729.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Aubrey Perry and I live in Norfolk, VA.



The Internet is a platform of communication that should not be divvied up like some auction. I have grown up with the internet and watched it evolve, and dissolving net neutality will do nothing but inhibit the sharing of information and expression with others throughout the world. Do not do this and say it is for the good of the average citizen. Do not say the advantages outweigh the costs your acts could foster. Net Neutrality should stay, and if you cannot understand why, listen to the comments though out the internet stating why. I don't want to see the internet turned into a "pay to play" place, so please listen to my words.

Sincerely,

Aubrey Perry

Page 1

===

7521584798.txt

Please remember: there are hundreds of thousands of comments supporting

Net neutrality. We all know the source of the small opposition to net neutrality. We know it is a massive near-monopoly that serves no one but itself. We know it is makes American internet access lag behind countries of similar development.

This isn't a partisan issue . History will know this decision is one that can either be for the actual interests of the majority of Americans, or for a few executives at cable companies.

--



Most Americans have only one choice for truly high speed Internet: their local cable

company. This is a political failure, and it is an embarrassment. America deserves competition and choice.






Page 1

===

7521584325.txt

I wish to comment on the proposal to modify the concewpt of a completely open and free internet. Any modification would not only impact my business and way of living, but would be detrimental to the US. The internet, as the airwaves used for radio and

TV, are a national asset. We should not allow a provider of this service that we pay for, also charge an additional fee to the companies that we buy a service from, such as Netflix of Bloombergs.

I would also like to suggest that the government require that the internet providers provide fiber optics to all customers in a region in which they have fiber optics.

We live in the south loop of Chicago and are treated like second class citizens,

6300 feet from the current terminal, so we can only get 12 mbps service from AT&T while others only a few blocks aways have fiber optics and can obtain service of over 55 mbps.

Page 1

===

752158~1.TXT

Protecting Net Neutrality is equivalent to protecting the average

American's ability to read books in the library. The Chairman of the FCC is the former head of the

cable lobby. The head of lobbying at Comcast is a former FCC Commissioner so I don't expect you to give a shit about the average American's interest especially since you've 'lost' most of these comments already but you should know that what you're doing is an awful insight into how broken our government is when politicians listen to money not citizens.

Page 1

===

7521583035.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Chris Gatz and I live in Northbrook, IL.



Seriously who are you to dictate how I or anyone else uses the internet?

To allow telecoms to make the rules is allowing the fox in the henhouse. They already have us over a barrel with their outrageous prices. The net has become so much larger than any sanctioning body. No government, including ours, should consider itself to have the right to regulate a service in such an invasive way.

The fact that you asked for public comment and then received hundreds of thousands in opposition should serve as a pretty obvious sign that the American people do not support the FCC's plan. If you're actually concerned about our opinion and want to do right by us, listen! We are speaking but you do not seem to be listening.

Lobbyists continue to have your ear, because as always, money talks louder than the people you serve.

Sincerely,

Chris Gatz

Page 1

===

7521582708.txt

Just a word to differentiate this comment from the other stock comments: your constituents support net neutrality. Please remember that this is a democracy and that the cable companies are not voters.









Page 1

===

7521581326.txt

Although I'm submitting this comment via a click-through service that suggested some text, I've reviewed and both understand and agree with it. I'm a networking professional who's worked on the Internet since before most people had heard of it

(1990) and have a better technical understanding of the issues than most people. In particular, I'm able to understand -- at both a technological and a business level, both from experience and expertise -- that a "fast lane" is the *exact equivalent* of making the other "lanes" into slow lanes. There is no difference. It's mere re-branding.

Thanks for your consideration. Below is the boilerplate text, which as mentioned above, I have reviewed and wish to associate myself with.



Most Americans have only one choice for truly high speed Internet: their local cable company. This is a political failure, and it is an embarrassment. America deserves

competition and choice.






Page 1

===

7521578309.txt

My name is Laurie and I am currently attending graduate school in upstate

New York.

I depend on a free and open Internet everyday to provide information, research, connection to people back home, links to jobs and internships and entertainment.

Net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data that travels over their networks equally, is important to me because without it users, like myself, may have fewer options and a less diverse Internet.

Limiting these channels will make it harder for Internet users to find the information that they seek. That is why the Internet was created in the first place: to connect people and provide information.

This legislation could not only limit that, but also create a precedent that may very well be exploited later on to limit those channels even further.

Please don't let that happen.

As another commenter so aptly stated: a pay-to-play Internet worries me because ISPs could act as the gatekeepers to their subscribers. Please consider this request in your proceedings and don't let that happen.

Thank you.

Page 1

===

7521577679.txt

To: Tom Wheeler, FCC Chair

Re: Your response to my original comment

Tom,

I found the wording of your response to my original response

"interesting". I quote the pertinent bit below for clarity:

You said "I'm a strong supporter of the Open Internet, and I will fight to keep the internet open."

I note that you do not have a commitment to "net neutrality", but to an

"open" internet. We do not need an "open" internet (by which I am guessing you mean unregulated). Rather we need a well regulated internet that guarantees net neutrality. It seems you are trying to conflate the 2 concepts or attempting to claim that an "open" internet is a worthy goal. Please do not make this mistake.

We are all watching what the FCC does on this matter, and we are counting on you to make sure that the internet is not used to allow companies to "play favorites" in who gets faster connections or better band width. If this requires reclassifying the internet as a public utility, then so be it.

Sincerely,

Doug Cottrill

Page 1

===

7521577421.txt






My friends, family, and I use the Internet for conversation and fun, but also for work and business. When you let ISPs mess with our Internet experience, you are attacking our social lives, our entertainment, and our economic well being. That is why and many others are taking the time to submit this comment.


Page 1

===

7521576996.txt

I submitted a brief comment before the deadline; now that the deadline is extended,

I would like to take the time to write out a more thorough comment.

Please protect net neutrality. Reclassify ISPs as utilities and regulate them accordingly. These companies (Verizon, Comcast, Cox, AT&T, TimeWarner, and so on) must not be given the opportunity to privilege some communications over others.

This is true regardless of whether they're motivated by profit, ideology, or any other reason. The internet is a core part of modern citizenship, and its accessibility and neutrality is vital to the success of our nation and to our nation's future.

We need fast, available, and neutral access to the internet. We need to protect the ability of future start-ups, a core part of the US economy, to be created and nourished. Fast lanes would hamper this significantly.

Additionally, I fear that establishing a precedent where certain communications are privileged over others has the potential to infringe on citizens' ability to engage in political speech, a problem that highlights the internet's role in the vitality of our democracy. The world is changing, and the FCC needs to take the reins in guiding our nation without catering to big business interests and without treading on constutionally protected rights.

Page 1

===

7521575871.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Naomi Simpkins and I live in Portland, OR.



I doubt anyone actually reads these comments, but if someone does, hopefully the response from people like me is overwhelming enough to make you pay attention. Every once in a blue moon, someone in a position of power has a choice to make that will impact generations of people. In that small window of debate, there is a lot of push and pull. Lobbyists in back room deals clamor with money and promises of promotion against the hammering on the door by citizens demanding that you do what is right by them.

What made this country great generations ago was the untying of the people's hands-breaking free from the bonds of tyranny to explore innovation, technology, and science. Our middle class burgeoned, and we rose to be the greatest nation in the world. This bill is another step in the wrong direction. Don't tie our hands. Don't stifle innovation for people who can't afford the 'fast lane'. Don't think we don't know the difference. A pig by any other name is still a pig.

Do the right thing. Keep the Internet neutral!!

-Naomi Simpkins

Portland, Oregon

Sincerely,

Naomi Simpkins

Page 1

===

7521575542.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is John Mistretta and I live in Atlanta, GA.



In the past 3 months since the FCC asked for comment I've read quite a few internet articles on the subject that articulate my sentiments fairly well.

Three such articles are https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/fcc-and-net-neutrality-way-forward

& https://www.eff.org/guide-to-the-fcc-net-neutrality-proposal & http://boingboing.net/2014/07/07/net-neutrality-what-it-is-an.html

Among the points I feel strongly about is Reclassification of broadband internet access as a telecommunication service.

I am very much in favor of this because data is and should remain agnostic insofar as the speed at which it's transmitted. No commercial entity should have the economic power to decide what data should be allowed to transmit at it's highest speed. Given the concentration of internet carriers this represents a potential for massive abuse and harm to consumers.

I just googled "Companies with the worst customer ratings*" and I find on this list

AT&T, T-Mobile, Cox Communications, Charter, CenturyLink, Comcast and

Time Warner.

The common thread to these companies is that in spite of any PR to the contrary they are only concerned with their customers in so far as the amount of money they can extract from them at the lowest possible expense.

These companies are run for the shareholder's benefit only, not for their customers satisfaction. They also all have a history of defying government regulations, failing to fulfill obligations in return for beneficial FCC regulations and an unremitting effort to game FCC regulations at all costs.

So while I applaud them for offering what level of service they do provide, it is with the awareness that the US falls far short globally in network speed and affordability. Given the chance I have no doubt they will be happy to see their prices quadruple in the next decade and are working as hard as they can for that to happen.

If reclassification of broadband access will stop them from having the power to gouge their customer in the future that is far preferable to what rules the FCC is now considering.

Regards

John Mistretta http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-with-the-worst-customer-ratings-

2013-12?op=

1

Sincerely,

John Mistretta

Page 1

===

7521575162.txt

...I realize that what follows is a form comment, and that you're getting a ton of these, but after reviewing it, I find it does a better job of summarizing the issues than I could.







My friends, family, and I use the Internet for conversation and fun, but also for

work and business. When you let ISPs mess with our Internet experience, you are attacking our social lives, our entertainment, and our economic well being. We won't stand for it.


Page 1

===

7521574228.txt




In my own comments in this paragraph, I would say that I completely agree with the general ones above and those which I have deleted. I'd only add that the extreme limitations envisioned by major media companies go against what Americans have long assumed of our society, including freedom of speech and economic free enterprise for new businesses and others.

Page 1

===

7521573099.txt

The question stated in notice of proposed rulemaking FCC 14-61 is this

"We start with a fundamental question: What is the right public policy to ensure that the

Internet remains open?"

The simplest answer for this is to reclassify Internet Service Providers as Title II common carriers so that the internet becomes a public utility and stays free to all. the ISP's want to initiate a 'Fast-Lane' style of internet, but if you have a fast lane you automatically have a slow lane. It should not be up to them to decide who gets faster internet, as doing that will allow ISP's to have essentially legalized extortion. The company will already be paying for internet, but to keep up with competitors that have more money and are willing to pay for the 'fastlane', they will have to pay up too. This means small start up companies that do not have a lot of money will automatically be at a disadvantage.

Please do not let the fate of the Internet be decided by a select few with money,

and instead by the voices of the people commenting to you as I am now.

Page 1

===

7521572968.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Rebecca Martin and I live in Brooklyn, NY.

Net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data that travels over their networks equally, is important to me because without it the internet will cease to be the essential platform for creativity, innovation, and free speech that it is today.


The internet is important to me because, as a media writer and critic, it is essential that all voices have equal opportunity to find readers based on talent and insight -- not ability to pay. Plus, as someone who grew up with the internet, my ability to find social networks of all sorts of platforms (from forums to blogs to comment sections) as been an essential part of my life since I was a teen, and I would hate to see that go away.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Martin

Page 1

===

7521735183.txt

My comment: Two-tiered or multiered Internet services are unacceptable.

All ISPs and Content Providers must maintain

Internet Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521572258.txt

It's ironic how the FCC's website all of a sudden doesn't work when trying to write a comment about our open internet.

If you anger a mass of internet users who are mainly trolls, then you will surely find yourself dealing with a difficult situation. Internet is big part of our lives and helps us connect with each other and know what is going on with the rest of the world. I do not like it when the government is trying to heavily control what we know. How would we really know what's happening on the other side of the country. I would hate if this country became a George Orwell's 1984 state. Riots are most likely to happen if this "fast lane" becomes official and it will most likely turn over so just save your energy and time and leave the internet open, free and equal to all.


Internet

service providers (ISPs) treat all data equally. As an Internet user, net neutrality is vitally important to me. The FCC should use its Title II authority to protect it.







Page 1

===

7521571977.txt

From an engineering/technical standpoint, the networks that transport the internet have a set maximum bandwidth. The whole notion that one can magically provide a

"fast lane",where data flows faster than other traffic now on the internet is nothing but a pipe dream. In reality, the ONLY way to create a fast lane on the internet is to slow everyone else down. So, while 5% of the traffic is

"fast lane" traffic, the remaining 95% of traffic is slowed down to create the illusion of a

"fast lane". Bandwidth is taken from regular users and allocated to the

"fast lane". This is a terrible idea. It's simply squeezing the consumer for more money.

Additionally, from a products and services standpoint, companies which have to pay for "fast lane" access (ie, Hulu, NetFlix, YouTube, etc) will simply pass on any cost increases to the consumer. Again, more squeezing the consumer for more money.

And finally, dissolving Net Neutrality will hamper innovation and squash new,

smaller companies that cannot pay the fees to compete with larger rivals.

I hope with the sheer number of comments on this topic (enough so to cause your servers to fail in taking comments yesterday), you will see that Net

Neutrality is something supported by a vast majority of the population. Should Net

Neutrality be dissolved for the enrichment of a few powerful and wealthy corporations, despite the majority of the population supporting Net Neutrality, you'll simply be showing that the FCC is nothing more than a lapdog to the sector that it is meant to watch over.

Side with the People on this one. Keep Net Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521571446.txt

Allowing internet providers to throttle specific content to users would detrimentally impact untold numbers of people, businesses, and societies.

The open internet has been the greatest technological achievement since landing on the moon. It has bolstered the economy of this country and allowed for new science, technology and innovation to be possible.

Ending net neutrality would be a major step backwards for this country, and the world. It would also be another glaring overreach of corporations dictating government policy by purchasing it.

If the FCC is truly part of a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", and lets be clear, corporations are not people, then surely the voice of our comments on OUR internet, will be heard and upheld.

Page 1

===

7521734109.txt

Throw out the rules and instead reclassify ISPs as common carriers.

We often comment on how scary and controlling it is that the Chinese government what parts of the internet users can see or not - it is just as scary if Cable companies and ISPs have that power.

Keep the internet free and innovative.

Page 1

===

7521734006.txt

I agree with the comments made by MLB Advance Media when they said: "Fast lanes would serve only one purpose: for Broadband ISPs to receive an economic windfall.

American consumers would be worse off as the costs of fast lanes are passed along to them in new fees or charges where there were none, or higher fees or charges where they existed." Internet fast lanes are a bad idea for the vast majority of the

American people. In any case, timely enforcement would be next to impossible.

Page 1

===

7521733803.txt

Ending Net Neutrality, as I'm sure has been commented endlessly, would invite a monopoly of the internet service providers, and by our laws cannot be allowed.

Page 1

===

7521733719.txt

Comment

Please continue to support rural programming ...it is very important that we have programing to keep America aware of agricultural news and good family programs to enjoy... rfd tv is the reason we have tv in our Home. Without it we would go to internet programing. Or nothing at all. We and many of our friends only have cable/satelite that supports RFDTV and would switch companies in order to keep rural programing.

Thank you

Suzie

Page 1

===

7521733715.txt

This is regarding RFDTv being removed from programming unfairly.

Please help keep these channels going! These are important channels to

Rural

America. I watch this channel a lot and it has great shows that are informative and important to keeping great American traditions s alive. Thank you for your time in reading my comment. Ag is what this country lives on!

Page 1

===

7521733714.txt

This is regarding RFDTv being removed from programming unfairly.

Please help keep these channels going! These are important channels to

Rural

America. I watch this channel a lot and it has great shows that are informative and important to keeping great American traditions s alive. Thank you for your time in reading my comment. Ag is what this country lives on!

Page 1

===

7521733662.txt

Please do not take RFD TV off of Direct TV. There are plenty of other channels with news and shows for the other people so why can't we keep one channel with rural shows. We need to keep some clean honest family entertainment on TV.

Please do not remove this great channel from Direct TV. Why else would I need to have pay TV.


Page 1

===

7521733656.txt


I would like to officially state that I am opposed to the idea of altered internet speeds for different users. The internet has revolutionized the way we communicate, access information, and look at furry kittens. There is absolutely no reason to alter it. If we allow government bureaucracies and internet providers to control internet speeds, we will open the door to countless problems. Many of these problems are so clear to see that it raises serious questions about the FCC's intent, especially after seeing who The President appointed as the communications commissioner. This crony-capitalism is so blatant that it's offensive at this point.

The American people are tired, tired of being spied on and lied to, and now greedy men in Washington want their hands on the people's internet. Please, please don't fix what 'aint broken. It is clear which side of this issue the american people are on, just look at the comments on this board, please listen to the citizens of The

United States of America for once.

Trent Kierstead

Page 1

===

7521733557.txt

I am very concerned that this merger will result in the removal of many rural and family oriented programs. There are many people who still appreciate the types of programming provided by such stations as RFD-TV for example. Comcast cable has already taken this station out in the states of Colorado and New Mexico and will they then follow suit in Texas and other states? Please take our rural population into account when considering this merger. Thank you for considering my comments,

Page 1

===

7521733826.txt

I would like to request that RFDTV never be taken off of your line up. It is the one channel that educates, reports, comments and entertains rural America, while at the same time gives the urban population an idea of how we feed the world.

This is an important matter to many families like my own.

Page 1

===

7521733372.txt

This will be very brief. I felt compelled to comment on the subject of net neutrality. While I understand that companies like Comcast and time

Warner own the infrastructure that provides us access to the Internet, and as such, may feel entitled to be able to charge what they want, this is further evidence that they are

basically monopolies. Where I live, I have one option for cable/Internet service. If

I want service, I have to pay what they want. This used to be the case with utilities, but at that time, they were highly regulated to prohibit price gauging.

Since then, utilities have been deregulated and now I can purchase electricity from a number of providers which allows competition and drives prices down.

Though, cable is not a utility, it is currently set up like one. Greater than 90% of

Americans have a single choice in cable provider leading to no competition. These companies get to charge what they want essentially. In areas where this is the case, these companies need more oversight, not less. Allowing these companies to continue to monopolize this industry will lead to stifling of growth in the internet/technology sector which is one where growth still occurs in the

US.

Just because these large cable/Internet providers can throw a lot of money at something, the government via lobbyists in particular, does not mean we have to do what they want. In fact, if they want something so bad that they are willing to through tens of millions of dollars at it, great time and effort should be made to see how it will effect all other parties involved. We know it's going to serve them well, but what is it going to do to the next potential Google, or

Netflix, or

Amazon? These are vital questions that need to be addressed prior to any legislation being passed.

Page 1

===

7521733372.txt

This will be very brief. I felt compelled to comment on the subject of net neutrality. While I understand that companies like Comcast and time

Warner own the infrastructure that provides us access to the Internet, and as such, may feel entitled to be able to charge what they want, this is further evidence that they are basically monopolies. Where I live, I have one option for cable/Internet service. If

I want service, I have to pay what they want. This used to be the case with utilities, but at that time, they were highly regulated to prohibit price gauging.

Since then, utilities have been deregulated and now I can purchase electricity from a number of providers which allows competition and drives prices down.

Though, cable is not a utility, it is currently set up like one. Greater than 90% of

Americans have a single choice in cable provider leading to no competition. These companies get to charge what they want essentially. In areas where this is the case,

these companies need more oversight, not less. Allowing these companies to continue to monopolize this industry will lead to stifling of growth in the internet/technology sector which is one where growth still occurs in the

US.

Just because these large cable/Internet providers can throw a lot of money at something, the government via lobbyists in particular, does not mean we have to do what they want. In fact, if they want something so bad that they are willing to through tens of millions of dollars at it, great time and effort should be made to see how it will effect all other parties involved. We know it's going to serve them well, but what is it going to do to the next potential Google, or

Netflix, or

Amazon? These are vital questions that need to be addressed prior to any legislation being passed.

Page 1

===

7521571189.txt

Dear FCC,

I've been hearing about this whole Net Neutrality thing for a long time.

And finally

I've decided to comment on it.

Do you know what's great about the Internet?

The Internet allows us all to upload our deepest thoughts and most precious dreams and let everyone have an equal chance at seeing them. Granted, some of those deepest thoughts are endless cat videos, or the stuff that shows up in the weirdest dark corners of the internet that you try to avoid because they terrify you.

But sometimes those thoughts lead to companies like Facebook, or Google. They give that one author her book deal, or that one artist his big break. It can create something great.

If that changes, if Net Neutrality disappears, congratulations! We now have an place controlled by these specific people with their own agendas. Wonderful.

Great. Look,

I grant that all the Internet isn't wonderful. But there are great parts of it, and

Net Neutrality means that people have a chance to find all the great parts on their own.

It means that the great parts are NOT drowned out because someone else can buy their way to the top. It means that people can find their way to what's going on in the world without having somebody hush it up because they don't like it. It means people can go learn things, like crochet, or how to make the perfect omelette, or the truth about world politics and history. So?

I think Net Neutrality is important. I believe it's one of the most important things

we can have. I thank you very much for listening.

Regards,

Rhiannon

Page 1

===

7521734225.txt

It's bad enough that the content providers are in bed with, or the SAME

COMPANY as the people who give us access to cable content. Most Americans pay thousands of dollars a year for channels and services they never use, just so they can view media that is channeled via a customer dis-service based few companies. What is worse is that the monopolies no longer lie behind the walls of different companies. With

Comcast taking on Time-Warner, the options grow fewer and fewer, especially in rural and semi-rural areas. Here, we have the option of Centurylink (~10mbps

MAX) and

Comcast (~50mbps MAX). Bright House has service literally across the street. What ever happened to freedom of market? The American people are beginning to understand that THEY HAVE BEEN HAD.

Now, all of a sudden, these same companies that slyly determine what we can and cannot watch on their third party lines want to tell us what lanes we can choose on the information superhighway. To that I say, "Fuck That!" The internet is based on being able to access unfettered information and content, regardless of measures that are political, regional, or religious. The fact that these same greedy companies want to affect what we view, read and comment on says a tremendous amount about the corporate and political nonsense that this nation is subject to.

The forefathers are spinning in their graves, and this nonsense has to end. The internet is free. It has been for 40 years, and it MUST stay that way for us as a species to maintain a degree above being informed and on top of our passions.

I don't want to have to pay for "Packages" to access the websites I enjoy. I pay for

Sports Packages for cable just to watch 16 to 21 NFL games a year. I don't even want to show you how much that costs.

The same should NEVER ever have to be an option for the internet. Those companies have us by one toe, let's not give them the whole foot.

Page 1

===

7521734724.txt



Net Neutrality. I urge the chairman to throw them out and instead reclassify

broadband as a telecommunications service. This is the only way to restore real Net

Neutrality.

Thanks for your time.

Page 1

===

7521734614.txt

Please don't do this to us. We must be able to use the internet for school. Homework takes so long as it is that this would cripple our students. Think about all the business we need to perform. Also we pay the FCC tax on every comcast bill for our internet. Why do we need to pay more? Thank you for taking our comments, hope that you can see that this would not be right.

Page 1

===

7521734613.txt

I have been programming computers since before 1980, when I was in elementary school. In my time, I've greatly utilized dial-up bulletin board systems, then the internet when I went to university, then "the world wide web" when that was crafted. All along I have taken a keen interest in politics.

If there were ever something equivalent to "a dial tone" in our modern times, it's an unfettered internet connection. To propose-- instead of modernizing the concept of a Universal Lifeline for the age-- that a crony-capitalist model of favoritism toward megaconglomerates become an accepted United States policy is simply outrageous and speaks volumes about the point to which we have come as regards "the disconnect" that has come to exist between Congressional representatives along with the Presidency, and the work-a-day, taxpaying citizens to whom they're supposed to be accountable. To allow for already-overly-concentrated corporate forces to be given further free reign to manipulate, in ways that simply bolster their bottom line, the crucial economic backbone that is modern communications, would be travesty in the eyes of historians, present and future. That a mega-lobbyist for one of the behemoth companies gets a

Chairmanship at all in a department charged with regulating that industry, is a huge red flag and bespeaks an arrogance of power that can only seem to be

"pushing the envelope" of how much anti-populist policy we constituents will indeed put up with, just to what level our political commonsense has been dumbed- and/or beaten-down in our frenetically technological era.

The proposal must be given a stinging rebuke from all who grasp the danger of such a corporatist agenda, and truly democracy-minded tech workers should be

empaneled to offer sets of standards by which the original, designed-by-

DARPA internet be protected as a right for all, free of "packet shaping",

"throttling", and other such intrusive techniques now on the rise which give advantage to the rich when it comes to accessing that invention of the U.S. Government known as

"the internet."

Were our Founding Fathers to pay a visit to our modern America, they would doubtless be strident supporters of free-flowing peer-to-peer bandwidth.

Cutting out a middleman is surely essential to their vision of efficient business, let alone a centralizing power that greatly facilitates violation of our 4th

Amendment whilst maintaining a strong upper hand for a veritable aristocracy of elite billionaires.

To use the modern vernacular, what part of "controlling eyeballs" do you not understand and does not compel you to resist?

For purposes of technical advice, I hereby give my imprimatur to the comments submitted by the maintainers of the websites www.techdirt.com and www.freepress.net .

Page 1

===

7521734603.txt

Throw out the rules and instead reclassify ISPs as common carriers.

We often comment on how scary and controlling it is that the Chinese government what parts of the internet users can see or not - it is just as scary if Cable companies and ISPs have that power.

Keep the internet free and innovative.

Page 1

===

7521734496.txt

Dear FCC,

I am a United States Citizen who is very deeply concerned that there is any possibility Chairman Tom Wheeler's plan could be legalized. Net

Neutrality must be preserved; I am formally and staunchly against Chairman Tom Wheeler's preferential treatment plan for a two-tiered internet. Please take my comments into consideration, and know that of the literally hundreds of people I have impartially shared the facts of Tom Wheeler's plan to create private ISP carriers over the last two months, not a single person shares the opinion of Tom Wheeler.

Page 1

===

7521734418.txt

Re: FCC Dockets 14-28 and 10-127

I am writing to comment on the above-referenced docket numbers. I oppose the proposed rules. Neutrality must remain the bedrock of the internet. A level

playing field is essential, both to promote and ensure the commercial innovation that has made the internet such an exciting and useful tool, and to ensure that there is no discrimination in the dissemination of ideas, facts, and political opinions through this essential medium. The proposed rules would not maintain net neutrality, but would open the door to discrimination.

The internet is tool that was developed at public expense. It has allowed certain large, private companies to acquire massive wealth. There is not necessarily anything wrong with this, but these companies should not be given the ability to effectively privatize this public resource by restricting its use. In exchange for their right to use this public resource, corporations must be required to provide access to all in a non-discriminatory manner.

The FCC appears to be doing the bidding of a few large corporations, not doing what the American people overwhelmingly want. Net neutrality must remain an absolute and inviolable principle of the internet. Communications companies should be reclassified and regulated as common carriers so that this can be accomplished.

Very truly yours,

Richard D. Barish

Page 1

===

7521570578.txt

I am concerned that my previous comment did not save correctly, so I am repeating it here.

I am writing to request that the FCC change the status of internet service providers to common-carriers, and in so doing, improve the way our ISPs treat their customers, and the quality of the service they are required to provide.

Page 1

===

7521570482.txt










I'm sure you've received many comments starting this way, but it's a good showing of how many people are opposed to allowing broadband companies to have their way unchecked. Please please consider the Title II reclassification to make the internet something more like a common carrier like telecommunications. It deserves to be regulated fairly and neutrally and if things continue in the vein those big companies wish, there is no hope for that.

I use the internet more than people of the generations before mine say is probably good for me, but this is because it is for learning, for working, for living and paying bills, for fun. So many aspects of people's lives take place or are facilitated by the internet in these times and it will only continue to head this way more and more.

The internet needs to be treated as a utility, not a privilege for only the super rich to use effectively or the super rich to control as they wish in terms of what content is served at what speed.

This decision will not only affect the users of the internet here in the

U.S.A. as well, but will set a precedent for other countries. For people all over the world.

Please take the stand for equality and neutrality for us and for everyone.


Page 1

===

7521570482.txt



Most Americans have only one choice for truly high speed Internet: their local cable

company. This is a political failure, and it is an embarrassment. America deserves competition and choice.






I'm sure you've received many comments starting this way, but it's a good showing of how many people are opposed to allowing broadband companies to have their way unchecked. Please please consider the Title II reclassification to make the internet something more like a common carrier like telecommunications. It deserves to be regulated fairly and neutrally and if things continue in the vein those big companies wish, there is no hope for that.

I use the internet more than people of the generations before mine say is probably good for me, but this is because it is for learning, for working, for living and paying bills, for fun. So many aspects of people's lives take place or are facilitated by the internet in these times and it will only continue to head this way more and more.

The internet needs to be treated as a utility, not a privilege for only the super rich to use effectively or the super rich to control as they wish in terms of what content is served at what speed.

This decision will not only affect the users of the internet here in the

U.S.A. as well, but will set a precedent for other countries. For people all over the world.

Please take the stand for equality and neutrality for us and for everyone.


Page 1

===

7521568836.txt

RE: NET NEUTRALITY - JUSTIFICATION?

June 17, 2014 Leave a comment

Anything that brings attention to the matter is a good thing but I don-t think they have found anything that can reach any sort of consensus yet.

What we all need to understand is this: Internet service providers already charge a premium to content providers in that the more popular a website is, the more they have to pay for bandwidth and traffic from their servers - to the network of computer servers that represents the structure for what we call -the internet- - in other words, the -on-ramp- to the internet.

Whereas a defeat to Net Neutrality would create a SECOND* pay station - on the

-off-ramps- of the internet, where the local ISP sits. In other words, it will result in a double whammy to content providers and cost increases that will undoubtedly be passed on, and do nothing to address the real problem, that of dealing with an ever increasing amount of traffic in general.

Indeed, if we can establish government programs such as those for farm subsidies and energy development, then with the growing importance of the internet economy we should do all that we can to make it better by keeping costs in line with reality, not worse.

I-d like to close by emphasizing -reality- in that last paragraph. Costs and performance metrics for computer and communications technology have been, and continue to go down, not up. So don-t let these TROLLS tell you anything different, their arguments are completely without merit and are not justified.

So there you have it, Mr. Tom Wheeler (Head of the FCC), you asked for my input - their arguments are not justified, which speaks to your stance on justification directly.

Page 1

===

7521568757.txt

I am commenting to urge Chairman Wheeler to STOP the FCC's plan to allow


Net Neutrality. I STRONGLY urge the chairman to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service. THIS is the only way to create real Net

Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521568245.txt

The principle of Net Neutrality is not only an important issue for me, but vital to the function of a healthy and vibrant Internet.

By allowing ISPs to prioritize content from providers - whether it be preferred tiering, "fast lanes" or port specific throttling - ISPs are manipulating the ability of providers to compete by shifting their success from one of idea superiority (choice, popularity) to one of resource availability (deepest pocket wins). Capitalism works efficiently when choices are made available to the consumer, but breaking Net Neutrality will reduce those choices and stifle innovation as small providers struggle to compete and are ultimately pushed out of the marketplace. In essence, it forces providers to "pay to play", and reduces choice and competition of

BETTER IDEAS.

The ISPs know that they are the ONLY conduit to the consumer. A conduit that all content providers must pass through to reach their audience. As such, they know that by offering preferred tiering service to providers, they are generating unnecessary, artificial competition amongst content providers just to reach their own customers.

The result is almost a type of extortion or exaction whereby content providers must pay or potentially lose their audience to slow-downs, reduced performance or availability. Content providers who can afford to pay will end up in a virtual arms race as they compete to be the preferred or fastest service. Those providers that can't pay will die on the vine. The only winner will be the ISPs and their shareholders.

As a subscriber/user of internet service from one of the large ISPs, I am paying my provider to connect me to the ENTIRE Internet, unrestricted, unfiltered.

I am expecting a level of servce (speed, uptime) defined by my service contract, and I expect to receive AT LEAST 80-100% of that advertised speed for that

ENTIRE

Internet. Not "up to". I am paying my ISP with the understanding that they will maintain that level of service as long as I am a subscriber under the terms of our contract and upgrade their infrastructure to maintain that level of service. I am

NOT expecting the ISPs to manipulate services, throttle content providers, etc. so they can avoid the costs of those necessary upgrades, and I am NOT paying them to pick winners and losers. By making content providers pay for connecting to their customers, ISPs are in essence double-dipping. Any costs incurred by the provider will ultimately be passed on to the consumer. The net effect is a higher cost for

me, the end user, and obviously higher profit for the ISPs. Please do not allow the

ISPs to somehow reframe this tired, retreaded "recouping costs" argument to ensure higher profitability at the expense of both the consumer and content provider.

At this point in time, the US is already falling behind in many critical

Internet metrics, ISP speeds being one of them. ISPs are not investing in their infrastructure, and consequently are looking for other means to bolster their profits. If we do not take steps now, eventually we will all pay the price for breaking Net Neutraility. I hope you will take my comments, and those of other advocates into consideration and vote to take action to use Title II and protect Net

Neutraility.

Page 1

===

7521733768.txt

FCC - Comcast Merger

Proceeding# 14-57

I would like to comment about the comcast merger. I live in an urban area near

Tampa Fl, and bought property in a rural area in Nth FL last year.

Anticipating this move, I felt fortunate to have found RFDTV and have learned invaluable knowledge about rural living and business alike.

I watch the commodity market news, agri-business news and I love the feature farm stories, they are truely inspirational and educational. My daughter is 13 and hoping to join with 4H and the FFA to learn more about animal husbandry and hopfully establish a career in agri-business with me.

There has been a great urban movement going on over the last 10 years, many folks starting backyard gardening and raising chickens, goats rabbits, aquaculture etc.

Look at all the farmer's Markets in every city! It surely would be a great loss not to have all the wonderful programming that RFDTV offers.

It is an invaluable bridge between urban and rural populations and should be made available for ALL Americans to enjoy! I would rather give up infotainment news programs and the umteen reality tv shows!

Thank you for supporting the betterment of all Americans & RFDTV!

Page 1

===

7521733768.txt

FCC - Comcast Merger

Proceeding# 14-57

I would like to comment about the comcast merger. I live in an urban area near

Tampa Fl, and bought property in a rural area in Nth FL last year.

Anticipating this move, I felt fortunate to have found RFDTV and have learned invaluable

knowledge about rural living and business alike.

I watch the commodity market news, agri-business news and I love the feature farm stories, they are truely inspirational and educational. My daughter is 13 and hoping to join with 4H and the FFA to learn more about animal husbandry and hopfully establish a career in agri-business with me.

There has been a great urban movement going on over the last 10 years, many folks starting backyard gardening and raising chickens, goats rabbits, aquaculture etc.

Look at all the farmer's Markets in every city! It surely would be a great loss not to have all the wonderful programming that RFDTV offers.

It is an invaluable bridge between urban and rural populations and should be made available for ALL Americans to enjoy! I would rather give up infotainment news programs and the umteen reality tv shows!

Thank you for supporting the betterment of all Americans & RFDTV!

Page 1

===

7521567202.txt



Net Neutrality making it difficult for startups and smaller businesses to reach the internet en masse due to their inability to afford the "fast lane" of the internet.

I urge the chairman to throw them out and instead reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service. This is the only way to restore real Net

Neutrality and ensure continual innovation online in America.

Page 1

===

7521566561.txt

If there is a real person at the FCC who actually reads these comments and doesn't just relegate them to the recycle bin, then please do the right thing and protect net neutrality. Not everything in life should go to the highest bidder.

The internet is a source of business, education, and collaboration for so many.

Creating fast lanes for the few who can afford it and slowing everyone else down will create internet monopolies and destroy many small businesses. The

FCC should use its Title II authority to protect net neutrality rules in court.

Don't let cable companies ruin a valuable resource for so many.

Page 1

===

7521565977.txt

I am speaking for net neutrality. In particular, ISP should not be allowed to charge more to content providers for 'enhansed service' for their content.

The pricing sturcture for ISP should be so that there is insentive for infrastructure to be enhansed. Nothing in the present proposal does that.

Internet service in the US, speed and price, trails much of the world. The service is even worse in rural areas of the US. Thank you for considering my comments.

Page 1

===

7521565127.txt

Dear FCC,

The more and more I think about your current proposed rules for internet regulations, the more worried I become about their impacts on the thriving tech sector or our economy, future innovation, and the future of the internet.

The rules, in their current, unacceptable form, allow for paid prioritization of internet traffic as decided on by internet service providers. Such service providers are comprised of large corporations (such as Comcast and Verizon) who have many different interests outside of that of simply providing internet content.

Some of these companies (specifically comcast, who is the largest provider of internet in the country) owns certain content producers and has an incentive to prioritize their own content rather then that of others. This is a very scary idea, that

ISPs will have the power to determine what content is distributed at what speeds.

There has been much said about this aspect of your rule proposal, and I will not elaborate on many of the arguments further, but I would like to explore one point in particular.

Internet users pay ISPs a certain amount of money in order to receive a certain internet speed. That is to say that ISPs receive money to provide the internet at a defined level. Your rules explicitly allow for the ISPs to ignore its agreement and obligation to consumers, to provide internet at a certain speed, and base internet speeds off of what content providers are willing to pay for. This is unacceptable because it is allowing the ISPs to receive double payment for a single good. This is unacceptable because it allows ISPs to deny customers the exact product they are being paid to produce. This is unacceptable period.

The true solution to this problem is to reclassify internet broadband providers as title II common carriers. Corporations like Comcast, Time Warner, and

Verizon are in privileged positions as businesses and need to be monitored and regulated closely to ensure that consumers are not being denied what they have paid for.

As I am sure the sheer amount of comments has alerted you to, people are watching.

What the FCC does will have a lasting impact on how consumers receive the internet.

Please fight for us! If you let us down, we will not forget, and we will not forgive.

Sincerely,

Alexander Richards

Page 1

===

7521564037.txt

I write in support of open Internet, known commonly as net neutrality. I speak as a small business owner who relies on relatively easy access to the Intenet-

-albeit not free or cheap access; I do pay for that access. The idea that the

Internet will become the purview of big business with deep pockets is indefensible. We have enough plutocratic policies in place in this country--be it the dismantling of campaign finance laws or corporate tax breaks practically required to do business in any given state. Let's keep the Internet a neutral place where small business has a chance. Thank you for your openness to comments.

Page 1

===

7521563624.txt

I agree with the statements below. I work for a non-profit, and our internet service is expensive, it is metered, and it's not very fast. There is barely any competition. Competition comes from a very small franchise of a cable system, I don't think they even meet the definition of "broadband." There is satellite internet, but we all know how limited that is. And there is Verizon 4G, which is fairly fast, but limited geographically and as to the number of users.

Internet access is such a boon to the economy, to education, and to democracy. We need to free it more, and not allow mergers to make it harder to get the information and networking this country will benefit from.











Page 1

===

7521563068.txt

My name is Sean Simpson, I am a student from Greensboro, NC. I am commenting because the changes being proposed represent a very serious threat to the internet as an open and free platform for the sharing of information and ideas. Adding

"fast lanes" would severely restrict the ability of new websites to gain any traction in the online market compared to well-funded, established competitors, and could set a dangerous precedent for the limitation of access to undesirable content through cripplingly slow speeds. This model for a tiered internet represents a move by service providers to tighten and further extort their already extensive monopolies, and would be a serious blow to the open internet that we currently enjoy.

As a citizen of the web, I ask you to please reconsider implementing these changes to net neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521563064.txt

Please classify Internet Service as a Title II Common Carrier. It is clear to all users that internet service is a utility, just like telephone service.

The bits that flow through it are, and should be treated, just the same as voice data that flowed through the telephone network in the 20th century.

Please treat all data the same; after classifying internet service as a

Title II

Common Carrier, I recommend a ban on any so-called "fast lanes".

This comment applies equally to mobile and land-based internet service; all connections to the Internet are essentially utilities and should be treated as such.

So-called "innovation" by ISPs is most commonly in forms that are harmful to

consumers, such as advertising or preferential treatment of some types of data.

Internet service should be judged solely on quality and speed of service.

Page 1

===

7521562966.txt




Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521562879.txt

I have actually read the default comments below, and they do actually state the case as it is. But to say something personal, it is an unfortunate reality that if we do not exercise and protect our rights, they're slowly encroached upon. When money can be used to influence access, or restrict access, and someone benefits from it--it can, will, and does happen. Lobbyists approach Congress (and whoever provides the most campaign donation gets access), Fox buys a 'news channel' but it's really one long anti-Obama political ad. So letting Internet access or speeds be pimped out to the highest payer...what does that make the FCC, or our entire social structure?







My friends, family, and I use the Internet for conversation and fun, but also for work and business. When you let ISPs mess with our Internet experience, you are

attacking our social lives, our entertainment, and our economic well being. We won't stand for it.


Page 1

===

7521562713.txt

Good day.

I am commenting to inform the FCC that I am in favour of reclassifying

Internet

Service Providers as Title II Common Carriers. It is my belief that the

Internet should be open for all and that ISPs should not be allowed to charge services a premium to access consumers. Instead,

I also deeply believe that the United States of America is horribly lacking in

Internet Service Provider competition. There are only a handful, creating a monopoly in any given area of the country, and we American citizens pay more than almost all other first world countries for slower speeds.

Thank you for your time,

Justin

Page 1

===

7521562405.txt

To Whom It May Concern,

I'm very troubled by the FCC's plan to end Net Neutrality. In its place, the FCC instead plans to create a system where the bidder with the most resources receives preferential treatment from internet service providers. Should the proposal

"Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet" be implemented, I foresee a future where smaller brands are unfairly damaged simply because they didn't have the cash to pay their ISP for ideal speeds. The average consumer won't understand why some sites are faster than others and will inevitably gravitate toward the faster sites not because of the site's content, but because of content provider's ability to pay substantially more to the ISP for faster content delivery. It's a situation that's bad for the consumer, bad for internet service providers, and bad for brands.

The internet was founded on the principle of free and open information for everyone.

It gave everyone a voice, and every voice should reach me the same way.

The FCC continues to tell us that it is not creating a 'Fast Lane' and that every site will reach me at my promised speeds from my ISP. But faster is faster, and any other

content providers will be slower in comparison. And that is primarily because the broadband spectrum is a limited resource. The tubes that bring me the internet are similar to the power lines that provide power to my house and the water pipes that provide me water. In that respect, the internet has become a requirement for modern living, and the FCC should make every effort possible to preserve and improve its ease of access. Your proposal does the exact opposite, despite some creative language that may make 14-28 look appealing. The FCC has received more comments on this than anything else in its history. The public at large has caught on and is obviously very concerned about this issue.

I implore you to seriously consider every comment you've received on your initiative and find a different solution. Should the FCC continue moving forward on

14-28, it will only hurt its perception as a woefully out of touch government agency that is not acting in the best interest of the American people. Please don't make me lose faith in the FCC's ability to protect my right to access information, promote forward-thinking innovations, and be a world leader in technology.

There's still time to make this right by doing the most American thing possible - listening to the people you serve.

Sincerely,

Ruben A. Catano

Page 1

===

7521561360.txt

I'm commenting today to ask the FCC to reclassify Internet Service

Providers as

Title Two Common Carriers.

The FCC is looking to create rules for a system that has existed just fine until the ruling against the "FCC Open Internet Order 2010" bill in the case of

Verizon vs. the FCC in 2014.

All internet traffic should be treated the same way and the FCC has the power to make it happen.

Page 1

===

7521561130.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is John Corson and I live in Huntsville, AL.


A pay-to-play Internet worries me because it could stiffle free speech.

The Internet is the greatest vehicle for disseminating ideas in human history. Any

policy that may potentially degrade our collective ability to freely communicate in favor of enterprise is morally deficient, as are any individuals supporting such a policy because of the obvious profitability while knowing the potential for abuse.

You, our leaders, have a choice, and I hope that when you weigh the options, you will choose people over profits. If you do, in fact, actually read this comment and you ultimately choose to allow a fast-track, please remember just this:

You have sold us out to fatten your wallet, and because you chose the financial incentives before you rather than the collective good, you are amoral people and deserve to feel serious regret for years to come; that is, assuming you are actually capable of having a conscience in the future.

Sincerely,

John Corson

Page 1

===

7521561037.txt

As someone who has been working on the Internet for years I've given a lot of thought to the need for Net Neutrality.

I've personally read both arguments before the FCC and subsequent decisions.

I am in complete agreement with the following comment, which I submit in adamant support of Net Neutrality:







My friends, family, and I use the Internet for conversation and fun, but also for work and business. When you let ISPs mess with our Internet experience, you are attacking our social lives, our entertainment, and our economic well being. We won't

stand for it.


Page 1

===

7521560823.txt

Internet providers should be completely blind to the content I am viewing. The water company doesn't care if I'm using it to cook or to wash clothing; the electricity company doesn't care if I'm powering my TV or my clothes dryer; my

Internet provider shouldn't care if I'm watching Netflix or submitting a comment to the

FCC.

The success stories of the Internet age are businesses founded by people with few funds and a great idea. If Myspace could pay Comcast for fast traffic, would

Facebook ever have been created? Companies' ability to pay for faster

Internet would make the start-up costs of founding a web-based company much higher, which would favor established businesses. This would threaten innovation and hurt

American jobs.

Page 1

===

7521560706.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Amanda Weir and I live in Los Angeles, CA.



The one and only cable/internet service provider in my area is Time

Warner Cable.

That is my singular option if I want to pay to have internet in my home.

TWC has a monopoly. I have no choice. Upon receiving a letter from TWC a couple months ago,

I have learned that they will be merging with Comcast. This is concerning for my ability to access other services I pay for such as Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, since these companies are being extorted by Comcast in order to have their content made available to their customers. Granted, these are just the superfluous things I have come to enjoy as a privileged American with money to pay for entertainment and news sources. It is, however, money I earn in this state, money I pay taxes with, and

money I put back into our ailing economy to help keep other Americans afloat and I believe the internet should be free and available to every human. I discovered my ability to make a comment here through the power of the information and news available to me on the internet (again, a privilege I pay for). PLEASE put a stop to these massive corporations taking advantage of Americans, charging them ridiculous amounts and providing unbelievably terrible service in exchange. It is much to my chagrin that I hand money over to TWC each month in exchange for spotty service that is rarely up to the bandwidth speed I have been promised per my payment

"turbo" level and there are frequent outages. The bombardment of constant and wasteful advertisement mailers is also a problem, no matter how many times I have asked them to stop sending physical letters, they refuse to acknowledge my opting into their "green" delivery method. They also telemarket to their existing clientele to upsell us at every possible turn. When we do not upgrade, our modem rental fee is raised regularly and since this terrible service is my ONLY option, I have no choice but to pay higher and higher rates due to this extortion.

It is extortion and it is a monopoly. Period. Do something about it.

Sincerely,

Amanda Weir

Page 1

===

7521733373.txt

I am commenting in support of those homes who have AT&T and Direct TV. We have

Bright House and if Bright House ever considers dropping RFD-tv from the channel line up, I will be thoroughly disgusted. RFD-tv offers a wide variety of programs for everyone's viewing taste. We turn to RFD-tv many times during the day and can always be assured that anyone in the room will not be offended. In fact, we have it on right now at 1:53 p.m. and am enjoying the picking and strumming blue grass music.

Thank you RFD-tv.

Page 1

===

7521662417.txt

To: FCC ? Commissioners and staff

From: Mile high DX Association

Re: RM-11708

The Mile High DX Association (MHDXA) is an amateur radio organization from the central Colorado area and consists of almost 70 members who are very active radio

amateurs. Much of our on-air activity is in the CW portions of the amateur bands.

It has come to our attention (unfortunately too late for the official comment period) that despite support from the ARRL, this measure, if enacted, could result in a serious negative operational impact on typical operations in the CW portions of the ham bands. It seems that many took little notice of the consequences of this petition, and incorrectly assumed that because the ARRL supported it, that the petition would be useful, have merit, and would create no adverse impact to current amateur operations. But since then, as the interpretation of the proposal language became clear, the majority consensus is that this regulation could open the door for a huge increase in unforeseen and unwanted interference to typical amateur operations in these subbands.

As you are aware, typical operations in these subbands consists of CW,

RTTY, and data modes whose RF carriers are characteristically of narrow bandwidth, and often of very low power levels. The petition would allow for carriers of high power and very wide bandwidth that will severely interfere with the existing traffic and also severely reduce the bandwidth efficiency.

It is not our intent to protest the consideration of transmissions of these large bandwidth carriers entirely. However, we strongly urge and request the

FCC to NOT approve the petition in it?s current language, but to restrict these transmission types to subbands in which transmissions of these wider carrier bandwidths are in use and accepted today. It is very important for the future of the hobby that a portion of the amateur allocations have carrier bandwidth limitations of

500 Hz or so in order to provide a safe haven for CW, RTTY, and digital operations so popular in amateur radio today.

Many amateurs are just now realizing the severe potential negative impact of this proposal in it?s current form. So we also request that FCC consider reopening the comment period for RM-11708 as the issue deserves further review and comment.

We in the MHDXA again will very much appreciate the FCC taking our concerns into consideration as you deliberate the outcome of RM-11708 despite our tardiness in comment. Thank you for your time and interest in our opinion.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael Ferguson K0MF

Secretary / Treasurer, MHDXA

Page 1

===

7521558143.txt

I appreciate the opportunity to express my support for net neutrality and the FCC's use of its Title II authority to mandate and enforce net neutrality. Net neutrality is the First Amendment of the Internet, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data equally. As an Internet user, net neutrality is vitally important to me. The FCC should use its Title II authority to protect it.

Most Americans have only one choice for truly high speed Internet: their local cable company. This is a political failure, and it is an embarrassment. America deserves competition and choice. America is behind many other countries in broadband penetration and internet access for all, and an end to net neutrality will make us the equivalent of a third world country in internet access. We decry

China's state-control and censorship of the internet. When the ISP gets to decide whose data goes and whose doesn't, it will be the end of diverse opinions and diverse content. The ISP "dictators" will control everything. Do you believe that activities such as this one will be allowed in a world that is not netneutral? In a land that claims to value democracy and open government, a decision against net neutrality is a vote for censorship and (further) corporate control of our government.

Without net neutrality, a bad situation gets even worse. These ISPs will now be able to manipulate our Internet experience by speeding up some services and slowing down others. That kills choice, diversity, parity, and quality.



My friends, family, and I use the Internet for conversation and fun, but also for work and business. When you let ISPs mess with our Internet experience, you are attacking our social lives, our entertainment, and our economic well being. The company I work for uses the internet for almost every task we do and service we provide. If our ISP decides that Netflix is more important that our data, we won't be able to provide our customers (health care providers) with the vital services they need to survive in these economic hard times. We won't stand for it.

ISPs are opposing Title II so that they can destroy the FCC's net neutrality rules

in court. This is the same trick they pulled last time. Please, let's not be fooled again. Title II is the strong, legally sound way to enforce net neutrality. Use it.

Please use it, and keep our internet safe and open to all.

Thank you for considering my comment.

Page 1

===

7521733368.txt

I want to make a futile effort to support Net Neutrality. Essentially I am supporting the basic tenet of equality and freedom obviously not evident in their filings by big cable companies. I said 'futile' because I am certain that in the end the big corporations are going to win because they have executive, legislative and judicial branch in their pockets. The fact is clear by the appointment of current

FCC chairman by Barrack Obama. He essentially said,"You.. the people.. I am putting a sham to throw your comments into the waste basket of fcc.gov/comments and do whatever is necessary to placate the big business."

I hope someone will at least read it.

Thanks and sincere wish.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Page 1

===

7521640520.txt

I do not think allowing this merger to proceed is in the benefit of the public. I have previously been a Comcast Customer, and it was a horrible experience

(in which, due to their monopoly, I had no choice). Don't expand their monopoly even further.

I am fortunate in my current circumstance that I am not forced to use them. I am making this comment to try and protect myself from having to in the future if I move. Why would you reward these companies for their documented lack of service, and expand their ability to abuse and milk additional customers.

Page 1

===

7521635041.txt

Oppose Comcast - Time Warner merger.

The Internet originated in the US as ARPANET in the 1960's. Since that time, it has grown exponentially in scope and value, truly becoming the World Wide

Wed. While the US currently enjoys fair reach of the Internet, it's speed has steadily dropped in ranking throughout the World. It is my belief that if allowed, this merger will limit competition and further serve as a barrier to entry, reducing innovation, and further diminishing the US standings for reach and speed of the Internet.

As a current Comcast customer waiting since 6/24/14 (it is now 7/16/14) for a response to

an inquiry, the gift of several hundred thousand more customers will reduce any desire to improve existing customer service. Calls to their customer support number are summarily dropped without comment or explanation. Calls to their sales line are greeted with a recording that all representatives are busy. Call back later. I have received this recording for 4 days now in my attempts to follow up on my

6/24/14 inquiry.

For these reasons, I strongly believe that the request to merge Comcast with Time

Warner should be denied.

Page 1

===

7521634848.txt

My comments in connection with the Comcast merger... I am in strong opposition to the merger as I am confident pricing will go up. Living in Los Angeles, we have felt the consequences of large media conglomerates and the increase in costs and the limitations with programming. Currently, i am a Cox customer and no longer can enjoy the Dodgers due to the stalled negotiations with Direct TV... i think this is prelude to what we as consumers will experience with the Comcast merger-- fewer options, higher cost and zero competition. The FCC has an obligation to look after the interests of consumers and not corporations!

Page 1

===

7521629179.txt

From out here in the real world, this seems to such an obviously bad idea. I'm not sure when the FCC was charged with helping to grow even bigger telcom monopolies or who gave them that assignment but it's so obviously and completely wrong that it needs to be commented on. Creating even a bigger monopoly from two companies that are already essentially monopolies in their own right, only serves to create further economic damage to our country's citizens. The only real result is even greater profits to the stockholders of the 2 companies. As such, there is no reason to consider this any further - the only correct answer is to stop it now before it occurs.

Page 1

===

7521619333.txt

Allowing the merger of Comcast with TWC, would give an ISP provider way too much power. And they have proven complete abuse of this power already, before the power has been even given to them that they so desperately seek. Their consumer reports,

comments, and general over all consumer feeling; are abysmal. The lowest of any company consumer feelings rivaling ENRON- and we all know what happened there. They throttle internet users speed, they strong arm any companies that use their service to provide content and don't want to pay their raising rates, and if any company comes close to being able to compete with them, THEY BUY THEM.

ISP's and Cable need to be taught a lesson, one that stands as American, and as relevant as our Constitution which protects it's people from foreign and domestic tyranny. Our personal freedoms, rights, and privileges cannot be bought.

Ever. You can't buy everything because people don't want what you are selling; and that is exactly what Comcast as a company does. They buy up and control areas in the United

States so people are left with only two options. Buy from them, or buy something else that is sub par in quality at best. And they expect us to accept it, and pay for promised internet speeds which few consumers ever actually attain.

It's all smoke and mirrors, and no one can hold them accountable. Maybe the BBB should look into that. All we can do, is not allow them to get bigger. To buy more, and then decide to charge whomever they want, whatever price they want, whenever they want.

If those attributes don't sound like a bully to you, then I don't know what does.

Page 1

===

7521609003.txt

Much of the debate about this merger focuses on Net Neutrality. I direct my comments at a more fundamental issue: Competition.

Comcast has argued that this merger does not hurt competition because

Comcast and

TWC do not compete in any markets. This is the fundamental problem with the ISP market today.

I have exactly 1 choice in my market for Internet service greater than

5mbps: TWC.

Without competition, customers lack choice which leads to a monopoly industry that is no longer beholden to its customers. TWC and Comcast are beholden to the different levels of the US government not the individual consumer. I have no recourse or option if I'm unhappy with TWC, I can choose to purchase their broadband internet connection or go without, there is no comparable competitor.

Google

Fiber's entry into the consumer broadband market has shown what truly competitive forces create: change.

If the FCC approves this merger, the conditions placed on it should not focus (only)

on Net Neutrality but on competition. Comcast has already pledged to sell some of its existing customers to rivals and even create a spin-off company to handle some customers. All in the name of maintaining subscriber numbers below an arbitrary threshold to keep the impression of a non-monopoly and its government customers happy.

Instead, I would propose that the FCC might allow Comcast and TWC to merge, but require that their customers be split between 2 geographically competitive entities that must compete for the same customers. Only competition will provide consumers choice. Let free market forces make these two behemoths improve their products and customer service in ways that government regulations have been unable to achieve thus far. Force them to compete on a level playing field. Even declare

(or suggest) that geographic non-competition is anti-trust collusion.

Google Fiber's entrance to the consumer broadband markets highlights that what

America needs from telecommunication services is competition, not more regulation.

Force ISP's to compete against each other rather than carving out their own geographic fiefdoms and holding customers captive with no viable alternatives!

Thank you for your time and attention.

Page 1

===

7521593390.txt

You only need to do a quick Google-search to discover volumes of data revealing what a despised and devious company Comcast is. It's not a new development, so it should be expected to take many years before Comcast could represent it's self as a competent and respectable company. I have personally been a Comcast customer for decades (they have been the only provider here in SF) and so I know from experience that they are overpriced and generally dishonest.

Maybe, just maybe, their plans to expand and merge with other cable/internet companies could be considered to produce anything but a disaster. Yet that time is not now, so I implore the FCC to forbid this truly dreadful merger.

Thank you for taking the time to review my comments.

Page 1

===

7521557505.txt

I am posting this copy for my comments because it lays out the issues/problems more concisely than anything I probably could write.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The proposal to abandon Net Neutrality on the internet in favor of a multi-tiered content-biased system is deeply flawed. It would:

1. create a system that inhibits technical innovation by allowing ISPs to choose which technologies their customers can access.

2. create a system that protects entrenched companies while penalizing the start-ups that have been the life blood of the internet.

3. limit access of non-profit organizations that cannot afford "fastlane" fees.

4. penalize media companies that do not directly own cable or satellite access to consumers.

The Internet has flourished under the de facto common carrier ISPs held until recently. It is time for the FCC to declare that ISPs are Common Carriers and hold them to that status.

---------------------------------------------------------

I subscribe to a "common carrier" approach to the Internet.

Thank you.

Tom Miller

Page 1

===

7521733321.txt

I am commenting in support of RFD-TV and it's efforts to be allowed to continue to broadcast after the upcoming merger goes into effect. RFD-TV provides a valuable service to rural America in the distribution of essential information for the agricultural comunity. RFD-TV also plays an essential role in communication between the rural and urban communities. A mandate should be a part of the merger agreement between Time Warner and Comcast to insure that RFD-TV will not be dropped by

Comcast.

Page 1

===

7521574069.txt

I'm commenting to oppose the merger of Comcast and Time Warner cable.

Comcast is currently the only cable option in my neighborhood unless you decide to go with

DirectTV or Dish. Furthermore, if you want/need high speed internet for work purposes, Comcast is again the only option.

Allowing these companies to merge will only strengthen the cable and high speed internet monopoly that Comcast already enjoys in my area and enable future rate hikes and poorer service vs. creating competition that benefits the end consumer.

Thanks

Krister Romeyn

Page 1

===

7521572947.txt

I object to the merger of Comcast and Time Warner on the grounds that it will be damaging to the consumer. I am a reluctant Comcast high speed internet subscriber.

During the process of signing up, the sales person would not even discuss anything other than their Triple Play offering (internet, cable tv, phone). I was only provided the introductory price and it took a full five minutes to get a full disclosure on the cost of the services over the two year life of the contract.

During the whole time, the sales person was evasive. This experience was repeated twice and on one of those occasions the sales person simply quit communicating with me. I only got the package I needed (internet only) by being very persistent. This is predatory behavior and Comcast agents are clearly being trained to behave this way. It will only get worse by adding another 30 million subscribers to the Comcast

Empire.

Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on this matter.

Page 1

===

7521572656.txt

My comment is in opposition to the proposed merger and transfer of properties of TWC and Comcast. Tho' the FCC may consider satellite and streaming video competition - it isn't really and you know so. To approve this merger will mean you have to approve the ATT & Dish merger. Where is the consumer choice? You already have

Comcast testimony that they cannot guarantee prices won't go up and service go down.

Case in point? Listen to this call: http://www.theawl.com/2014/07/sympathy-for-the-comcast-rep-from-hell The current

Comcast nightmare call that's gone viral. As an 'insider', I can tell you, this is not unusual. It is NOT about the customer at Comcast. It is all about

Comcast. The

Comcast rep is correct: Comcast is the #1 internet and cable provider in the country. NOT by customer choice. Simply because of Comcast's financial savvy in knitting together and buying out other properties. ThaT is not competition nor representative of a capitalistic marketplace. Time for a "Judge Greene" moment and break up the monopolies. Free the Pipes. The last time we did that in

1983 it contributed to one of the largest economic and technological booms this country has seen. And, we need that now. Now is the time. Before Comcast builds it's second tower in downtown Philly to honor itself. Time is NOW. Find the courage.

Do what's right. It's hard when the FCC chairman WAS the industry's chief lobbyist.

I make no apologies for my cynicism. Hard to align your interests with the public's interests after years of serving the telecom masters.

Page 1

===

7521569631.txt

I am commenting to voice my opinion AGAINST this merger. The US needs real competition, not large monopolies. This merger is NOT in the public's best interest and will lead to less competition, stifle innovation and gouge the public as prices skyrocket.

Page 1

===

7521568891.txt

I?am?commenting?to?oppose?the?Time?Warner/Comcast?merger.??As?a?past customer,?I?have?been?subjected?to?poor,?yet?very?expensive,?service.

The?notion?that?they?will?become?even?larger?and?more?focused to?their?customers?needs?is?ludicrous and unfair to the public.?

This?merger?will?do?nothing?for?consumers?other?than?produce? the?type?of?monopoly?antitrust?laws?were?created?to?prevent.?

Page 1

===

7521733253.txt

I agree with the following comment:


Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data equally.

Most Americans now use the internet for communication, entertainment and business transactions. Net neutrality is vitally important. The FCC should use its


Americans have much less choice for high speed Internet than other advanced societies, and this choice is usually their local cable company. This is a failure and an embarrassment. America deserves competition and choice.

Without net neutrality, these ISPs will be able to manipulate our

Internet experience by speeding up some services and slowing down others. That kills choice, diversity, and quality.




Page 1

===

7521733253.txt

I agree with the following comment:


Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data equally.

Most Americans now use the internet for communication, entertainment and business transactions. Net neutrality is vitally important. The FCC should use its


Americans have much less choice for high speed Internet than other advanced societies, and this choice is usually their local cable company. This is a failure and an embarrassment. America deserves competition and choice.

Without net neutrality, these ISPs will be able to manipulate our

Internet experience by speeding up some services and slowing down others. That kills choice, diversity, and quality.




Page 1

===

7521556348.txt

Thank you for considering my comments. I would personally be negatively affected by the end of Net Neutrality. I work at a small business that could go under if we couldn't pay whatever fees were required to pay for the "fast lane." I also wouldn't have as many choices in networks and websites that I could use

(depending on who could afford the extra "fast lane" fees), I wouldn't be able to watch any videos online (our connection is already slow and frequently interrupted, and we don't have cable...this would make the situation much worse), and I probably wouldn't be able to afford to start a web-based business I had been considering. My friends and family would be negatively affected as well- for the same reasons and many others.

A free and open Internet needs to be safeguarded for the good of the entire country.

It affects the economy, societal equal rights issues, education opportunities, and many, many aspects of people's everyday lives. It should be considered a utility, just like water and electricity.


Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data equally. As an Internet user, net neutrality

is vitally important to me. The FCC should use its Title II authority to protect it.







Page 1

===

7521555514.txt

I believe that Con-Cast, Time Warner along with the possible ATT/Direct

TV merger, are in the process of trying to deprive WE the People, Rural America news, information, and education. Is it not illegal to deprive individuals of education?

I also believe this is a another attempt to silence the People of Rural

America.

Rural American and Agriculture are vitally important to America, and education of young children today.

RFD-TV is without a doubt one of the purest, most informative, enjoyable kinds of TV viewing that my family views today. We watch this more than all the other channels combined. We watch it because everyone, no matter what age, can view it without all the violence and language concerns. It is just refreshing to the mind and soul, and feel that it would be a great lose to lose this type of viewing.

Thank You for taking my comments and Please keep this type of viewing available to the General Public.

Page 1

===

7521668598.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Zoraida and I live in Highland, NY.


A pay-to-play Internet worries me because i cant afford to pay more and this is unfair to almost everyone except the ones unjustly profiting

You dont control the internet, let it be! Stop losing these comment emails by the way! The 99% matters too!

Sincerely,

Zoraida

Page 1

===

7521669084.txt

The Mile High DX Association (MHDXA) is an amateur radio organization from the central Colorado area and consists of almost 70 members who are very active radio amateurs. Much of our on-air activity is in the CW portions of the amateur bands.

It has come to our attention (unfortunately too late for the official comment period) that despite support from the ARRL, this measure, if enacted, could result in a serious negative operational impact on typical operations in the CW portions of the ham bands. It seems that many took little notice of the consequences of this petition, and incorrectly assumed that because the ARRL supported it, that the petition would be useful, have merit, and would create no adverse impact to current amateur operations. But since then, as the interpretation of the proposal language became clear, the majority consensus is that this regulation could open the door for a huge increase in unforeseen and unwanted interference to typical amateur operations in these subbands.

As you are aware, typical operations in these subbands consists of CW,

RTTY, and data modes whose RF carriers are characteristically of narrow bandwidth, and often of very low power levels. The petition would allow for carriers of high power and very wide bandwidth that will severely interfere with the existing traffic and also severely reduce the bandwidth efficiency.

It is not our intent to protest the consideration of transmissions of these large bandwidth carriers entirely. However, we strongly urge and request the

FCC to NOT approve the petition in it?s current language, but to restrict these transmission types to subbands in which transmissions of these wider carrier bandwidths are in

use and accepted today. It is very important for the future of the hobby that a portion of the amateur allocations have carrier bandwidth limitations of

500 Hz or so in order to provide a safe haven for CW, RTTY, and digital operations so popular in amateur radio today.

Many amateurs are just now realizing the severe potential negative impact of this proposal in it?s current form. So we also request that FCC consider reopening the comment period for RM-11708 as the issue deserves further review and comment.

We in the MHDXA again will very much appreciate the FCC taking our concerns into consideration as you deliberate the outcome of RM-11708 despite our tardiness in comment. Thank you for your time and interest in our opinion.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael Ferguson K0MF

Secretary / Treasurer, MHDXA

Page 1

===

7521554699.txt

Don't you dare! Don't you dare end net neutrality. I know that you are run by a former cable lobbyist by whatever corrupt political f**kery has made that possible, but I hope these comments are showing you that you cannot get away with just

EVERYTHING! The big oligopoly that are the cable companies in America make enough billions of dollars from overpricing, stifling competition, and general fleecing of its customers as it is. You are NOT allowed to give them free reign to stuff even more money into their bloody f**king pockets at my and every other person who uses the internet's expense. You will deny Comcast, and every other member corporation of the cable oligopoly who comes a-knocking, the permission to charge content providers an additional fee--that covers nothing and is required for no technical purpose--to send data to me. God, what is wrong with you?!

Page 1

===

7521554463.txt

I am a small, home-business owner. I rely on the Internet to conduct business via my website. I use various online services to advertise and reach out to potential customers. I am afraid I would not be able to compete with large, powerful corporations who would have access to faster Internet speeds and whose reach would extend beyond what I could afford.

The loss of Internet Neutrality would like mean the end of business and severe hardship for me and my family.

Net neutrality is vitally important to me. The FCC must use its Title II authority to protect it.

I am often finding myself discouraged that other countries have much, much better

Internet service. I have few choices for affordable Internet connection and those choices are for very poor speeds, barely above 2.6 Megs. This is a TRULY a political failure and an embarrassment. Dont you think America deserves an open, reliable, fast Internet, like, for example, SOUTH KOREA?--

I know you've received comments with the usual statements about net neutrality, so I won't repeat them here. Yet, I do need you to understand: Net Neutrality needs to be protected. In perpetuity.

I urge, no, I DEMAND, you insure that I, my children and their children will have access to a neutral Internet. Net neutrality is vitally important to me.

The FCC must use its Title II authority to protect it.

Thank you,

Steven Levine/Santa Fe, NM

Page 1

===

7521669138.txt

Broadband access is now basic to civic life. Witness this comment process as well as accessing health care through the Affordable Care Act. In addition, full speed, high bandwidth internet access and connections facilitate commerce and innovation and are essential to a healthy and competitive economy.

Recent court decisions allow cable service providers to set up differential access speeds to content providers based on cost of access. This is inconsistent with the principle of universal access that should reasonably and logically be applied to internet service providers, as it is to wire line phone service providers. Internet service providers, specifically cable TV companies with wired connections to private homes over which Internet services are delivered, should be classified as common carriers and so regulated. The FCC should be working towards expanding access to high speed internet for more Americans, not codifying a pay-for-speed access policy for content providers. Keep the internet open and universally and equally accessible. Classify internet delivery providers as common carriers.

Page 1

===

7521733031.txt

Instead of fighting for the rights of the people and maintaining the internet as it should be, the FCC is siding with greedy companies. This seems like the end of freedom in the United States. As corporations slowly dominate, the FCC will stand by

their side to reap any benefits they can. I once trusted the FCC, but now

I am forced to reconsider my decision. I have come to comment on this case as

I feel that by siding with corporations, it will crush innovation. Many platforms were founded on the basis of net neutrality, and by getting rid of it, it basically sets a precedent that only the rich can be successful. What happens to that small business that cannot afford bandwidth costs? Are we going to eventually be pushed to form a new network free from government intervention? And how long will it be before even that is taken over by greedy corporations? I implore you to think about the future of innovation with this case.

Page 1

===

7521732899.txt

You know that net neutrality is essential for the fair and fast delivery of high speed internet. You know what will happen if you allow a two tier system.

You do not need these comments. You know what is right. Do the right thing.

Page 1

===

7521732775.txt

I want to emphasize as strongly as possible my support for continued “net neutrality” of internet access for all at the same high speed.

I have been using the Internet for over 20 years, from a time when the only access I could get was AOL’s slow and erratic dial-up service. Finally, I could upgrade through a local ISP which offered DSL service to our house. Suddenly, the availability of then what was much faster, and regular, service made actual work possible, not just very occasional, incidental use.

Today, constantly available, fast broadband service has made my job possible, in which I access one on-line tool after another in my work. In addition, constant high speed Internet access makes realistic my using many of the services

I rely on in my personal life, such as banking on-line, finding travel directions, ordering goods, searching for needed information, seeking emergency help, and participating in politics (as by commenting on this proceeding).

These and many other instances of Internet access help define modern

American life.

To impose any artificial limitations on Internet access would be as counterproductive, and as damaging, as imposing artificial limits on access to electricity, or any other mainstay of modern business.

Page 1

===

7521674628.txt

Net neutrality is VITAL to the broad public interest. The private interests of

certain ISPs are secondary. They are clever and resourceful people. They will do just fine with an open and free internet. And given the fact that you exist to serve the broad public interest first, you are ethically bound to deeply discount all the whining and crying about how they are suffering under the burden of having to serve their customer's interests. The nature of communications technology is that it requires virtual constant expanding of network capacity to accommodate ever increasing demand for communication interconnection. This has been true since the first telegraph wires were strung and is not likely to change anytime soon. They are, in point of fact, common carriers in every reasonable and historical sense of the term. To employ some convoluted Svengali reasoning in order to concoct any other classification of theses ISPs is malicious and deceptive. And does not serve the broad public interest you are tasked with serving.

I urge you to take these comments seriously as they represent the views of the vast majority of the citizens of the United States of America.

Page 1

===

7521674521.txt

I support Net Neutrality, a free and open Internet! Net Neutrality is very important to me. I do not need a major fast lane that will be too expensive for the middle class and the poor. Many household Americans enjoy their online presence at home streaming Youtube and Netflix and other streaming platforms and people who enjoy their online gaming entertainment. I pick the American people side instead of greedy corporations and please support the voice of theAmerican people, not the greedy corporations. Thank you for your time considering my comments.

Page 1

===

7521674265.txt

The following comments are mine and do not necessarily reflect the position of my current employer.

Net neutrality ensures equal access to information and resources.

The proposed actions will put an undue burden on small business ( a major job creator) and educational institutions. The increased costs will impact tuition at most colleges and universities. Increased costs may slow down research activities, which in turn may decrease innovation and/or medical progress. An irony is that the very community (higher ed) that first adopted this technology may literally be priced out of use.

Safety communications, including emergency weather and crime notices may become unavailable or limited. What contingencies are considered for public safety and business continuity needs?

A small group of large for-profit companies will control the information highway at the expense of education, job growth and innovation.

Please reconsider this action.

Page 1

===

7521674210.txt

I have never commented on an issue before and may never again. But the vital nature of preserving net neutrality and commenting for all those who may not understand its significance has compelled me to express that allowing anything to degrade or worse yet entirely destabilize net neutrality would in my view be one of the biggest crimes that could presently be committed against the citizenry of the

United States.

I do not want to ever be in the position of having to look back with heartbreak at a time when a free internet with open access to information for anyone who needed to use it was a thing of the past. This is something we need to maintain for ourselves, our children, our country, our businesses and our economy. As a professional with deep experience in both finance and software, who started my career in education, I am very aware of the widespread devastation the loss of net neutrality would wreak. And I beg you not to wreak that devastation for some ill conceived short term gain by a few people, that I guarantee would ultimately do irreparable damage to the entire internet community: businesses and private users alike.

On a personal note.....my father passed away less than two weeks ago. I am selling the house I grew up in and taking over the family finances and the care of mother all in the space of the last 5 weeks when my father left the hospital to go home with hospice care with me as his primary caregiver. This is my first week back at a very busy full time job in software. I am sure anyone could appreciate how busy and overwhelmed I am right now. But I am taking the time to write to you because it is that vital. For the memory of my father who was a gifted engineer, for the US economy's well being and for the future of our citizenry. I beg of you to please respect net neutrality for the vital necessity that it is.

Sincerely,

A software professional with a Wall Street background who knows precisely what she is talking about

Page 1

===

7521674077.txt

Greetings,

I am sure you are getting a lot of comments regarding Net Neutrality, but

I wanted to add a few more thoughts. As a member of the Investment Committee at the

University of California Los Angeles Venture Capital Fund, this issue is of prime importance to myself and many other individuals and entrepreneurs.

As you know, without guaranteed Net Neutrality, internet service providers such as

Time Warner and Comcast can provide better service to preferred web sites. This is a terrible idea, as it will skew the competitive advantage towards large companies with deep cash pockets. In a world where there are fewer and fewer independent news sources, this would allow media companies to essentially crush small business and the small press. I urge you to reclassify internet service providers as common carriers in order to guarantee equal access to all sizes of companies.

Page 1

===

7521673578.txt

I like many many people, don't agree with the idea of Net Neutrality.

There have been thousands of comments directly to the FCC website. I also don't think enough people are aware of what this really is.

Page 1

===

7521673551.txt

I fully support and adopt the comment of the Electronic Frontier

Foundation.

Page 1

===

7521673560.txt



Net Neutrality. I urge the chairman to throw them out and instead reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service. This is the only way to restore REAL Net

Neutrality, and insure that the internet remain accessible to everyone at the same level.

Kevin Englar

Page 1

===

7521673234.txt

Net Neutrality is supposed to be open for everyone worldwide to express their feelings, opinions, comments, etc. This would defy the point of freedom if NN was to be banned, meaning internet's not free for all. People have the right to be free,

not to be restricted by censorship. Censorship causes blindness, as we speak. Also, we have freedom of speech, recalling back from Amendment 1, so what's the point of taking that away?

Page 1

===

7521673239.txt

With the first deadline for public comments looming, I wanted to once again reach out and emphasize the importance of real net neutrality.

I implore FCC chairman Tom Wheeler to reconsider and reclassify internet service providers as common carriers.

Thank you,

Menno de Boer

Page 1

===

7521673202.txt

I believe in the importance of maintaining net neutrality, and I refuse to sit idly by as the FCC is poised to make a bad decision that will hurt millions and millions of Americans for the foreseeable future. I don't have the funds that a giant corporate "person" does, but I know that so many Americans have visited this site already to voice concern that your site temporarily crashed. So I implore your body to be mindful that we are all asking you to let David win here over

Goliath, let the

American people as a whole, the underclasses have a chance and a continued right to internet access as we have all come to appreciate it. If any of your members have a conscience and the ability to think ahead, then you must consider how much an end to net neutrality would have far-reaching consequences. It would be another case of big corporations' interests outweighing the needs and wishes of the many, many Americans who will just see again that no one cares what we say. So I write hoping a few of our comments reach you and you reconsider. Please.

Thank you.

Page 1

===

7521673154.txt

Please make all cable companies carry the RFD channel. Don't believe their absurd comment about being an "Urban provider". Farming is not done by old men in coveralls. We are educated, intelligent businessmen; who are luckily still spread out across the USA. That fact should be noted as a benefit to Homeland

Security protection of our nations food supply.

The information provided to me by RFD-TV gives me futures reports, crop forecasts and info that help me make money. The cable company gentlemen should be reminded

that every time they put food in their mouth that it started with the farmer watching the futures market and selling their commodity at the best price so they can avoid bankruptcy and not have to see their farm become a Mall or a Mc

Mansion development with 3 kids/home to pay to educate. Just like what happened in the

1980's.

I would also like to mention that many people like to watch shows about horsemanship. In NJ horses make up 12% of the states total agricultural receipts.

That money is disposable income spending. Just because one lives in an urban setting it doesn't mean they are not involved in the rural world.

At age 50 I have been farming most of my life and this is one of the hardest times I can remember, high diesel costs, high feed costs, shrinking availability of goods and services for farming, the Regulatory Capture of our markets by lawmakers and depreciating farmland values are enough. Please don't let them take the one tool we have that can help us make money to continue a 6th generation farming family.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to voice my thoughts. Remember that farmers make up less than 1% of the population of the US. Our voice is never loud enough for respect yet we manage to produce food to feed this entire country.

Please respect the farmer and keep RFD-TV and radio available to everyone without exceptions.

Sincerely

Peggy Dey

Page 1

===

7521673006.txt

I have never commented on an issue before and may never again. But the vital nature of preserving net neutrality and commenting for all those who may not understand its significance has compelled me to express that allowing anything to degrade or worse yet entirely destabilize net neutrality would in my view be one of the biggest crimes that could presently be committed against the citizenry of the

United States.

I do not want to ever be in the position of having to look back with heartbreak at a time when a free internet with open access to information for anyone who needed to use it was a thing of the past. This is something we need to maintain for ourselves, our children, our country, our businesses and our economy. As a professional with deep experience in both finance and software, who started my career in education, I am very aware of the widespread devastation the loss of net neutrality would wreak. And I beg you not to wreak that devastation for some ill

conceived short term gain by a few people, that I guarantee would ultimately do irreparable damage to the entire internet community: businesses and private users alike.

On a personal note.....my father passed away less than two weeks ago. I am selling the house I grew up in and taking over the family finances and the care of mother all in the space of the last 5 weeks when my father left the hospital to go home with hospice care with me as his primary caregiver. This is my first week back at a very busy full time job in software. I am sure anyone could appreciate how busy and overwhelmed I am right now. But I am taking the time to write to you because it is that vital. For the memory of my father who was a gifted engineer, for the US economy's well being and for the future of our citizenry. I beg of you to please respect net neutrality for the vital necessity that it is.

Sincerely,

A software professional with a Wall Street background who knows precisely what she is talking about

Page 1

===

7521673001.txt

As a web developer all I can say is that if net neutrality is destroyed, our country and the world will never be the same again. The small businesses and start ups that are forming our country and giving us something to be proud of would die.

The larger businesses that we have already invested in would crumble because the general population could no longer afford to support them. Everything relies on the internet and giving that much power to ISP's is the worst possible thing that could happen.

How naive could a person possibly be to think that they won't throttle down normal users to unbearable speeds and say that's the speed they give everyone.

How naive could a person be to think that they won't charge obscene amounts of money and implement a tiered system. Verizon and ATT already pull enough tricks with their tiered data plans for cell service. They want to do the exact same thing to the internet in general and the FCC clearly doesn't care because we are at this point.

The point in which the American people have to stand up to the FCC and

ISP's demanding net neutrality. The point in which I have to visit some ridiculous 90's looking FCC comment system which honestly is scaring people away, just to fill this out to tell the FCC that we need net neutrality. It's either that or the internet

needs to be reclassified as a common carrier. More people use the internet in this country to communicate than all other means of communication. How it doesn't qualify to be a common carrier item is beyond me. It's also because of this fact that we have embarrassingly slow speeds in this country while paying far more for those slow speeds than other countries. If you want America to continue to be all that it can be and if you do not want to single handedly destroy the internet infrastructure every wonderful person in this country has worked so hard to create, then you will not allow it to fall into the hands of greedy ISP's who want nothing more than to profit and watch the world collapse. I'm tired of these games and I'm tired of being told pay more and you will get this or for only a few more dollars you can have twice the amount. I just want a normal open internet where everyone can access the sites I've poured my heart and time into without worrying about whether they are being throttled or not. The bigger problem with this to is so many people won't know who to blame if ISP's get their way. People will assume they can't access your site or wonder why it's slow and blame it all on the person who created the site, not the

ISP who is dishing it out. What implications could that have? Oh how about an influx of support tickets to various companies that couldn't afford to pay up to

Verizon or

Comcast from angry customers that can't access that companies resources properly.

That ultimately could lead to a company's downfall by losing customers and having to pay more for support because of a problem they didn't even create. I could go on an on but my final word again will be that this is just embarrassing that this country is even to this point where we have to save the internet. America is better than this.

Page 1

===

7521672757.txt

The Internet was created to be free for a reason. The prosperity, the exchange of information, the betterment of peoples lives via the internet has occurred because of Net Neutrality, and I, along with millions of other Americans, continue to support Net Neutrality and ask that the FCC reclassify ISPs as common carriers.

To FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, I know you won't understand any of this. As you are someone who is a former lobbyist for cable companies, I don't expect you to realize

the fundamental rightness of protecting net neutrality. I don't expect you to turn over a new leaf and care about Doing the Right Thing for millions of

Americans. But

I do expect you to care about the majority opinion because that's how this country works--by democracy--and I'm not the only one sending comments your way.

You are obligated and bound by the constructs of our democracy to not only listen, but take our opinion into consideration and listen to the majority opinion on this issue, which I am confident in saying rests firmly on the side of Net

Neutrality. Without listening to and following the wishes of millions of Americans, you are nothing more than a tyrant.

To the FCC employee obligated to read my comment: Never doubt that you can make a difference, never doubt that you can be the one to save net neutrality, who can stand up and push for a difference (in this case to reclassify ISPs and common carriers). Change comes from outside (people like me), and inside (people like you).

I'm not saying it won't be easy, and sure, it'll take time, effort, and support from others in your office (and some savvy maneuvering), but as a fellow

American citizen, the kind of citizen you're supposed to be helping, I'm asking you to try.

Be a leader, especially if you think you're not. Help save net neutrality. Thanks.

Page 1

===

7521672719.txt

Mr. Wheeler, (or more likely those who shift through the various comments);

Please consider how important an unrestricted, and equal internet is to the development of our future.

This medium has the potential to positively shape the entire world into something that benefits the everyday man as well as the business of the future.

I urge you, do not sacrifice this future for temporary profit. It is not good for either of us.

Page 1

===

7521672739.txt

Here's what I just submitted to them. If anyone finds this useful in composing their own letter to the FCC, then great! If not, then downvote at will.

Dear Commissioners,

I'm writing today to ask you to do two things: first, to preserve net neutrality by rejecting the proposal to allow "fast lanes" on the internet, and second, to head off any further attempts to break net neutrality by reclassifying internet service providers as common carriers under Title II.

Net neutrality is good for American liberty. You're probably getting a lot of astroturfed comments ghostwritten by the cable companies, claiming that net neutrality is "excessive regulation" or "government control of the internet." There was even a sponsored op-ed column in yesterday's Washington Post making these same claims. Those arguments miss the simple fact that federal action is sometimes necessary in order to preserve the practical freedoms of individual

Americans.

Nobody, except for a few extremists, disputes that all Americans are freer in our daily lives because public businesses don't have the "freedom" to discriminate on the basis of things like race. In much the same way, our First Amendment right to use the internet seek out speech and publications we're interested in is made more secure when the companies that act as gatekeepers to the internet are required not to discriminate against that information in pursuit of higher profits.

Net neutrality is good for American businesses. Companies like Facebook,

Netflix, and Google would never have become American success stories if they'd been crippled in their infancy by high internet tolls, artificially slow speeds, or outright blockages designed to protect cable companies' share of media markets. A strong net neutrality policy will ensure that the internet economy of the future continues to be driven by innovation and small businesses, not hamstrung by the rentseeking behavior of a few massive companies.

Finally - and this is important - net neutrality is essential to the credibility of the FCC. Americans who are aware of this issue are disproportionately young, affluent, and well-educated; they are the citizens whose support is vital for the legitimacy of governing institutions and political parties alike, going forward. And

- except for libertarian extremists who think there shouldn't even be an

FCC in the first place, and cable company executives trying to capture the regulatory process in order to prop up their failing business models - everyone who knows about net neutrality wants net neutrality. We will not be fooled by assurances that only

"reasonable" discrimination in internet traffic will be allowed; we know that any content discrimination is too much. We will not be pacified by a period for public comment if the clearly expressed wishes of the public are then ignored.

We know when the fix is in. We recognize a revolving door when we see one. We, the people, demand

that you act to protect our freedom and equality, and we will remember if you refuse.

Sincerely, Anyone who uses the internet

Page 1

===

7521672095.txt

I suppose this comment won't matter. You've probably already decided to once again sell we the people out. We need Net Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521671983.txt

I'm writing to you to request that you reclassify ISPs as common carriers and establish a level playing field for everyone using the Internet. Use of the

Internet is central to modern life, and we must preserve equality for everyone, regardless of how much money each person or entity can pay.


Page 1

===

7521671617.txt

You've asked for comments on the Internet. Why? Because it is a way to reach millions of people (all kinds of people) simultaneously and directly. Now imagine how different the responses might be if access to this forum was manipulated by the service providers who have a vested interest in the outcome. That alone should convince you to maintain net neutrality.

Net neutrality isn't just important to me -- it is important to all of us. Access

(or even degrees of access) to the Internet should not be determined by one's willingness to pay extra for it. The rich have enough advantages in this world. The

Internet is a resource that allows even the poorest among us to reach for a higher rung on the social mobility ladder. Isn't that what America is all about?

How can we call ourselves the "land of opportunity" if we close doors to selfimprovement?

Or even half-close them while holding the door wide open to those who can afford it?

The FCC's job is to regulate media for the general welfare, not for the increased profits of corporations. Do your job, FCC. I'm not sure how this has even gotten as far as it has. Stop looking for a way to justify it and do the right thing. My students and I are depending on you.

Page 1

===

7521671489.txt

I have already sent an email to the FCC regarding their intention to destroy the free world by removing net neutrality, but since this is not only a matter of

personal liberty for me, I feel a further comment is due. Net neutrality means a fair and open internet, where everyone has a voice and a chance to be heard and seen. For me, this is not just a matter of human rights, it is my livelihood. I have spent my entire life pursuing my career as a programmer for the web, only to see the internet as I know it potentially destroyed just as my dreams approach fruition. A two-tiered system for the internet will not protect human rights or civil liberties any better than other american crafted two-tiered systems of human rights has in the past. It is imperative that the internet be recognized as belonging to the people of the world, and not to ISPs. They are common carriers, and should be classified as such. Currently they are legally defined as effectively owning the internet. This is not only a technical misclassification, it amounts to grand theft on a scale previously unknown to humanity, and ISPs such as Comcast are already seeking additional monetary compensation for their US government awarded ownership over other people's property. Please reclassify ISPs to common carriers, and give back the fruits of untold hours of labor of the entire world back to the people that performed this work, and to those who seek to use their services; Restore the rights of anyone to be heard on the internet, our largest commons; Protect the ability of start-ups and small businesses to compete on the web: please reestablish net neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521671355.txt

As the deadline for public comment approaches, I just wanted to reiterate my call for an open and non-tiered Internet. I believe having a fast lane will put technology startups at a disadvantage and will stifle innovation. The economy needs innovation to continue to grow. The US needs to be at the forefront of technology to remain a viable world superpower.

Page 1

===

7521670997.txt

I never usually take the time to leave comments on sites or voice my opinion on major issues our country is going through but after hearing and reading about the

"Net Neutrality" filing I felt compelled to respond.

As the FCC, our country has asked you to manage the regulation of our digital communications and as an American citizen, I have been thankful to have your

organization monitoring it.

With that responsibility comes occasional tests against the beliefs and freedoms we have asked you to protect.

This is one of those times.

Net neutrality, in the cable companies view, will be great for everyone involved.

Truth is it will be great for everyone involved with their industry but for the actual users of the internet. From students to up-start companies to young budget tight families, millions will be affected by this decision if you side with the cable companies.

By allowing this change to our internet you would be essentially creating a division in quality and standard of living online. In essence, you would be creating a class based society for the digital world of have and have-nots. This change would have long lasting negative impacts on our country's business and education for years and years to come.

Please resist the lobbying from the cable industry and listen to the voice of the people you are tasked to protect (the everyday users of the internet).

Please stand up for what is right and say no to the cable groups request and yes for the current and right system of net neutrality.

- Concerned Citizen

Page 1

===

7521670875.txt

I'm not from the USA. But I decided to do this comments as this would effect the internet, which isn't just used by the USA. It's not fair for one that one country can make rules about something the whole world uses. First of all, fast lanes is a terrible idea. It would completely ruin the possibility of a small company starting out on the internet. Open internet should also cover mobile broadband as it's an ever growing part of the internet and should be treated the same as the rest of the internet.

Page 1

===

7521670847.txt

Hello,

I doubt this will be read over the probably 10s or 100s of thousands of comments posted. However I feel as though I should at least say something about this. I was born just before the internet got big, i remember being little and not even having a computer in my house for a time. Even in the early 90s, and in the mid to late 90s i started getting acquainted with the internet. As well as real life.

From what I remember, from learning in life and on the internet, that this country is suppose to have a free market with little government intervention that stops competition and stifles freedoms. What I mean by that is that no company has a right to monopolize a market through deceptive tactics nor does it have the right to limit the freedoms of people. No company or corporation may be allowed to step on the rights of others, nor do they have the right to unjustly and unfairly charge us in the name of greed.

This is exactly what the ISPs want however, they don't want competition, they don't want to spend money (that our tax payers provided for them years ago, all

200

Billion USD) to improve their service, they don't even care about customers. They care about customer's money, and they don't care how they get it.

ISPs are in a unique position that they are public utility carriers but not classified as such. The internet is a public utility, in fact the internet is so important that it allows me to contact all my representatives in government, and comment on government, from my house faster than anything else.

Let me put it this way, if it's not a public utility (i.e. a service so important the public needs it and thus has a right to it) then please turn off your internet right now to the entire FCC and see if you can function with it. You probably could, but things would be messed up.

What the ISPs intend to do is certain, they mean to raise rates, slow down speed, and not improve service at all. Most ISPs are monopolies where they provide service at. For instance my ISP, bright house networks, while a somewhat better company than the rest, has exactly no competitors where i live. I can't get other internet, it's bright house or nothing.

How is that free and fair? How does that leave me with a choice? Either internet or not at all? If water utilities were not public, would my choice be either to buy dasani or die?

Government competing with private companies has worked (look at tap water vs bottled water [a booming industry]), what these ISPs want (who by the way normally act against government intervention) is government intervention stopping competition.

This is exactly what we shouldn't allow them to have.

So please, if anyone reads this, let anyone who makes these decisions know, the ISPs do not have public interest at heart. However the public considers them essential to daily life now. If the ISPs do not get declared public utilities they should be

made to be broken up and to expand coverage everywhere to compete. This won't happen because they won't allow it, the best course of action is to declare them public utilities, and to let the public decide what is best for them.

You have close to 70-90k comments already on this issue, im willing to bet the vast majority are against the ISPs. Side with the ISPs, and you side against the public.

We are the citizens of this country, you are public service workers. You listen to us.

Page 1

===

7521670616.txt

To Whom it may concern,

I am sure much has been said to you about the importance of net neutrality, in these comments so I'll be brief: the Internet is unique in its ability to offer equal access to all. Please don't change this. Please do not put our access in the hands of corporations (more than it already is); I am against any regulation or limitations that allow private companies to in any way regulate our

Internet access.

Thank you,

Julie

(a voter in every election since I have been old enough to vote, and a website designer!)

Page 1

===

7521670548.txt

I am writing to encourage the FCC to PRESERVE net neutrality. It is absolutely ridiculous that the FCC would even consider allowing the ISPs to determine what we get to see and at what speed. I am very angry that I even have to send this comment.

It should be obvious that large corporations should get to decide what I am allowed to see.

Page 1

===

7521670528.txt


I am writing to comment on the FCC's recent proposed changes to net neutrality. In particular, the decision to enact a 'fast lane' in which companies would be allowed to charge for faster internet broadband access.


Prioritizing one type of internet traffic in favor of another does not promote net neutrality. Nor does creating a 'fast lane' for those who are able to pay a steeper price.

The internet is is a medium through which information is broadcast and transmitted.

It is the 21st century equivalent of an open forum at a town meeting.

Whether or not a citizen participates it is of his or her own accord, but the right of every citizen to participate it should not be infringed upon.

A corporate entity cannot limit participation at these town meetings to only those who can afford to attend. A corporate entity also should not have the power to limit a citizen body's right to free speech, assembly, free press and petition for government address of grievances by limiting broadband access.




Amy Sloper

1250 Jenifer St

Madison, WI

53703

Page 1

===

7521670484.txt

I am filing a comment in support of the open internet ("Net Neutrallity") and oppose any measures to create two or more tiers of internet service. As it exists today the market for internet services in America is limited, with most consumers unable to select from more than one or two providers. A two+ tier system will only make it easier for these companies to take advantage of consumers.

To preserve a free and open transfer of all information, the internet must be regulated as a public utility.

Page 1

===

7521670366.txt


I'm not very good at putting my feelings into words. My thoughts tend to get jumbled up, and my point gets lost along the way. That's why I'm not going to be original with this comment, but rather share a page with you good folks. The page is full of people explaining why it's so important to protect an open internet. http://redd.it/2443jw

I sincerely hope that when you make this decision, you've done so after thoroughly reading that page.

-Katie Elizabeth Cheuvront

Page 1

===

7521670293.txt

(I tried to comment and had a different form and wanted to make sure my comment got though)

To Chairman Tom Wheeler,

As an American Citizen trying to make a living for myself and my family I urge you to protect an open internet. As an economist graduated from the

University of Utah I would also warn you of tampering with a system that has been the grounds of so much innovation and knowledge could be disastrous to our fragile economy. And no, lining the pockets of the already wealthy does NOT benefit the economy. The

American people are trusting you to protect us and keep the internet the way it is. One way of doing this could potentially be using Title II of the Telecommunications act which would declare the internet an essential service as a public utility.

Thank you,

Page 1

===

7521669801.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Christopher Wright and I live in Temple, TX.



The internet in it's current form is important to me cause it is one of the few places that free speech actually exists without the shackles of bullshit societal standards and theocratic none sense. A place where everyone is actually equal .

Where it is the content of your argument , show or comment matters not the size of your bank account . It should stay this way . Don't sell us out . For once look out for the good of the public and not interview for your next job .

Sincerely,

Christopher Wright

Page 1

===

7521554163.txt










I only have one internet provider choice and the cost keeps increasing and the service keeps getting slower what will my service look like without net neutrality and mega mergers

????

Please protect the general publics right of access as a first ammendment issue. otherwise 'free market means UNFAIR MARKET

THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY COMMENT

KATHLEEN MIRANTE

Page 1

===

7521553393.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Paul Alsdorf and I live in San Francisco, CA.



Nobody likes their cable company - nobody. You, the FCC employee reading this comment, don't like your cable company. They charge too much for terrible service and make you buy a whole bunch of crap you don' t need just to get a few channels you do want.

Why would you want to make the internet like that? Net neutrality is what protects us from the consumer-unfriendly monopolistic behavior that we all know cable companies engage in. That's why nobody in the world, except those paid by cable

companies, supports your proposed change.

Don't do it.

Sincerely,

Paul Alsdorf

Page 1

===

7521552174.txt

I am a web designer and the net means more to me than you, the money counters at

Comcast or the legion of YouTube-commenting fools could ever even fathom.

Now hear this: this matters, but not in a revolving-door, big payola kind of way.

The internet will save humanity, but not if you screw it up like you're about to. Net neutrality is the First Amendment of the Internet, the principle that


Most Americans have only one choice for truly high speed Internet: their local cable company. This is a political failure, and it is an embarrassment. America deserves competition and choice. Do I have to move worlds away to get that?






Do your job for us, the people who you are supposed to serve. Thank you.

Page 1

===

7521551310.txt

To: FCC

Regarding Request for comments: Internet and Title II reclassification

The internet we all, (consumers, businesses, backbone carriers, and

ISPs,) use today is not the culmination of corporate investment, but is rather a product of

educational researchers, our military and many who have dedicated their lives to enable more open communication. Our military is funded by tax dollars, our educators are funded both privately and by tax dollars. There have been commercial interests who have developed products to make this communication more efficient but these commercial interests did not create the internet nor are they entitled to effectively collect rent on the technology that clearly belongs to the

American people.

The loss of net neutrality will unfairly reward those who already making profits on technologies they did not create while at the same time increasing costs to the

American Public.

ISP's and backbone carriers should not be allowed to discriminate in favor of those who are able and willing to pay additional tariffs for more favorable routing service or speeds.

This discrimination, if allowed will ultimately result in the suppression of ideas and technology that will be a benefit to our society as a whole, while unfairly presenting barriers to startup organizations and protecting business interests who will be less inclined to bring forth innovation or advancement.

The right course for the FCC will be to use Title II reclassification to maintain

Internet Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521551177.txt

As an avid US consumer of all things internet, it frightens me to see that the FCC is considering allowing selective traffic speed (so-called fast lanes) to be put into place by major internet service providers. The internet is a unique medium, and one of very few remaining bastions of free-flow of information, if not the only one.

In the past two decades, open internet has vastly changed US and global culture, and vastly improved society and education in a number of ways. However, in recent years, the US has been falling behind most other developed countries in terms of access speeds to the internet. Despite this shortcoming, resulting from large

ISP conglomerates monopolizing service through under-maintained infrastructure, one of the great positives of internet access in the USA is that it is (at least for the most part) not blocked, shaped, censored, or otherwise manipulated by a third party between a content provider and a consumer. If net neutrality as it currently stands

is further eroded by the creation of fast or slow lanes, and ISPs are allowed to prioritize and bundle traffic, the internet as we know it will rapidly disappear.

Furthermore, this will allow major ISPs, who have consistently ranked among the top

10 most consumer-hated companies, to demand far more money from content providers, who will in turn have to pass on their costs to consumers, and to charge fees to consumers for certain types of access and usage.

I urge the FCC to abolish plans to allow ISP traffic prioritization.

Furthermore, although less likely, I strongly urge the FCC to reclassify internet service providers as Title II common carriers.

Thank you for hearing my comments.

Page 1

===

7521550322.txt

I concur with the comments filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation

(EFF). Net neutrality is essential to a vibrant internet, economy and society. I believe EFF's comments obtain that goal while ensuring the proper regulatory role of government.

Page 1

===

7521550001.txt


My name is Taylor Sharrock, and I am writing to comment on the FCC's recent proposed changes to Net Neutrality.

Allowing Internet Service Providers to give preferential treatment to content providers is contrary to the concept of Net Neutrality. Fundamentally, the word preferential is the opposite of neutral. Any inclusion of restrictions or requirements of "commercially reasonable" terms does not change this fact.

It would be detrimental to competition and innovation by raising the barrier to entry for content providers. New companies would become exceedingly difficult to start because they would not have the wherewithal to pay Internet Service

Providers for faster speeds that established companies employ.

If the FCC is truly supportive of Net Neutrality, I urge them to reclassify all

Internet Service Providers as Title II Common Carriers as laid out in the

Telecommunications Act of 1934. From my understanding, this will force all Internet

Service Providers to act as data carriers and restrict them from altering the flow of information in any manner.

I do NOT support allowing Internet Service Providers to give preferential treatment to content providers. Please refrain from implementing this policy.

I ask that the FCC reclassify Internet Service Providers as Title II

Common

Carriers.


Taylor Sharrock

Page 1

===

7521549197.txt

Although I am not directly affected by the Comcast merger, I felt it important to submit my comment on this issue. I feel that it would be doing a great injustice to a lot of viewers if the RFD TV programming was dropped with the merger of

Comcast/Time-Warner. I realize that the viewers of both these cable providers serve a vast urban audience, but the RFD TV programming will provide a valuable education to these customers in realizing how important the agriculture industry to their everyday existence. The RFD TV programming will also provide a refreshing alternative for members of these households, both adults and children.

Thank you for your consideration of my comment.

Page 1

===

7521674972.txt

I am moved to write to you to express my appreciation that the FCC has seen the benefit to the public, of holding over your time period for public comment, regarding the issue of Net Neutrality, and with comment.

The internet has been a forum for the free exchange of ideas, and easy access to information, since inception. I believe that were the FCC to allow carriers to employ a scheme of priority for fee based content, the unintended consequence would be erosion of both the spirit and the substance of what the internet has been.

Further, this proposed change, sought solely for the sake of additional commercialization, may tend to have a chilling effect on commerce where it could be an additional barrier to new start ups and companies whose ability to deliver content to the public relies on the present model. It is forseeable that the public, whom are at present creating a robust community, which creates and shares multimedia content, could see direct costs passed on to them in the future. We should not forget that it is always the consumer who pays. Content creators and the public rely on the current, competitive business environment online. This competition is in large part a function of the low cost of entry for those vying for the public's attention. The public has benefited greatly from the plethora of choice that this evironment created. Still further, the public already pay carriers for bandwidth. This new scheme would create an unseen cost to the public, where we

1) already pay for unfettered delivery of content requests at the bandwidth rate we contract for, and 2) the cost of additional time in motion to the public is unkown.

Finally, this scheme seeks to deliver, as priori, that which the carrier wishes to deliver, over that of what the consumer is seeking. As a member of the public, I find this concept inherently defect.

Please preserve the public's right to unfettered access to the content we pay for.

Page 1

===

7521675851.txt

These comments are in response to proceeding #14-28.

Free speech should not be bought and sold. The proposal to grant ISPs the right to charge for 'fast lanes' threatens this celebrated American principle. The company that connects us to the internet should not get to manipulate or control what we do on the internet.

I'm calling on you to reclassify the Internet as a telecommunications service to obligate ISPs to deliver all data on the Internet without discrimination. Please do the right thing: let corporations know that the

Internet is not for sale to the highest bidder.

Thank you for preserving a free and open Internet.

Page 1

===

7521675813.txt

The FCC's proposed Internet rules are terrible.

As we feared, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is pushing a plan that would allow rampant discrimination online. If approved, these rules would mean the end of Net

Neutrality.

Wheeler??s plan would let Internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon create a two-tiered Internet, with fast lanes for those who can afford the extra fees and a slow dirt road for the rest of us. These companies would have the power to pick winners and losers online and discriminate against online content and applications. And no one would be able to do anything about it.

But we have a way to fight back: The FCC has opened up a comment period for us to weigh in on its proposal.

Add your comment: Tell the FCC to throw out its rules and instead reclassify ISPs as common carriers.

This is the ONLY way to protect real Net Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521675675.txt

Equal Internet accessibility should be considered a basic human right.

People over profit, humanity before corporations. Please put people first. Thank you for accepting comments.

Page 1

===

7521675296.txt

I am commenting on the issue of the time warner comcast merger. It would be even more detrimental to the american people if the merger is carried forward every story that I have read is similar to mine in terms of either customer service or billing

issues. The american people pay ridiculous prices for either horrible customer service or ridiculous billing fees. This merger will only provide more opportunities for the cable industry to charge even higher prices for ok if not worse service thank you for your time

Page 1

===

7521675237.txt

The internet has become the forum for ordinary citizens to discuss and debate the great issues of our day, as well as organize in the exercise of our First

Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and petition our government and its agents for redress of our grievances (much as I am doing now with this comment). It is a place where we can readily and instantly stay in touch with our friends and family when we are away, and where we can meet and make new friends. And it has been a great boon to all sorts of entrepreneurial innovation, aiding small business in starting up and staying current with the latest market trends and developments. But your proposal will radically alter the ease of all of that, making it more difficult for those of us who aren't big businesses or big lobbying organizations with the wealthiest of clients to be innovators and entrepreneurs, or to be in touch with the much wider world than our own close circle of friends and immediate family, or to hear and respond to differing viewpoints or to organize around issues to effect change for improving our lives and the lives of others. I urge you, in the most strenuous terms, to please drop this proposal, and instead examine ways to build out the internet's infrastructure and architecture to accommodate even greater flows of information and activity. It is time to allow all citizens to make a claim to the future direction of this country, not just a privileged few.

Page 1

===

7521675877.txt


Net neutrality is very important to small busines owners like myself. I have a website that helps HR people find software solutions and the majority of them find me through Google and other search engines. If ISPs were able to decide how fast they wanted my content to load I would likely be out of business. I cannot afford to pay them large sums of money so that my free and helpful website loads in a timely manner--we are still growing and this kind of practice would be devestating

to our future.

I plead with you as a concerned citizen, internet user and business owner that fast lanes on the net should NOT exist--it does nothing but create an internet of the haves and have nots. The web is a place where we can still be innovative and share our ideas--it should not be just a playing ground for large corporations.

Please keep the internet open.


Sincerely,

Dave Rietsema

Page 1

===

7521732552.txt

Dear Sirs:

I Am very alarmed at the thought that we may lose our RFDTV and Rural TV if the timecast/TimeWarner merger goes through. We are rural and proud but just who does

"urban" think grows their food and cotton for designer jeans?? Our farmers and ranchers depend on the info RFD provides and they certainly deserve the fine entertainment it provides! Beef,pork,sheep,poultry and fish are not produced by urban areas for the most part.

We NEED RFD and RuralTV!! The equestrian programs are very informative and as a horse owner for over 50 years I speak from experience. Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Page 1

===

7521676660.txt

According to your recent comments what you call "net neutrality" is anything but that. It calls for preferential fast lanes for those who pay. This guarantees that this two tier result will trash the open net as we know it and will certainly result in poorer performance for the common user and also higher fees. The only sensible solution is to abandon the current proposal and reclassify the ISPs as common carriers. This has a chance of being regulated in a fair way.

Page 1

===

7521676556.txt

Wow FCC great job on making our address and personal information public to discourage a comment.

Don't let these companies mess with a system that isn't broken. Step up and don't let greed run wild. There is NOTHING WRONG with the internet, help keep it that way.

Page 1

===

7521675962.txt

Net Neutrality is important to me and so many other, no, ALL other

Americans! I know

the word freedom just gets tossed around, but we need the freedom to be able to find information on the internet equally, without (yet more) preferential treatment for the wealthy.

I think the American public has made its opinions on this beyond clear, and since comments were requested I hope that you take all our comments to heat!

Please, please keep internet usage and speed fair and equal for all of us.

Page 1

===

7521676193.txt

You are probably reading this right now, sifting through comments, and sorting out the BS.

I'm here to tell you, as a educated network engineer with years of experience, that the idea of "fast lanes" and ISP oligopoly has to stop. Peering laws need to be set to be fair to the content provider, and not allow ISPs to limit speed/connections to content. Classify broadband internet as a Tier-II service and promote healthy competition. Support business and startups by making the internet fast, affordable, and equal as a right for all. The will promote knowledge and communication, and we as a nation are failing at delivering a service compared to our allies.

Europeans have progressive internet reform, and are setting the example that the rest of the world needs to observe and apply.

The bottom line for all of this: Clean up the new FCC rulings to actually promote growth instead of being a detriment to the nation. After, defend the rules. Don't let the ISPs loophole their way back to an oligopoly, classify broadband as a

Tier-II service.

Page 1

===

7521676140.txt




Neutrality.

Furthermore, this is truly a final-frontier in terms of global communication and our ability to grow and expand as a species. The internet offers untapped potential for the sharing of ideas, current events, and powerfully unique yet universally shared moments during our individual journeys through life; it offers us a human connection never-before conceived of by previous races.

I suspect many lightly veiled attempts to overpower and ultimately control the internet will continue to arise. But I, and millions - some day soon, billions - of others will continue to shout into the digital abyss our refusal to meekly accept dominance over our domain.

Page 1

===

7521676077.txt

To Whom It May Concern at the FCC:

If cable companies are allowed to charge content providers for preferential treatment, it will definitively change the nature of the Internet as most of us know it. Those who can??t afford the higher prices cable companies will charge for upgraded ???packages?? and content providers who can't afford the higher prices cable companies will charge them for allowing users to access their content, won??t have the free and equal access to information on the Internet that they currently have.

This would be a huge leap backwards for our country, for technology, and quite frankly, for mankind. I urge you not to allow this change. Please don??t undo the progress that??s been made in the past few decades with regard to access to information with the advent of the Internet. The Internet allows everyone free access to information, not only to those with deep pockets. Knowledge is power, and allowing everyone access to the information available on the Internet will ensure that we all continue to have equal opportunity to gain that knowledge.

Once armed with knowledge, we have the ability to protect our freedoms. Too easily those freedoms can be taken away by those who care only for their own interests.

This issue is much bigger than whether cable companies should be able to charge higher prices to some content providers. At it's core, it's a

Constitutional issue.


Regards,

Diane K White

Page 1

===

7521675985.txt



Neutrality.

Wheeler??s plan would let Internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon create a two-tiered Internet, with fast lanes for those who can afford the extra

fees and a slow dirt road for the rest of us. These companies would have the power to pick winners and losers online and discriminate against online content and applications. And no one would be able to do anything about it.


AT&t, Comcast, Warner Cablle, Verizon and probably others alike already make a lot of money from a lot of poor people like me. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is on the side of the rich. He does not care at all about the poor, he only cares about the rich.

The poor people will not be able to afford those outrageous prices that these predatorial corporations plan to increase. Ending Net Neutrality is Anti-

Democratic

...

Page 1

===

7521547416.txt

I am so committed to supporting net neutrality that I've returned to this site 4 times to voice my opinion that the Internet must remain open and neutral without

"fast lanes" or paid priority. And my 4 visits to the FCC's comment site were necessary because the first 3 visits failed due to the massive public support of net neutrality. Yes, the FCC's website crashed because of net neutrality support. If fast lanes were adopted, would the FCC have the money to pay for fast lane access?

Probably not. That means the agency in charge of communication would effectively be limiting its own ability to communicate even more than the architecture of the site already has. If a clause were added to the bill to exempt government websites from the fast/slow lane structure, the FCC still wouldn't get the extra attention, maintenance, and other benefits afforded to fast lane content providers.

Simply put, the FCC would be shooting itself in the foot, turning the gun to every other content provider without prodigious amounts of money and shooting them in the face.

Page 1

===

7521546268.txt

Without net neutrality, tyranny will occur. I swear to god, I don't care

WHAT the precedent is for this decision. If net neutrality is allowed to be destroyed, the internet will go to shit.

Imagine if there is a law,

Take this one as an example.

Without net neutrality, the traffic to this site itself could be choked so that

nobody could post a comment such as this. Lawmakers would see no opposition, and the people wouldn't be represented.

There is no reason for net neutrality. Yes, Netflix takes a lot of width to use, but that should be a reason for the companies to make internet faster. On a global scale, America's internet moves at a GLACIAL pace.

It's like a construction company charging more because they're employees work

"harder" at one site than is usual. The fuckers need to work smarter, not charge more.

Think of the progress aspect. Charging streaming service more will not move the internet forward. The alternative will.

RIP The Internet

1993-2014

Page 1

===

7521677212.txt

To all

Freedom isn't just word. Freedom is a way of life. Part of that freedom is our ability to freely communicate. And the number one method that the

American people communicate the written word today is via the internet. Our ability to both send and receive, to communicate the written word demands entirely on unrestricted, open, and

EQUAL access to those written words via the internet. the Recent FCC ruling literally destroys that freedom. Without such a key and essential capability to communicate, liberty and freedom die. You cannot put corporate profits that in reality benefit a handful of people ahead of the needs and wishes of the

American people. The polls (not paid for by the corporations) overwhelming show along with the comments you receive that the wishes and will of the people demand you rescind this ruling and restore net neutrality. In short you work for the people of the

United States not the corporations. Start doing your job.

Page 1

===

7521546170.txt

When I pay for my Internet service, I expect what I pay for in Internet speed and quality. By denying net neutrality, these greedy ISPs will take advantage of us consumers, further increasing their bottom lines.

ISPs should not have this much control and should be treated as utilities. It is revolting that their lobbying efforts will probably mean that this comment is meaningless, but I can only hope that legislators will see the obvious: the Internet

MUST be treated as a utility and regulated as such. A free and open

Internet is

absolutely necessary for the future of this country.

Page 1

===

7521677296.txt

Seems silly to even comment. You know allowing companies to create a two tier system is wrong. it does not benefit the people.

Page 1

===

7521677493.txt

An Internet without net neutrality is a city with toll sidewalks.

The end of net neutrality is the end of a truly open Internet. Without it, Google,

Dropbox, YouTube, Netflix, Facebook and other services you use on a daily basis wouldn't likely exist in any recognizable form.

The Internet is an incubator for innovation, and net neutrality keeps that incubator open to the public. Failure to protect it will have grave implications for healthcare, small business, service affordability, the digital divide(which still very much exists), and free speech, among others.

Please take a moment to submit a comment to the FCC here: http://www.fcc.gov/comments .

Page 1

===

7521545690.txt

July 14, 2014

Recently I read that the FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, tries to read all comments that have to do with problems people have themselves had. When it comes to

Internet neutrality, there may not be many examples yet. Until recently, Internet service providers almost always observed net neutrality. The horror stories won-t proliferate until they can show favoritism to their most lucrative customers.

However, I have an analogous experience with financial service providers-

I think

Internet service providers would be just as draconian once they had legal cover.

A few years ago, I wanted to send a contribution to a completely legal organization that was widely disliked by the powers that be: Wikileaks. In the absence of any legal process, you may recall that WikiLeaks was cut off from most financial services. All the large credit card companies refused to take contributions for them. Mostly out of curiosity, I mailed a small check to their home office in

Australia. At the time I banked at Bank of America, which had become one of the companies most embarrassed by information published by WikiLeaks. The check eventually cleared, but it took about eight months- When it finally did clear, I wondered if Bank of America had arranged for it to be in some sort of financial limbo for that long. I never found out, but I did move my account.

If big, powerful companies can do things like that to WikiLeaks I am sure

Internet service providers can and will do the same thing to any organization that rubs them the wrong way, if they are ever allowed to treat some customers less favorably than others. And it bears pointing out that I still have a choice of many different banks and credit unions were I can do my banking. For Internet service providers, on the other hand, I am lucky to have a choice of two companies.

Sincerely,

David Grant

2202 Woodmen Dr.

San Antonio, Texas, 78209 - 4279 dgrant@satx.rr.com

Page 1

===

7521732280.txt

To Whom it may concern,

I would like to express my support in keeping RFDTV on the cable menu in my area. I own recreational/farm land in northern Wisconsin and use RFDTV often to keep up on issues that would directly affect myself and family. Although we live in an urban area, we thoroughly enjoy viewing the channel and the " slower " way of life the channel portrays.

Our family values more closely mimic the attributes of the rural family and use the channel as a way of viewing these values in our urban area. The channel has brought many a fun day to our household in the urban setting when we are unable to actually to be at our old farmstead.

Please take these comments as a bearing of where a lot of American families are coming from and enjoy. My family feels that by keeping the channel on the air and available to viewers Americans could learn a lot of the family values my family holds dear.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Mark Polomis Jr

(920) 309-1733

Page 1

===

7521678332.txt


Net neutrality is very important to small busines owners like myself. I have a website that helps HR people find software solutions and the majority of them find me through Google and other search engines. If ISPs were able to decide how fast they wanted my content to load I would likely be out of business. I cannot afford to pay them large sums of money so that my free and helpful website loads in a

timely manner--we are still growing and this kind of practice would be devestating to our future.

I plead with you as a concerned citizen, internet user and business owner that fast lanes on the net should NOT exist--it does nothing but create an internet of the haves and have nots. The web is a place where we can still be innovative and share our ideas--it should not be just a playing ground for large corporations.

Please keep the internet open.


Sincerely,

Dave Rietsema

Page 1

===

7521678313.txt

This is another comment in favor of net neutrality. The government of our country is for the PEOPLE, not the corporation. Most Americans still see a distinction between the two.

Page 1

===

7521678274.txt



Neutrality.

Wheeler??s plan would let Internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon create a two-tiered Internet, with fast lanes for those who can afford the extra fees and a slow dirt road for the rest of us. These companies would have the power to pick winners and losers online and discriminate against online content and applications. And no one would be able to do anything about it.


Add your comment: Tell the FCC to throw out its rules and instead reclassify ISPs as common carriers.

This is the ONLY way to protect real Net Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521678502.txt

I want to express my opposition to the Time Warner Cable and Comcast merger that is now before the FCC for review.

We need more competition for cable television and high speed internet service -- not less competition as will result from this merger.

I have had cable and high speed internet service from both companies in the last ten years. I can say without a doubt that the service from Comcast has deteriorated due to periodic outages in our area. Comcast would be better advised to invest in

upgrading its network than buying another cable television provider.

Finally, we need more competition in the cable and high speed services rather than less competition that will result from this merger.

This consumer has seen his cable and high speed internet bills go up 32 times in the last 8 years. Yes, 32 price increases with the same level of service from

Comcast.

To grant their merger request would only be encouraging more such price increases in coming years.

Thank you for your review of my comments.

Paul Westerberg

2670 NW 19th Avenue

Albany, OR 97321

Page 1

===

7521679296.txt

In order for a democratic republic to thrive, an open, free-flowing, diverse debate must be present. Allowing for a 2-tier internet will restrict the rich diversity of voices accessible to the public. It provides a platform for the wealthy and for commercial voices, restricting voices that may wish to express fair comment and criticism in a public forum.

Page 1

===

7521679284.txt

Thank you for accepting this comment.

I am very concerned about keeping the internet open and not allowing entities to be favored (for profit or not) and be given more space/bandwidth than other people or entities. China is NOT a country to model when it comes to internet use and material availability.

The FCC will be destroying small business and jobs if they allow this to proceed.

Page 1

===

7521679199.txt

First, I would like to thank the FCC for listening to us and allowing us to comment on this situation.

Second -- come on, we know this is a farce right? Comcast and Time Warner will be allowed to merge...isnt that enough money for them? They have an effective monopoly on high speed internet as it is in their respective regions. Together as one company there is no competitor who can be considered to come REMOTELY within 90% of the power that monster will wield.

The internet is an amazing and I would dare say necessary resource to keep this country and its citizens in competition with the new millennium.

Page 1

===

7521679157.txt

I am commenting that I would like for the FCC to;

Ban tiered internet or ?Fast Lanes?

Ban data caps

Classify broadband internet as a Title II common carrier

Apply the same rules to wireless (mobile) broadband

The current broadband marketplace is anti-competitive and anti-consumer.

The

Internet is a vital utility for the economic prosperity of American citizens and should be treated as such.

Page 1

===

7521679152.txt

Chairman Wheeler

The concept of entertaining a discussion on a development that will have impact world wide and limiting it to Americans (your drop downs do not allow out oc country comment) is, to be polite, flawed.

Net neutrality will impact the entire world, not just the U.S. A step in this direction is done withourt regard for the balance of the world.

Please reconsider and open this discussion to all citizens. While this may be cumbersome but it is what is right and just.

Selling rights to US corporations to control access world wide is not forward thinking.

L. Wood

Canada

Page 1

===

7521679125.txt



Most Americans have only one choice for truly high speed Internet: their local cable company. This is a political failure, [...]

= = = =

Garance says: Let me depart from the suggested comments to note the following.

I moved to a new house in November, and got cable TV and internet service

(from Time

Warner, as it happens). It worked fine for months. Then it was reported that

Netflix agreed to PAY comcast for "fast pipes", and within two weeks my own internet and cable TV service got less wonderful. It wasn't awful, but it was definitely slower and more likely to "stutter" in the middle of a transfer. This happened both when watching something on Netflix, while downloading videos from a web site called

Rifftrax, and when watching regular cable TV channels. It even happened on file transfers between my home and my computers at work. 

Is there anyone reading this who is surprised at that? Really? How could you even imagine that there would be any other outcome? You're giving these ISP's a way to blackmail large content providers for additional revenue. The large ISP's would be fools to *NOT* take advantage of that. 

I work in a computing center. I use computers all the time. I'm already paying a slight premium for supposedly faster internet service. [Which is to say:

I do not have the cheapest internet package from Time-Warner, although I do not have the most expensive one either]. What good is it for me to *PAY* for that faster service, when the ISP will just turn around and provide crappy service to the content providers, so that the ISP can shake down the content providers for even more money?



I'll now return to the original suggested text, which I do completely agree with:



= = = =


Page 1

===

7521679111.txt




Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521679235.txt

We need to keep Netneutrality. The internet should be open to everyone not just the one's with the most money. The internet must remain a fair and even playing field, so everyone can develop, promote, exchange, and comment on ideas. It is the place to have open conversations with people from around the world. We keep saying we're a

GLOBAL COMMUNITY, netneutrality promotes and sustains our GLOBAL

COMMUNITY.

Page 1

===

7521678975.txt

Dear Industry Insiders Appointed to Oversee the Very Industry You Worked

For:

Please refine your legal arguments for allowing you to regulate information services much as you do telecommunication carriers, i.e. as common carriers. Net neutrality is not only important to the future economic development of our country, but it is also the only way to ensure fairness in emerging content markets as well as for actual end-users, the common taxpayer.

Contrary to their comments, most major ISPs are not creating a level playing field.

As we can see by the recent "pay-to-play" tactics employed by Comcast,

Verizon, et al, these large, regional monopolies are trying to squeeze money out of both the end users who pay for a certain amount of bandwidth and the content providers that provide the content the bandwidth is desired for. By restricting entry to their private networks by providers such as Netflix unless they pay, the ISPs are creating another pay-gate that on the face of it is irrational. Imagine, for example, that I live in an apartment building. I buy a product from Amazon and they ship it to me via a carrier such as FedEx. Now, here I have paid the apartment owners for my unit as well as access to & from it. I have also Paid Amazon for a product and they have paid the carrier to deliver it. What the big ISPs are doing is basically saying to

FedEx that only their doorman can deliver the package to me once it reaches the street and that Amazon must pay an additional fee to them in order to get access to me. This scenario MUST BE STOPPED. George Washington certainly didn't tolerate it when the Delaware was trying to deny him access to the Hessians in

Trenton!

Additionally, by creating paywalls and limiting my choices as an ISP customer to content providers OUTSIDE of the ISP's network this creates an unfair competitive advantage scenario in 2 cases. In the first case when an ISP has its own content that is given preferential treatment such as is the case with Comcast and

NBC content. The second is where, if the pay-to-play scenario is allowed to stand, access to consumers is blocked for startups that do not have sufficient capital to pay for and compete with established content providers such as Netflix or

Google.

This is a significant barrier to entry and is one of the primary limits we place on players in our free market.

In summation, please ignore the gobs of money the ISPs are throwing around and make a decision that benefits consumers and technology startups by strongly support net neutrality principals.

Sincerely,

James Holling

Page 1

===

7521678613.txt

This is a comment in favor of classifying Internet Service Providers as

Title II

Common Carriers in the service of a free and open internet

Page 1

===

7521678573.txt

Recent studies have confirmed what many of us have known for years: that

American internet is notoriously among the worst in the developed world, with awful upload and download speeds, stemming from our massive telecom monopolies that kill any competition. It is absurd that we are even considering authorizing a system that would allow these massive companies, despised by the public, to demand money from other businesses before they give actual quality service to the Americans who have already paid them for that service - since those Americans literally have no other options in this marketplace. The fact that they have already done this should tell you everything you need to know about whether or not they will in the future, no matter how much they may promise that they won't touch the cookie jar if you just leave it out on the counter where they can reach it.

If the hundreds of thousands of outraged comments you have received in response to this issue have no impact on your decision, you are sending a very clear message to the American public that what they want (and what they pay for) is completely irrelevant as long as Time Warner and Comcast and Verizon are happy and have pockets full of cash.

Page 1

===

7521678543.txt

Please do not classify ISPs as telecommunications carriers so they can be listed as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act.

There is a large outcry from content providers (Google) on the internet today who are hoping to force ISPs to be classified as common carriers which cannot discriminate between any data flowing through their network. Because these are consumer websites, they have also pushed average consumers to submit comments to the

FCC regarding this issue, even though most website consumers do not understand the full compexity of the issue.

As a software engineer, I'd like to point out that a strict boundary between a Tier

1 provider and an ISP is harder and harder to maintain. The future may contain

hybrid networks where companies might be CDNs, Tier 1 transporters, or

ISPs all at the same time. Moreover, the real problem that needs to be solved is increasing competition in the ISP space, something that this classification would make more difficult.

It is a worthy goal to have all internet traffic treated the same, but sometimes

CDNs and direct cacheing of data from content providers on ISP networks makes more sense, and we need to be ready for whatever challenges the future brings.

Since our networks are overcongested, someone needs to pay for these upgrades, but ultimately these costs will be born partially or totally by consumers.

Content providers can charge their users more or ISPs can, but there is no reason why we should favor content providers necessarily. ISPs cannot be allowed a free pass either, but reform there would stem from breaking up monopolies, not regulating ISPs more harshly.

Please consider the future of the innovation of the internet for consumers when making your final ruling, not just the interests of content providers and websites.Please Do Not Classify ISPs as telecommunications carriers so they can be listed as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act.

There is a large outcry from content providers on the internet today who are hoping to

Page 1

===

7521678538.txt

My name is Kerstan Hubbs, I am a mother, wife, and attorney in Henderson,

Nevada. I would like to provide my comments on net neutrality.

I support net neutrality because I believe it is fundamentally linked to our freedom of speech. The internet has provided such a broad avenue for this freedom and fundamental right. We live in a day and age where the ?underdog? can be heard because we allow all people, big and small, the powerful and weak, to access the internet in an equal manner. To remove this equal footing would be an injustice to all who cannot afford access to this mode of communication. In this day and age, many colleagues and family members use the internet to research issues and topics presented on cable, radio, newspapers, and through other information outlets.

Neutral internet access leads to a better educated public that can rely on various sources of information to fact check and make their own decisions regarding a multitude of issues from healthcare to politics.

I am providing my comments so that my children may have neutral access in the same

manner that I have become accustomed to throughout their lives. It is a grave injustice to society to attempt to stymie an individual?s access to knowledge. A progressive society wants their people well-learned, as this type of society understands the fundamental premise that knowledge is power. To provide anything but internet neutrality is to provide knowledge to only those who can afford it and will dumb down the collective to provide a monetary gain to a few.

Sincerely,

Kerstan D. Hubbs, Esq.

Page 1

===

7521678990.txt

Dear Chairman Tom Wheeler:

The personal reason for my interest in net neutrality is for me to continue researching and finding jobs. I am a consultant averaging about 3 months per contract during which time I need to be constantly vigilant while facilitating a healthy balance between current commitments and upcoming ones. This is a huge industry that is only getting larger but salaries do not mean affordability.

Other real and beneficial reasons include:

Tax Incentives - Leveling online business competition increases online sales for smaller businesses while increasing tax revenue.

Emergency Alerts & Notifications - News, Emergencies, natural disasters, etc.

Educational - Enables students/teachers to research and publish papers.

Product research - Enables anyone to create, design, deliver and monetize new products.

Jobs - As per my personal comment, this enables job seekers, job search companies,

EDD, etc to connect through a large network generating jobs.

Freedom of Speech - Speaks for itself but net neutrality makes this a real issue in a technical society.

Non-Profits - those that really provide security and help to our population in need.

It is my understanding that there is a quid pro quo when the government sells off rights to companies and provides tax breaks. All of the above reasons are a reasonable QPQ for net neutrality.

Cheers,

-d

Page 1

===

7521678981.txt

Dear FCC & Chairman Wheeler,

The need to maintain net neutrality is critical to continue our ability to innovate technology and provide services to the American people. When corporations are able to control the data

that travels over their networks, we lose access to competitive products, services available to anyone, and a diverse industry.

I work in the technology industry and net neutrality is incredibly important to me because our industry relies on innovation, progress, and new solutions.

Without net neutrality, all of those factors are in jeopardy.

Access to the internet should not be controlled by monolithic corporations that have financial interests in how data flows to the world. Giving these corporations what they want will set the US back competitively, and severely damage the ability for

American people and businesses to access competitive, fair, and state of the art digital communication.

Please listed to these comments from the American people, and fight to maintain net neutrality and a competitive marketplace.

Sincerely,

Kyle Newton

Page 1

===

7521678844.txt



Net Neutrality. I urge the chairman to throw them out and instead reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service under common carrier regulations. This is the only way to restore real Net Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521678816.txt

I have 2 comments on this:

1 - How is it not a conflict of interest with what the new FCC Head does now versus what his job was before? The fact this is even being considered while under his watch should be sending up major alarm signals. As John Oliver so eloquently put it, it's like have the dingo baby sit your kids.

2 - This biggest reason the internet has been so successful has been the fact it is open and neutral. The voice of a vagrant can be heard just as loudly as a king.

But now, you are trying to create 2 classes of "citizens". This is not an issue with cost being an issue as the price of services could be increased for everybody.

This really appears to be an issue with trying to give certain companies

(you know the ones that the new FCC Head used to be paid by) an unfair business advantage and a greater voice over the rest of us. This was tried once before, but it was called a "poll tax" instead.

Page 1

===

7521678783.txt




Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521678742.txt




Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521678704.txt

Hello and thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Protecting and promoting an open Internet is vitally important to our

Nation. The

FCC is the organization to represent us in protecting it, and I am grateful that you have extended the opportunity for comments.

The ability for Americans to access and participate in an open Internet, for their families, for their work, for their own education and edification, is critical. We need to support an open and competitive Internet that respects access while also allowing for the promotion of new business models and innovation. ISPs should not be able to create unfair environments that would dampen competition. This assessment of 'fair' vs. 'unfair' deserves research and attention, to ensure that small, medium businesses and individuals can participate in a fair technology environment. I appreciate the efforts such at Title II, and encourage the

FCC to remain a protector of an open Internet for the future of all Americans.

Thank-you,

DK

Page 1

===

7521678688.txt

I have been a professional software engineer for 20 years, working for such prestigious companies as NeXT and Apple and currently engaged in startup development in the San Francisco Bay Area.

These are brief supporting comments for net neutrality.

The internet, including the internet access to the internet created by wireless

carriers, is core infrastructure, much like water and electricity.

Water and electricity basically come in only one type each. This makes producing, distributing and consuming water and power commodity transactions, and the commodity nature increases the efficiency and responsiveness of these systems.

The internet should continue to follow the commodity model wherein internet traffic is a commodity that producers and consumers pay for, but once paid for, the transmission rate and path are a commodity, undistinguished, rather than cluttered with complex rules relating to the content of the traffic.

In short, for the above reasons, I support the continuation net neutrality. Please don't tamper with the success of the internet. Its success is driving a boom that is more beneficial to the U.S. economy and people and other technological economies than any other multi-decadal effect currently in process.

Thank you. --Brian R Hill, PhD

Page 1

===

7521678685.txt

As a consumer user of the internet and an employee of a company that uses the internet for sales and marketing, I feel it is critical to keep the internet open and free.

As a consumer, the internet is used to gain knowledge of products, services, camaraderie with other having similar issues in life, and general education purposes.

As a business, the internet is used to disseminate information to consumers.

While I understand there is a potential for false information and the like on the internet, these cases will quickly come to light when consumers report companies for posting false information.

To restrict or limit the use of the internet would be a grave mistake. It truly needs to remain open and free for sharing of information and knowledge.

Thank you for considering my comment in your proceedings.

Kathleen Piano

Lauderhill, FL

Page 1

===

7521678645.txt

A lot of people think the FCC proposal is a bad idea. I happen to be one of them.

There's a general feeling that our government and their various agencies have been bought and paid for by large corporate interests; that they have turned a deaf ear towards the general population in this country.

The allowance of fast internet lanes for certain companies willing to pay more will be discriminatory against those who cannot afford it. This is the virtual

equivalent of what we're seeing on the highways in many of this country's major cities. Who really benefits here? It's time to start looking at things from the perspective of the little guy instead of the guy in the ivory tower who continually promises to help the little guy, but tosses them scraps time and time again.

I would urge the FCC to do the right thing for the people, instead of kowtowing

(once again) to the likes of Comcast and Verizon. I have a bad feeling that your decision is already made and that this comment period is for the appearance of a democratic process.

Page 1

===

7521678627.txt

I am in favor of Net Neutrality. My comments below are related to my experiences with Comcast.

1. The internet providers knew what the playing field was when they went into this business and certainly as they continue to expand (i.e. when Comcast acquired Time

Warner). You would have to assume that at that point they felt the rules were fair or they would not have made the moves they did. If they made a mistake in relation to net neutrality, we should not be bailing them out. Let the free market determine their success or failure . . . do not allow them to change the rules.

2. In my dealings with Comcast, I have found that they will do what is right for them . . . not their customers. In 50% of my contact with Comcast for internet out, or other problems, they are continually trying to slide more features

(costs) into my bill. Several times new charges have shown up on my bill for services

I have not requested and they had not informed me of during our discussion.

Additionally they have made statements (the transcripts of which I have saved) that were blatantly false and they do not stand behind. I can only imagine how bad this will get if they are allowed to change the rules.

3. They already have demonstrated terrible customer service and lack of regard for their customers - why should we perpetuate this behavior? These companies need to clean up their act!

Page 1

===

7521678621.txt

I am writing to comment on the FCC's recent proposed changes to net neutrality. In particular, the decision to enact a 'fast lane' in which companies would be allowed to charge for faster internet broadband access, which would be detrimental to

American education, culture, and society.


Prioritizing one type of internet traffic in favor of another does not promote net neutrality. Nor does creating a 'fast lane' for those who are able to pay a steeper price.

The internet is is a medium through which information is broadcast and transmitted.

It is the 21st century equivalent of an open forum at a town meeting.

Whether or not a citizen participates it is of his or her own accord, but the right of every citizen to participate it should not be infringed upon. Changing the way the

Internet functions in such a way as the FCC has proposed is equatable to replacing free public libraries with for-profit bookstores - for the general population, the result is a tremendously negative impact.

A corporate entity should not have the power to limit a citizen body's right to free speech, assembly, free press and petition for government address of grievances by limiting broadband access.



Page 1

===

7521679897.txt

Re: Comcast-Time Warner

I am opposed to the above combination. I am a proponent of "Net

Neutrality".

History and practical experience have shown time and again that monopolies or even oligopolies are bad ideas. This combination will only repeat that egregious mistake.

Please do not authorize this combination.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Carolyn Watts

Page 1

===

7521679890.txt

Please do not allow Comcast and Time Warner to bully you into screwing with net neutrality. Allowing the providers to set up a "premium speed" band of internet service goes against the principle tenants of net neutrality. The entire concept was established to prevent exactly this sort of thing. The cable companies have a near monopoly over broadband services and allowing them to set speed standards for different services is akin to allowing them to regulate themselves. Self regulation

does not work. I am not a proponent of "big government", but we have to make sure someone is watching the watchmen.

As a concerned citizen I hope that you will take my comments and those of others into consideration and not allow the cable companies to set up a multitiered system as it is contrary to the free spirit in which the the world-wide-web was founded.

Page 1

===

7521679700.txt

Classify ISPs as common carriers. Restrict self-dealing of ISPs as content providers. Insure true net neutrality, not the "fast lane" and "slow lane" proposal you have asked for comment on. The big players have more than enough power and advantages already over the new entrant entrepreneurs.

Page 1

===

7521679627.txt

When I go online, I want all my web pages to have the same speed. That is what I paid for. I don't want to go to a website and have it load slowly because they don't have the money to pay my ISP to let them have the same speed as another company that would.

That shouldn't even be a question.

I pay for turbo internet, the super fast awesome internet. If a company is able to pay my ISP so that their website can load even faster than it had before, then the implication is that my ISP isn't giving me the internet service speed I paid for.

Here's another frustration. We all know that there are only a few service providers per area, if there is even more than one. Here??s a hypothetical situation. Let us say Netflix pays Comcast for faster connection because they're the leading ISP in the country. Pretend I have Verizon's internet, and Netflix didn't pay them because they could only budget for one or maybe Comcast gave them a discount if they wouldn't pay anyone else. Now pretend my area doesn't have Comcast. I'm infuriated that I have to deal with this even though I'm paying 60 dollars a month for internet. There??s nothing I can do about it, either, because my area doesn??t have

Comcast.

I bought a Windows 8 phone, and I think it's great; I made a conscious decision to buy one even though I knew I couldn't access Google's apps with it. I had that choice I could make- which smartphone I wanted to get, and I knew what sort of apps were supported on each phone. With internet, I don??t always have a choice depending

on my location. If my area only gets one ISP and my favorite streaming site happens to only have a deal with another ISP that doesn??t service my area, that is not fair to me in the least. What can I do, boycott the internet? Say ???hey! I don't like what you're doing so I won??t have internet or TV.?? That doesn??t makes sense.

Internet is now a basic must-have for modern living.

Here's more.

Websites have always loaded depending on the amount of servers they have and the speed at which those servers can process, plus the amount of people getting data from those servers and how much data coming out. Even if a company were to pay an

ISP to make them faster, they can only go as fast as their equipment lets them. I know, that's their problem. But it's still a problem. It also shows that these companies are already paying to get content to their users faster.

Charging them is basically blackmailing them! Of course I??ll watch Hulu over Netflix if

Hulu has a faster connection.

Let??s round back to a different comment I made; Internet is now a musthave for modern living. Maybe when you think of the internet you think of Facebook or funny cat pictures, but I know I use it for more.

I use the internet to search for jobs. I use it to search for a home. I use it to file my taxes. I use it to find contact information. I use it to view government websites and find directions to government facilities.

When I was unemployed, I used the internet to find a job in a different state because I couldn't find one in my current state.

The point is, the internet is just as important as having a phone. Just like phone booths were put up so people could call someone if they need it, now there's access to the internet in libraries because local governments understand that it's needed.

In our current economy, things are hard enough for new, emerging companies without the added stress of having to worry about paying multiple carriers to carry their connection as fast as another company would.

Furthermore, consumers should get the service they paid for. When I pay for internet, I pay for equal access to any website I want to view.

Net Neutrality needs to remain intact or, because of the necessity of the internet in today's society, ISPs need to be reclassified as common carriers.

Page 1

===

7521732170.txt

Hello FCC,

Please do read this whole thing. I am young, I am the FUTURE and I think my comments

count.

I will hate you forever and ever with all of my heart if you end internet neutrality. I'll quit the internet. (That would be like someone who uses heroin every 5 minutes saying they would quit cold turkey). Please don't do it.

The best part about this wacky thing called the world wide web is that you can get anything from netflix and facebook to freaking monster penises and beastiality to new, brilliant business and start ups all at the click of the button and all at EQUAL speeds. There is no longer equality between races, genders, sexuality -- really,

ANYTHING, in this world, besides the internet. Everything here is the goddamn same and if it stops being that way I'm out, and I'll make sure every friend I have will do the same. The only reason the internet is fun is BECAUSE it's all equal. This whole thing wouldn't really be worth the money if no one payed anymore because you

SUCK.

Thank you for reading. I'll be so pissed if you do this.

Cordially,

Catherine, 17

Page 1

===

7521732166.txt

I start this comment by stating frankly that I am experiencing a lack of what to say. The issues surrounding the Net Neutrality issue are so clearly black and white in my eyes, I am at a loss for words. I may not be the most enlightened or informed person, but I believe myself to posses the intellectual capacity to decipher the right and wrong in this situation. That being said my humble opinion is that all data used by customers receives neutral, equal, and for all intents and purposes, nonpartisan treatment. The internet is one of the most beautiful works of achievement that our troubled society has been capable of producing. I believe it to be in my, yours, and everyone's best interests to keep it that way.

Page 1

===

7521732064.txt

We watch a lot of the entertainment programs on RFD-TV. We hope you will seriously consider leaving this programming on DirecTV. We live in an urban area/rural area and would miss the programming very much that RFD-TV provides.

Also a plus is the Rose Bowl Parade on Jan 1st of every year. RFD-TV has the best coverage of the parade of all the other channels that show the parade.

RFD-TV actually shows all the entries in the parade instead of the commentators talking and showing just the entertainment of the parade or interviewing people instead of

showing the parade like the networks do.

Thank You for listening to us who watch RFD-TV and keep this programming coming our way!!

Joyce Peterson

Deming, NM

Page 1

===

7521732024.txt

I am in favor or internet neutrality. Please listen to the thousands of comments that are being made. Our rights cannot not be taken away and given to cable companies. Keep the internet and the content on it free, and open!

Page 1

===

7521687065.txt

Net neutrality is vitality important in our world today. The FCC blindly and willingly places it's trust in Internet Service Providers and their corporate promises. It's quite obvious the citizens of America do not hold the same trust in these Providers and their promises. Listen to the American people who have spoken up so much on the subject of net neutrality that the deadline for comments needed to be extended to compensate for downed servers.

In summation, respect net neutrality, don't mess with the rules by giving the upper advantage to the Internet Service Providers and those who have the extra money to afford these elite privileges. The internet needs to be open to all, it's gatekeepers should be kept neutral, and the FCC's oversight goals used to be putting people and freedom first before lobbyists and corporations.

Kelli Merritz

Page 1

===

7521686979.txt

I have read the filing and studied the information posted by different groups (for and against) on this filing. I am a technically capable network engineer.

I have never commented to the FCC before.

First, I do understand the concept last-mile operators (ISPs), operate on the assumption that their total capacity is going to be less than the sum of maximum capacities for all users. That, in fact, saves money. The issue is especially true on wireless services, where there is a limit on the number of cells, cell towers, etc. that can fit in an area. However:

1) I agree with many that the proposed rules on neutrality as proposed are completely useless, and will be struck down as the others were. If I were paranoid,

I would say that this appears to be a form of theatre: all for show while the ISP?s

can keep moving until there is nothing anyone can do to reverse the trend.

2) From my research, the only viable option is to reclassify the internet as a telecommunications service. Some allowances could be made for wireless carriers, but that would be it.

3) End users do NOT have viable options, so the market is not going to come into play here. I can choose between Comcast and ATT for the class of service I need. These companies walk in lock-step on issues like this. No viable

(cost, speed) alternatives exist for myself or most others users.

4) All major last mile ISP?s have absolute conflicts of interest with internet voice, video and other media services.

5) I have already, since the recent court decision on this, seen service degrading in things like VPN connections (for my office, etc.) that we have traced as best we can to local ISP?s limiting UDP traffic (standard for VPN?s).

Switching to TCP eliminates the bandwidth issues, indicating that ISP?s are interfering with things that even ?look like? video or audio. They simply cannot be trusted.

6) Content providers already pay. Additional carges will be paid by users, no matter where they are applied. I don't want near monopoly ISP's dictating terms.

My TV selection is bad enough.. They force me to buy services I don't want (Sports) to get what I do want!

I appreciate the chance to comment. The US needs to stay ahead (if we even are any more) in the world on this issue.

Regards

Page 1

===

7521685824.txt

I am a woman starting a small business and I am very concerned about what the future holds in store for the internet. Please keep the internet free and open for all

Americans. I am for Net-Neutrality because it is good for business, as it promotes an atmosphere of competition. In addition Cable companies are like monopolies because there is only one cable company in an area (in most cases), which is bad for consumers. I am frustrated that the prices for cable and internet just keep going up and up and customer service keeps going down, but I guess that's what happens when companies get too big and there isn't enough consumer choices. The last thing our economy needs is to have our internet access get screwed up. Please keep it as it is now. Thank you for hearing our comments.

Page 1

===

7521685546.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Erickson Smith and I live in Hyde Park, MA.



Both as a Park Service employee and as a rising senior in College, the

Internet is a vital tool for not only getting the word out about open comments on policy changes like endangered species proposed to the US Fish & Wildlife Service, but also for me to have access to journal articles, case law, legislative records, and to network with other scientists, ecologists, managers, legislators, lawyers, etc.

Revoking net neutrality would not only be undermining an amazing resource for the common populace - indeed, it would undermine our government, public institutions, and public and private educational communities alike. Our entire society will be the worse for it.

Sincerely,

Erickson Smith

Page 1

===

7521685481.txt

As a candidate for president, (and before I didn't despise him and his whole administration) then Senator Barack Obama, campaigned (as far as

Communications is concerned) on a promise to maintain a free and open internet via strong regulations and a commitment to the principle of Net Neutrality. However this proved to be simply a broken campaigned promise Obama never really felt much loyalty to; evident by nomination of a former telecommunications industry lobbyist to the highest position in the FCC, the government arm tasked with regulating the very industry Mr.

Tom Wheeler use to consult for and work diligently to thwart. Now for someone like

Mr. Wheeler or Mr. Obama, who have clearly been in the Beltway way too long, this may seem Hunky Dory, but for most honest Americans whose tax money funds this government and who have a right to say in how their democracy is run, this is a blatant conflict of interest.

It seems Obama has largely turned his back on this issue and the proposed changes

are at the behest of Mr. Wheeler. I beg of Commissioner Wheeler and the

FCC to not only stop the proposed changes to net neutrality, which will inevitably give high quality internet services to those who consistently afford to pay more for them, but to conduct a study to consider the potential of policy changes that would further protect this concept of a free and open internet by potentially labeling it as a utility and regulating it further. Please her my voice, the voice of

Michael Copps, who served on the FCC from, 2001 to 2011 and the voices of almost a million other people that took the time to comment during the official comment period to these proposed changes to the most essential concept of net neutrality. Thank you!

Page 1

===

7521685234.txt

In 1863 a tall man with a beard stood up in Gettysburg, PA, not far from here, and gave an important speech. I quote from the last sentence. "that this nation, under

God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." You should note well that he didn't say "government of the big businesses that contribute lots of money to our campaigns," but that's what we have now. And we are very tired of it.

I live in central Philadelphia where I have ONE broadband provider. You know who they are, and you must know they are a despicable company to do business with. They abuse their customers in so many ways and you must know this to be true, or you live in a cave. Recent revelations (yesterday actually) of abusive treatment of a customer trying to cancel their service are not the exception, they are the rule.

As a matter of Comcast policy, you can sign up for any service you would like online, but you cannot cancel any service online. You must call and be delayed and abused by their "customer retention representatives."You are no doubt aware of yesterday's revelation of an attempt by a customer to cancel his service and the miserable treatment he received. This was not an exception, this is their common practice, and the 8 minutes was short relative to the tortuous experience one must usually suffer to cancel a service. And they are liars, because it is their common practice, yet they come out immediately and deny that. Shame on them, and shame on you for even considering giving them the power to control bandwidth speeds. There

are NO protections that you can write in that won't result in higher prices, lower service or both for the average consumers. You are either fools or scoundrels or both if you pretend otherwise.

Don't do it. Just don't do it.

The average citizen already feels he or she has been sold out by their government, that you are in the pockets of big business and we all routinely suffer the consequences. Don't give us another reason to despise what has become of that government "of the people, by the people and FOR THE PEOPLE" that Mr.

Lincoln so fervently believed in but has slowly been taken away from us.

I will be delighted if you share my comments with everyone in the country.

Thanks,

Dave

Page 1

===

7521684676.txt

The FCC's proposed rule to create a two-tiered Internet -- with

"broadband fast lanes" for online content -- is a complete undoing of the principles of an open and free Internet.

When you have to pay for bandwidth -- not better service, mind you, but the same level of bandwidth that is already available -- you've created yet another system where only those with the deep enough pockets get ahead and everyone else has to suffer for it. Customers would have to pay ISPs for the same level of streaming quality. Start-ups without the funds to compete won't be able to receive the same level of recognition as they do now simply because they won't be able to physically deliver content as fast anymore. No more new Facebooks, no more new

Youtubes, no more new Googles -- any potential new innovation or business will be stifled, and the only companies that exist...will be the ones that already exist.

The elimination of net neutrality -- which Chairman Wheeler's proposed rule supports, in spite of his comments to the contrary -- is about as anti-

American, anti-competitive, and anti-capitalist of a measure you can have. It stands steadfast in opposition to the principles held by everyone but the few in the telecom lobby.

Do the right thing. Stop kowtowing to ISPs and their lobbyists. Revise this rule, eliminate the provision for two-tiered (or any tiers) of bandwidth availability, and restore true net neutrality. No more throttled connections, no more pay walls for faster bandwidth, no more passing the buck onto consumers and new businesses. Do the right thing and give us real net neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521684452.txt

In an ever expanding world, where we consistently find ourselves a step behind the next advancement in technology, I find it shameful that companies such as

Comcast,

Time Warner Cable, and other cable enterprises are attempting to put a strangle hold on the industry, and set up not only a literal monopoly in terms of their service, but to have a mafia-esque bullying approach to providers of entertainment

(seen with

Comcast's handling of Netflix and download speeds).

I should not have to be filing an official comment to a government bureau, over the fact that companies are withholding what has become a basic service in today's day and age. To also add to the fact, that two of the largest cable providers- TWC and

Comcast, are looking to merge, is to me, almost a slap in the face. I should not be what is feeling to be extorted, over what is a basic service of internet upload and download speeds.

The condition of this issue is deeply concerning, and I wish to keep the

Internet and open and ever expanding, free from the Corporate sanctioning ways of cable company's. Thank you for your time in reading this.

Page 1

===

7521681693.txt

Messing with Net Neutrality is a God awful idea. The genius of the internet is that it allows people to communicate in a way that is equal. It is more a giant telephone line than a tv (look at any and all comments ever made on it, like this one!)

Allowing cable companies to determine which sites run faster than others screws that up. Don't mess with it! You would be getting dangerously close to tampering with one of the modes of free speech of our society.

Page 1

===

7521681102.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Monique Guz and I live in Brick, NJ.



If this is truly America, and the notion of America is "land of the free"

-- then freedom of ideas and freedom of expression should be its pride and glory.

However,

over the last ten years we have lost freedom of ideas and expression in all of our media, making people ignorant on the one side and others suppressed on the other. A successful democracy depends on the availability of information for its people to make knowledgable decisions based for themselves. The Internet at the moment is the open window for knowledge and information -- it should NOT have gatekeeping. Sure there are offensive sites on the web; and even more offensive comments to be found all over the place -- but that is what happens with freedom of expression. Censor one person and suddenly we are censoring everyone else until we say nothing at all.

To have a pay-to-play Internet blocks the flow of information that is needed for a democracy to survive to those who cannot afford it, suffering from rising costs and static wages on top of their homes, cars, education, families, utilities, and basic necessities -- but whom need it the MOST. Most of the atrocities in history could have been prevented had the public been given the chance to be exposed to alternatives to propaganda manipulating them into hating things, concepts and people they did not understand because they were not educated. Dam this flow of information and mankind's intellectual evolution is damned too.

Sincerely,

Monique Guz

Page 1

===

7521680519.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Laura Ellyson and I live in Culpeper, VA.



The internet is not only a host for information and entertainment; it is also an open forum for communication, or in other words, public speech and press.

Even within the entertainment and information spectrums of the internet, people still come together to communicate and share ideas, whether it is through online gaming chats, video comments, etc. Restriction of access would be a direct violation of the first amendment: the freedom of speech, religion (ideas, beliefs), and the press

(both blog posts and online versions of newspapers). This is also recognized by the

UN's declaration of human rights. It was not long ago that there was global outcry

over other sovereign nations' censorship of the media and internet, many

American citizens and politicians among those in protest. In addition to these issues, by allowing ISPs to gain more control over data, this can potentially lead to the formation of large coorporations (monopolies) with corrupt policies, something that the United States government has faced, and passed legislation against in the

Industrial Revolution era with Carnegie Steel (The Sherman Antitrust Act,

1890). The

Sherman Antitrust Act "prohibits monopolies, or any business that prevents fair competition." How is Pay-to-Play fair for competitors who cannot afford the same rates? It's not. These lower competitors will fall out of the running, leaving one or two large " ISP trusts" controlling access to services. We have seen this happen before with local businesses against large chain-franchises. Yes, the larger chains are convenient, but would we have faced the same economic consequences

(2008 financial crisis) if the smaller local businesses had a chance to succeed? On another note, the internet provides information. Information can lead to education, whether it is academic-related or informing the public about an issue, maybe even an important government policy or potential political candidates. Free public education is something that sets the United States apart from many countries.

Americans also have the right to stay informed about all aspects of the government; our choice on whether or how we do so should remain neutral. In many to most cases,

Americans access information online rather than through a television or radio broadcast or in print sources. Is the government going to blatantly allow a corporation to decide how Americans stay informed? I should think not! It is the government's

JOB to protect the freedoms of its citizens and keep them informed. This is not something the government can pass off to an ISP and expect them to follow through: has anyone ever played the "telephone game" and had the original message come through at the end?

Sincerely,

Laura Ellyson

Page 1

===

7521680278.txt

Thank you for giving the American public the rightful opportunity to advise with

Protecting and Promoting an Open Internet. Since the purpose of the

Federal

Communications Commission (FCC) is to regulate upon public interests, I am glad you will follow through on your promise to read each comment that has been uploaded by numerous informed consumers that have had the time to officially comment.

It is sad to see powerful Internet Service Providers (ISPs) wanting to create paid prioritization for their services in an attempt to increase revenue.

Given the concentrated power among the dominant ISPs (less than a handful), those businesses should be obligated to innovate and improve their infrastructure in order to relieve any congestion on their Internet pathways ??? not create preference to the highest bidder and bypass the need for innovation. Do not let major ISPs weasel out of having to innovate a solution for their infrastructure problem.

I would like to echo U.S. Senator Ron Wyden???s cited statements:

???According to the Commisision, 96% of Americans have two or fewer choices for wireline broadband access, and at least 8.9% (over 28 million)

Americans have access to only one landline broadband provider. Under these conditions, the proposed merger between the giants Time Warner Cable and Comcast, which would give

Comcast over 50 percent of the market for high speed internet access, is a proposition that

I hope regulators have the good sense to reject.???

If you would like to see the specific sources he referenced, go to http://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=13bc5ff0-9f78-4129-9e6c-

19c3c0609268&downlo ad=1. I have referenced the second paragraph on the third page. The specific sources are listed as a footnote on that page.

In addition, I would like to advise the FCC on working to remove the local monopolies that are ultimately held in place by local governments and public utilities. The development of new ISPs is severely hindered by difficult negotiations with local governments and expensive contracts with public utilities.

This barrier is exemplified by the spread of the Google Fiber network; even an

Internet juggernaut is struggling to develop a network due to the negotiations with local government for public utility contracts that have previously and consistently been held by less than a handful of dominant ISPs. Please incentivize a more innovative and networked infrastructure in government on the local level.

Given that Americans consistently rate Time Warner Cable and Comcast as some of the most hated corporations, it may be evidence that there is a market failure due to the lack of serious competition for the aforementioned corporations.

Given that dominant ISPs repeatedly hold exclusive local municipal contracts, I support

reclassifying ISPs (mobile and broadband) as Title II common carriers with a condition: if the local government somehow allows free competition (i.e., any legitimate ISP is able to commercially use the municipal network), then such competing ISPs are not subject to Title II regulations. Such local free competition gives more value to the local constituents??? preferences; thus, better serving those constituents as consumers. Follow through with the FCC???s mission statement and listen to the public comments. Preserve open competition on the

Internet.

When a modern business loses its Internet connection, do you not think that business will be effectively shut down until the connection is regained? Modern businesses??? dependence on Internet connectivity is now virtually identical to their dependence on electricity. You can find inexpensive methods to produce your own electricity, but you cannot find affordable methods to produce your own Internet.

Thank you for your time. I wish the Commission the best of luck with this decision.

Thank you for reading my comment. Have a great day.

Page 1

===

7521680269.txt

Please make all cable companies carry the RFD channel. Don't believe their absurd comment about being an "Urban provider". Farming is not done by old men in coveralls. We are educated, intelligent businessmen; who are luckily still spread out across the USA. That fact should be noted as a benefit to Homeland

Security protection of our nations food supply.

The information provided to me by RFD-TV gives me futures reports, crop forecasts and info that help me make money. The cable company gentlemen should be reminded that every time they put food in their mouth that it started with the farmer watching the futures market and selling their commodity at the best price so they can avoid bankruptcy and not have to see their farm become a Mall or a

McMansion development with 3 kids/home to pay to educate. Just like what happened in the

1980's.

I would also like to mention that many people like to watch shows about horsemanship. In NJ horses make up 12% of the states total agricultural receipts.

That money is disposable income spending. Just because one lives in an urban setting it doesn't mean they are not involved in the rural world.

At age 50 I have been farming most of my life and this is one of the hardest times I can remember, high diesel costs, high feed costs, shrinking availability of goods

and services for farming, the Regulatory Capture of our markets by lawmakers and depreciating farmland values are enough. Please don't let them take the one tool we have that can help us make money to continue a 6th generation farming family.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to voice my thoughts. Remember that farmers make up less than 1% of the population of the US. Our voice is never loud enough for respect yet we manage to produce food to feed this entire country.

Please respect the farmer and keep RFD-TV and radio available to everyone without exceptions.

Sincerely

Peggy Dey

Page 1

===

7521680262.txt

I'm sure I will not be as eloquent as many others, but I do want to ensure my voice is heard/read. Over the past several decades the Internet has become an incredible voice and tool for billions of worldwide citizens. The Internet is bigger than anyone person, company or even country and belongs to the world not to the individual. For our government to even think that we can control the

Internet is completely selfish. Please do not destroy that neutrality and for every comment here multiply that by 10. Because I'm sure as you know there are many people who aren't even bothering to make their voice known. They feel as if their comments won't matter. But I would like you to prove them wrong. Prove that you do care about what the American citizen and the worldwide citizen wants on this very important matter.

Page 1

===

7521680176.txt

I work as a software engineer and my whole company relies on an open

Internet for the products we create and many of the services we utilize. What your proposing with fast lanes (really they're just putting everyone into slow lanes to create a tiered

Internet) would further allow monopolies to exploit the United States' infrastructure. Rather than companies like Comcast expanding the networks, they want to fix supply at a constant amount and force companies to fight over it.

They know full well Netflix is competing against their cable streaming and will choke their connection to their customers unless they can make up for their losses in cable sales. Do not let ISPs stagnate the US infrastructure. Seems like the only company laying new fiber networks is Google Fiber lately.

I don't even know why I have to say this since it seems obvious for anyone that has a technical background in networking. I get that there are lobbyists that want to turn the Internet into a cable like system, but it should be clear they just want to control the networks and content customers view and pay for. Just reclassify ISPs as common carriers and work to keep ISPs expanding their networks and competing. Right now they've gotten way too comfortable. Anecdotally in my area of Shawnee we're getting Google Fiber this year and AT&T and Time Warner are completely unphased as they lose customers and refuse to compete or upgrade their networks.

To put this in perspective AT&T U-Verse after the first 12 months is 58

USD for only

6 mbps Internet with no TV. That's 9.67 USD per mbps. Completely unacceptable where

4 miles away people have 1 gbps Internet for 70 USD which is 0.068 USD per mbps.

Also I saw Verizon's comment posted here the other day and it's full of lies. It honestly looks like they had 100 lobbyists sit down and write their 100+ page document to try to confuse the technically illiterate. That sad part is anyone technically literate will stare at it and go "oh yeah, there's a lot of references" and assume it means something other than what it is.

Just reclassify. I know you're probably promised a future job or something, but I doubt supporting Net Neutrality by reclassifying them under title II will hurt your future job prospects that much. They'll understand you had a lot of public pressure with 700K comments to go against their wishes.

Page 1

===

7521680162.txt

If you take money out of the equation, there remains no reason to axe Net

Neutrality in its current form.

Therein lies the problem: there is no technological challenge/issue, no sociological, economical, or societal issue. The issue is simply of basic-utility-providing corporations wanting to make greater profits at the expense of hundreds of millions of people and companies--and the rest of world.

We have seen what happens when banks do this (with only negative longterm ramifications for all). We have also seen when utilities attempt to do this. Why do we repeat our mistakes, only to watch our children suffer so a few dollars can be made today?

This issue affects us all. Go onto the streets with a VOLUNTEER Net

Neutrality advocate and a VOLUNTEER opposition advocate (Wait, are there any volunteer advocates in the opposition? That should speak volumes to anyone who understands the

way public opinion works). And get individuals to render a ruling.

I am losing faith in your entity's ability to operate neutrally. Why this issue keeps coming up when everyone is against it makes me believe--with conviction--that your members are not neutral in their interest with respect to this issue. I hope you rule on this issue, conclusively. Every time I write a letter or comment regarding this issue, I now fully expect to write hundreds more because this issue doesn't seems to come up over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and

over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Page 1

===

7521680145.txt




Neutrality.

Page 1

===

7521680130.txt

Dear FCC,

I am writing to you today in regards to the document about Protecting and

Promoting the Open Internet. I have read over many of the details in this plan and suggest that the FCC does not move forward. The primary reason being that paid prioritization should be banned outright and for additional reasons as well.

The problem with paid prioritization is this will give ISP's to much power over what

American citizens can see on the internet. For example, I receive a lot of my news over the internet and normally read different websites. The paid prioritization rules would limit me on how I would receive this information. If I have

Comcast as my ISP, NBC Universal would receive priority traffic over other news providers since

Comcast has ownership in this company. Since NBC news would load up faster, I would receive my news mainly from just one source. Some stories on NBC may not be available because they feel it's not important or a story that will drive traffic to

the site. Even if Comcast did not own NBC Universal, a deal could be made with Fox and would be more likely to view articles from them.

The next issue I have with paid prioritization is the speed. I was unable to find information in regards to a minimum speed that ISP's must provide to all websites.

Since the nation as a whole receives different internet speeds, it would be hard to determine what a minimum would be. Would a priority site receive 100% of my internet speed, while a non priority site receives only 50%? If someone has only

1MBs internet connection, 500KBs would be a drastic decrease to viewing these sites.

The final issue I have with paid prioritization is how the rules would be enforced.

I can see this almost being impossible to resolve if someone complained about a website loading below standards. ISPs can state the network was congested at this time, the computer the person is using is slow, or lots of other reasons.

I believe the internet is no longer a luxury, but is now an essential part of everyone life. Classifying ISP's as Title II may be the best option for now, however in the interest of American citizens and the world, lets keep our internet open and do whats best for the people, not the ISP's. The world is watching our decision and showing the world, we restrict information to our citizens does not show freedom.

If there truly is an issue with bandwidth, then ISP's should be investing money into providing solutions to fix the problem. I pay my bill to an ISP and the money they receive should be used to for this purpose. Charging a website to receive faster access should be considered "double dipping". The FCC needs to be finding solutions to provide better service to consumers and paid priority limits service to consumers.

I hope the comments I have provided will be useful in your decision. I believe the best choice and how many Americans feel is to leave the internet how it is and keep all sites equal.


Tim Foster

Page 1

===

7521542096.txt



The Internet gives us all our own personal library. We can go to it any time day or

night to find objective information as well as comments and evaluations from real people. I'm retired and can't physically get out to the library easily.

I've made significant health decisions based on Internet articles and patient experiences. I use the Internet for fun and for very serious research. Please do not destroy my trust in this invaluable resource.







Page 1

===

7521542054.txt

I can't believe that yet again, American citizens are battling with

.consummate corporate greed, and once again have been betrayed by a President who completely misrepresented himself to the public. I am sick of writing useless letters of comment- Net neutrality is the First Amendment of the Internet, the principle that

Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data equally. .

The FCC should use its Title II authority to protect it. Instead of selling out and whoring itself.








Page 1

===

7521541663.txt

I know that this is the last day for public comment. I want to add that you have within your hands a moment that could reshape the future or destroy it.

Corporate America only thinks about one thing - money. They think about the year end bonus instead of the long term goals. In contrast, people of the

Internet have done considerable things with it that have reshaped our future for the better.

The future may not matter to you as some believe that it is better to live like a king now because we will all be the same when we die. But the future matters to many of us even though we won't live to see it.

Allow me to explain why I feel net neutrality is important.



Net Neutrality is a promise to all who log onto the Internet. That promise is that whoever you are it'll be up to you and to you alone to decide how you should use the

Internet. No one will tell you differently. If you give corporate america any power or any say in this matter then you will take away that promise, and you will allow corporate america to decide how the Internet should be used.

Most Americans have only one choice for truly high speed Internet: their local cable company. This is a political failure, and it is an embarrassment. America deserves

competition and choice. Allowing corporate america to run the Internet will destroy competition as no one will want to spend money to go up against any corporate giant.


Again, this goes back to what I had said earlier. By allowing them to manipulate our Internet services they will dictate how we as individuals will use the Internet.

They not us will have the power to shape the Internet and that is something that goes against the core principles of the Internet itself.



History has shown how disastrous monopolies or gate keepers can be. It is bad for the company and it is bad for the economy.



Sincerely, Lonard Tilford

Page 1

===

7521541298.txt

To the extent that the FCC is accepting comments on Protecting and

Promoting the

Open Internet via the Internet itself, it would seem that the Internet is a core part of our democratic process that should be protected against discrimination or allowing one group of persons perferred access above and beyond another group of persons.

As such, it seems obvious that the Internet must be considered a common carrier and any efforts to give one group of persons perferred access such as faster delivery of packets, is determinental to our democracy.

Page 1

===

7521540463.txt

Comment for proceeding 14-8:

I believe that 14-8 would increase the risk of a two-tier have/have-not internet.

Data streaming over "public networks" should not be prioritized based on who pays the most. The internet was born, partly, through the desire to freely exchange information (data). This proposal impacts the exchange of information by application of an economic filter. There is a growing resentment of new rules that benefit only corporate interests, limits choices for consumers and increase costs to consumers.

This proposal increase this resentment.

Page 1

===

7521540005.txt

My name is Jonathan Guynn from York, PA. I strongly disagree with giving

ISP's the ability to give certain content providers "fast lane" access. Allowing

ISP's to decide which service will stream smoothly based on who can pay will throttle innovation by raising the barrier to entry for startups. ISP's like Time

Warner and

Comcast have some of the lowest customer satisfaction ratings across all industries; given their track record this power will not benefit their customers, only their own bottom line.

Perhaps most importantly, as you can see from the number of comments this proceeding has generated, this proceeding is against the will of the people. The purpose of a representative government is to execute the will of the people and the people have clearly spoken on this issue.

Page 1

===

7521539810.txt

I couldn't stand by and not submit a comment, even if it doesn't change anything.

The FCC has to protect net nuetrality, even if that means that Wheeler and the like don't get the big corrupt pile of cash I know is waiting for them at the end of this road. Appointing a man like Wheeler as the head of the FCC is one of the most blatantly open examples of corruption I have ever seen. The internet needs to be open and free in order for the US to progress on a level playing field with the rest of the world. Like it or not, the internet is the future, and any country that stands by and let's a bunch of businessmen set up the internet behind a massive paywall (which is where this is headed) is severely handicapping their future. As a student I use the internet all of time, just like every other student of my generation. If you make it harder for people like me to use the internet, you make

it harder for people like me to learn and grow personally, while the citizens of the rest of the world enjoy much cheaper, much faster internet. That WILL result in

America being even further left behind by the rest of the world than it is now.

Technology like the internet needs to be encouraged in order to bring

America forward. We already have the worst internet services of any developed country out there; don't make it any worse by making it even easier for these telecom companies to screw us. Ideally, the FCC should address the terrible service being provided by these companies in the US, and start enforcing new minimum standards to force the companies to actually provide us the speed and service we already pay them so much already for.

Page 1

===

7521539105.txt

I'm sure that you have gotten several comments on the whole gating up the internet, so i'll just say I too share those concern.

On the consumer side, though, it seems silly that an ISP should be able to charge me for a certain "speed", but then charge the internet company for their

"speed" to me.

I mean what does it mean to pay for a certain amount of bandwidth if they are slowing down the websites themselve. If you want to use the TV analogy, only the person watching cable is paying for the access, not both the watcher and the networks. In that model it's actually the cable company who pays the networks so they can charge for providing access.

I know you have gotten comments along the same lines as this I'm sure, but it would be best for the ISP to be treated as utilities. It has gotten to the point that the

Internet is necessary for almost everything we do in America. I mean you need access anymore to even apply for a job.

Thanks for taking my comments,

Aaron Gustwiller

Page 1

===

7521539056.txt

I would like to urge you to maintain Net Neutrality. By allowing corporate monopolies to charge fees for sevice speed you are effectively creating a multi-tiered internet. by doing so you are also squashing entrepreneurs by creating a competitive disadvantage to start ups who cannot afford the cost of paying for faster access. I understand your stated intent is for the faster lanes to be used for medical and other urgent societal needs, however by allowing an easy route of

multi tierd speeds corporations can effectivly stop their expansion in exploring technoligies that will produce faster speeds. As it is for consumers the internet is pay to play for upload and download speeds. Faster speeds do cost more money monthly for consumers which in my opinion already is against the principles of net neutrality. If broadband providers are allowed to create the same system on the other end, you are effectivly creating an needlessly complicated system which limits activity on all sides for the sole purpose of providing a handful of corporations with an excessive amount of profit. This system will not look out for the best interests of consumers or buisnesses that use it and will have very drastic consiquences on the functionality of the internet, the innovation that will be able to occur in this country and the forward mobility of the people. Our economy should not be burdened with the strain that this new tiered system will undoubtably bring.

Please excuse any spelling errors, I am surely suprised with how complicated it is to find this comment board. and the lack of spell check and other functionality that this fourm could use.


Jesse Williams

Page 1

===

7521538588.txt

I hope someone of value reads these comments. Don't sell out. Big lobbyists are pushing this legislation through to fatten the corporate wallets, period.

On this particular issue, it affects too many innocent people. Don't be fooled.

Protect the people, not the corporations.

Page 1

===

7521538549.txt

I believe this proposed merger of Comcast and TWC should be denied. Cable rates are already outrageous and customer service is terrible. Reducing the competition in the cable market will only exacerbate these problems.

Not only should this merger be denied, the FCC should look into the monopolistic behavior that is already in place today.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Page 1

===

7521538137.txt

Net Neutrality must be maintained. You know reasons why from the thousands of other comments of those that know this is huge giveaway to big telecom and a great loss to all of us who will pay the bill for this wrong-headed mistake. Do. Not.

Approve.

Page 1

===

7521537332.txt

Good morning. I just wanted to make a brief comment stating my support for net neutrality. It is vitally important to the future development and sharing of ideas that everyone have equal access to the internet. In this time in history having equal access to the internet should be considered a common utlility. If large corporations are allowed to pick and choose what is of value the creation of new ideas will be compromised in favor of those who currently control power and wealth.

The internet is the last great equalizer and access should remain equal for all who choose to use it. thank you

Page 1

===

7521536737.txt

I received an e-mail from Tom Wheeler in response to a previous comment.

Tom says:

"I'm a strong supporter of the Open Internet, and I will fight to keep the internet open.", yet his proposal does not preserve an open internet. The comment is the

"clean coal" of Internet spin.

The Internet is a more important technology than the printing press -The

FCC has a chance to preserve it for the future but seems intent on choosing profit over people.

Why is it that wealth always wins?

Page 1

===

7521536745.txt

Thanks for giving everyday people who aren't paid by the cable companies a chance to comment. Net neutrality is the First Amendment of the Internet, the principle that


Most Americans have only one choice for truly high speed Internet: their local cable company. Without net neutrality, a bad situation gets even worse. These

ISPs will now be able to manipulate our Internet experience by speeding up some services and slowing down others. That kills choice, diversity, and quality.





Page 1

===

7521536706.txt

Just one more comment in favor of absolute net neutrality, meaning no preferential treatment of intenet traffic. If that requires reclassifying internet service providers as common carriers, so be it. Internet fast lanes will destroy the high tech economy and hence ultimately provide only short term profits for a few internet service providers. It is just shooting America in the foot.

Page 1

===

7521535890.txt

Please consider this comment in opposition to the FCC's proposed "net neutrality" rule. Broadband is already, in actuality, and should be, legally, a utility and regulated as such. Allowing ISPs to charge users for a "fast lane" automatically creates one or more "slow" lanes and creates no incentive for ISPs to improve the ridiculously slow broadband speeds that place the US 31st in the world

(Speedtest.net), sinking lower each and every year. Expensive fast lanes would also hinder start-up use of the Internet and the creation of new and highly useful technologies. The fact that Comcast supports this proposal is all that most people need to know. If it's good for Comcast, it's bad for the rest of us.

Page 1

===

7521731635.txt

My comments are being made because of our fear that we will not be able to see our favorite programs on RFDTV much longer.We do not care for the violence on most of the other channels, nor do we care for the language. We enjoy the farm programs, as well as the musical programs on RFD. We have even been to programs at the

RFD theater and feel as though we know the people on the screen and feel that they are our friends. Please leave us at least one station that we can enjoy.

Right now, we have dish and can access our station, but we worry that they might follow your lead

if you do not allow access through your network.Thank you for listening to us.

Page 1

===

7521731609.txt

From: Fred Goodwin

Date: July 23, 2014

Re: FNPRM in WC Docket No. 10-90 (FCC No. 14-98 released July 14, 2014)

You seek comment on how to induce states to share in funding of broadband infrastructure. You should consider lifting your pre-emption of broadband

Internet access and of IP-enabled services in general. For the life of me, I don't see why

_any_ state would provide funds for services it cannot regulate. How is that any different than a blank check?

Your NPRM should have included some examples of conditions that states could reasonably apply in exchange for carriers accepting state funding, e.g., conditions like accountability and transparency, so the states know the money is spent for its intended purpose and that it was spent in areas needing it the most.

As it is, you put the states in the unenviable position of offering money with no strings attached, and no way to ensure accountability to state tax payers. Without some guidance from you, carriers will undoubtedly scream that _any_ state-imposed conditions amounts to state regulation of broadband, which is not allowed under FCC pre-emption.

Disclaimer: I am a private citizen, submitting my own comments. My views do not necessarily represent the views of my employer. I am not employed by any

ISP, telco, or cable company.

Page 1

===

7521731549.txt

I agree with the earlier commenter before me, that

"Net neutrality must be maintained for the U.S to continue its dominance in the internet industry.

To have a common comparison, it would be as if I get charged differently by USPS depending on the content of my letter. This is absolutely unfathomable.

The only reason there is even a discussion on removing net neutrality is to allow media companies to drive their competition out of business."

I would also like to add that there must be a different way to make money and improvements upon infrastructure, like encouraging competition and starting anti-trust suits against the monopolies of corporations. Perhaps the government regulatory agencies could get back to providing an equal opportunity for all businesses, the basis of capitalism, instead of letting monopolies have complete control of our lives based on their bottom line.

Respectfully, Shawna Foster

Page 1

===

7521687324.txt

My comments favor net neutrality, the open internet.

Allowing internet service providers to throttle access speeds to various websites is an anti-competitive practice. Small websites and small businesses will struggle to gain viewership. Whether we consciously know why or not, our perception of sites as slower and faster will likely associate an unconscious perception of quality with the sites we access, and we will not be drawn to places on the internet that we have a harder time interacting with.

I also agree with making broadband internet a utility. To counter arguments that say utilities are the services that are more necessary, I would point out that not all homes have natural gas, a common utility. The utility analogy is also instructive as to why this makes no sense: suppose the water company promoted increased water flow to powered appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines, but the toilet and sink manufacturers could not pay to promote their products to receive the same flow.

It simply would not make sense for the water utility to work this way, because though some usages may be quite important to the consumer, and indeed may constitute even a majority of water consumption, the service of the toilet may be extremely important at times, and the consumer may find him/herself suffering because they did not pay to have equal flow to all home water taps.

Keep the internet available. Freedom of speech will have to be purchased otherwise.

The information age will gradually come to an end as it devolves into the enhanced media age. The internet is a world service, and a force for good if we make it so, so we must protect the ability to do this.

Page 1

===

7521535049.txt

The internet is the physical manifestation of the market place of ideas, a concept so important to our democracy that its protection is embodied in the

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Whereas volume is the operative characteristic for having your voice heard in the real world, access and speed are the operative characteristics in the online world.

Allowing internet service providers to discriminate against data based on its source will only limit speech and negate the characteristics of the internet that make it such an important tool. It is equally important that there is no recourse for

consumers through the market against these types of actions. Were we in a country with true competition among internet service providers then the market would be able to respond by choosing the providers who refused to engage in this practice.

However, consumers are currently subject to an immense concentration of control of internet services and as these comments are submitted the FCC is overseeing the merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable which would only further the monopoly concerns. It is no wonder that the U.S. has fallen into the same access, speed, and costs rankings as third world countries in international surveys regarding internet services.

I support net nuetrality, and further support the reclassification of internet service providers as Title II common carriers. The discrimination of data will destroy this market place of ideas, and allowing such a practice will remove the

U.S. as a competitive force in international commerce.

Page 1

===

7521534425.txt

The U.S. pays more than most for internet usage. The U.S. has the slowest service in the world. Our internet providers are quite wealthy and yet the president is appointing a friend of his and of Comcast to make decisions on net neutrality is evidence enough that this comment space is for show only.

Page 1

===

7521731301.txt

It frustrates me that all I can do in the face of the insanity of the

FCC's actions is to register a complaint on your website. How can I expect that my comment, or any number of comments will change anything when Tom Wheeler is in charge? As

John

Oliver said on his TV show, "The guy who used to run that cable industry's lobbying arm, is now running the agency tasked with regulating it. That is the equivalent of needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo."

I consider myself blessed to have come of age at the same time that the internet has. It would be a real shame if this source of information and innovation were to go the way of the television or the radio, that is to say, accessible only to the few, representing only a narrow fraction of the collective identity of the people.

Furthermore, the corporate approved messages of TV and radio have gone on to SHAPE the very same collective identity. The internet has stood, for decades now, as a beckon of light in the darkness of American telecommunications.

Please don't take that away.

Please classify ISPs as common carriers.

Page 1

===

7521731284.txt

I am an urban subscriber to Directv. One of my favorite channels is RFD-

TV. Although

I live in an east coast city, I am very interested in our nation's farmers and ranchers. I receive information about this interest from RFD-TV. I look upon RFD-TV as my main connection to the heartland of America through the shows they present about all things agricultural. I also enjoy the family-based entertainment they present, especially the music shows, which I can't get anywhere else on my TV.

Please ensure that RFD-TV stays on the channel lineup of whatever conglomerate emerges from the Directv/AT&T merger. I would be very unhappy to see RFD-

TV disappear from my television.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue.

Page 1

===

7521731275.txt

While the Comcast/Time Warner merger may make economic sense for the companies involved, I am greatly concerned with result to the U.S. PUBLIC when companies, both of these are primarily urban-focused, label the BBC World News as an

"independent".

I am college-educated, actively teaching in a public school , and living in an

"urban-cluster".

I enjoy and gain great benefit from BBC World News and RFD-TV and other networks such as these. I need this type of information if I am to be what Thomas

Jefferson envisioned for the voting public of America.

I want these types of networks protected if this merger is allowed.

Thank you for this opportunity to give comment.

Page 1

===

7521688968.txt

Dear FCC,

My name is Brandon Paseman and I live in Bonita, CA.

Net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data that travels over their networks equally, is important to me because without it It eliminates the free market system that the internet has in place for itself and it's users

A pay-to-play Internet worries me because It eliminates all reason for competition

I am not going to waste time explaining why everything in this bill goes against what the internet stands for and everything it was created to do. I'm sure you have

enough people explaining that already. Here's my second biggest problem with the proposed bill (the first being all the reasons I said I wouldn't get into), it in no way provides competition between ISPs, and instead provides incentive for them to treat their customers poorly.

Even if ISPs were charged extensively for slowing down any particular website, there would be no practical reason not to. If I were the head of an ISP I would right now have my company be drafting projections of the fines that would be imposed upon our company, and the amount of customers that the company would gain if users access to popular sites such as youtube, Netflix and Facebook were slowed to an extent that they were nearly unusable. No matter what fine would be imposed the amount of customers and reasonable price of the new faster access system

I would need to account for those losses could be easily calculated. There I no practical reason as a company not to do this. So even though the bill might have a clause in it that says ISPs cannot slow down access to other sites there wouldn?t be a reason not to, and if I can see that opportunity as a twenty year old college student there is no reason a professional wouldn?t. Secondly if a site is given faster access, you are by definition making access to all other sites slower.

Additionally, this system does not invoke reason for ISPs to compete. I feel it is safe to say that ISPs are an oligarchy. Typically there is one ISP for whatever area a person lives in. Even if there are more, their resources are so effectively limited that they cannot compete. Allowing a company to provide faster access to some websites doesn?t create competition amongst the ISPs. All it does is give ISPs a tool to promote their own business by stating they have faster access to specific sites. But if this ability to give faster access is given to all of the

ISPs no one has a better service to provide. It is effectively the same and so there is no competition, and those smaller ISPs that cannot afford the pay to play internet system would be even further removed from the competition. So not only would this not provide competition between ISPs it would start eliminating it. It would make more sense to provide money to smaller ISPs so that they could provide competitive prices with the larger companies that are effectively an oligarchy.

Those are the issues I have with the bill that have nothing to do with how it goes against equality and free speech. Though upon your website it states that one of the

FCC?s main purpose is to provide competition, this bill, at least it would seem to me is effectively removing it.

If you have any comments or would like to explain to me how this bill will actually cause competition please e-mail me at brandopaseman@yahoo.com

Sincerely,

Brandon Paseman

Page 1

===

7521533387.txt

The internet is a necessity of everyday life. I use it for tele-commuting

(on an occasional basis) and while at work (extensively). Privileging certain content providers by providing "fast lanes" will inevitably result in both higher prices and lower productivity. Again, the internet is a necessity of everyday life for the majority of Americans. Like electricity. Like phones. It should be regulated like other utilities.

That you have this fix easily available, and have chosen not to use it, is just another indication that the regulatory system has been captured by those who seek to make every interaction between citizens an opportunity for profit. Your masters are corporate America, and you seem ok with that. I'm not, and the volume of comments you've received would indicate that the American people are likewise not.

Recent research has shown that what the American people want matters not, if moneyed interests want otherwise. I'm hoping in this case the people will prevail.

Page 1

===

7521689309.txt

As the comment period comes to an end, on one of the most commented topic ever on the FCC website, I would like to submit my view. I completely understand why the government would want to essentially end net neutrality. This could be for a variety of reasons, including the ability to push some information to consumers faster and ultimately bring in more profits. However, I completely disagree with the government moving forward with ending net neutrality. There could be detrimental damage done to the currently open internet if net neutrality was ended. Big businesses like

Facebook, Netflix, Google, Amazon, Go inc (aka Disney, ABC, and ESPN),

Microsoft, and Apple would have the capital to purchase faster delivery speeds, while smaller up and coming businesses and nonprofits like who2try, and the Foundation to Decrease

Worldsuck would not be able to afford these higher delivery charges and thus be

forced to close due to lack of business. I believe that America was built off of opportunity, and that ending net neutrality would greatly diminish this opportunity.

Keep the Internet open and equal America! I still believe in you.

Page 1

===

7521730975.txt

In regard to net neutrality, I have two comments:

In the past few years, the Internet has allowed the small business person to compete more easily because he did not need a big storefront to be seen, just a decent website. If companies with more money can purchase faster access, that small business person will once more be in the position of having to compete on a basis for which he does not have the resources. This affects me as a consumer because it becomes more difficult to deal with the small business.

The Internet has also allowed people like me to get away from the outrageous fees charged by cable and satellite companies. By using streaming services, I no longer need to rent a certain number of boxes etc and I get the programs I want without paying for things I don't want. If a streaming provider, for example

Amazon Prime, pays a cable company for faster streaming, I will end up paying for that even though my streaming is coming through phone lines and is not going to be faster.

This seems unfair to me.

Page 1

===

7521730883.txt

I'm sure you've received comments in a repeatedly similiar vain regarding your attempts to mess with Net Neturality, so I'll be brief.

Leave it alone. Don't wreck one of the last freely accessible democratic information sources that remains for every Joe & Jane Doe. Your grand kids will thank you, as will I.

Page 1

===

7521730868.txt

I have filed a comment in the past concerning this merger.

I feel I must, once again, urge you to consider rejecting the merger due to the possible loss of RFDTV channel. My husband and I are urban residents and not farmers. We enjoy the family entertainment on RFDTV that is not always available on network channels. We wish to continue having RFDTV an option for viewing.

Please keep in mind that a wide range of viewers (not all rural), enjoy this channel.

Page 1

===

7521730361.txt

I am a satelite subscriber and a cattle farmer. Rual america tv helps me with my operation. I can keep up with the cattle market plus it helps me with new products and equipment. So i suport rfdtv and i think you sould to . It is very important to me & my family . Thanks for allowing me to share my comment.

Page 1

===

7521729742.txt

To the FCC:

As an individual who runs a small business as a photographer and director, I need the internet to be an open and free place to share my creative work with others, and more importantly, to be discovered by others: potential clients, fans, the random passerby who can help by posting a link, telling a friend, passing on my site url. This open and neutral traffic is a key factor in getting my work out to the world, in advertising what I do, and in giving me just as fair a shot as any large company with a marketing team and massive budget for agency advertising. That is the beauty and genius of the open internet. It is democracy at work.

That great things can rise from anywhere, and be heard, and be discovered. In this current state, all fledgling talent has a chance to get its voice out. There is nothing more truly American than that. Giving large corporations (ATT for example) the power to limit and control what we can share or discover online is a fundamental attack on free speech, the spirit of American entrepreneurship and the idea--however hokey or cliched it may sound--of the American Dream. Big Money should not rule the internet airwaves, deciding what can be accessed quickly, what will be dumped to the

"slow lane" and so forth. This will (and this is what the big media corporations want) be effectively killing off their smaller competition and the open freedom of business. This will truly diminish what I can achieve with the internet in terms of running my business and marketing my creative work, and by that, adversely affect my income and career. I am just one of the millions who use an open and free internet to share my hard work with others, and to hear back from like-minded individuals and fans, to discover other artists, and to keep a thriving community going in an economy that is still recovering for small-business owners. I ask the FCC to consider my comments, as well as my fellow entrepreneurs, artists, teachers, freelancers, unemployed seeking work, anyone who uses the vast and powerful tool of

a free internet to make their lives and livelihood a little easier.

Sincerely,

Eric Ogden

Page 1

===

7521730563.txt

Gentlemen: It is with great concern that I submit this comment. The reason is that at this time there is only one tv channel devoted to the life style and issues of people in rural and semi rural America. I understand the need for the mergers of

Dish TV and its competitor Direct TV but I am concerned that few people understand the need for channels devoted to rural and semi rural issues. My msma has probably

500k plus people so it is not really a rural area but we need information on rural issues like farming, food, fiber, and the conditions affecting the production of all of these products and issues. There is no other consistent source for this information in the our country today. Please be sure that both Disk

Network and

Direct TV continue to carry this valuable programming to the hundreds of thousands of people that need it. Thank you for your consideration. j c burns

Page 1

===

7521730552.txt

The FCC MUST reclassify broadband internet as a telecommunications -

"Common carrier" - service. Keep the internet neutral, fair and competitive! That is how economies, culture and connection thrives! The internet should be a free place with

NOBODY deciding that certain people should have to pay more in order to connect to certain sites. Nor should sites have to pay more in order for their content to be reached. The internet is too important to have middle men carriers deciding which sites should be reached. THE NET MUST STAY NEUTRAL. IT IS UP TO YOU TO

KEEP IT THAT

WAY. PLEASE! Thank you for taking public comment. This is the most important issue of our time. Do the right thing, keep the internet free.

Page 1

===

7521730811.txt please please listen to our families and friends who wish to continue to receive the rural networks on any cable company, i receive those stations on dish network and would not like to have to survive a day without the rural content that i enjoy immensely whether i am getting home from work or enjoying a day off work and watching all day and all night long...thanks for the opportunity to make comments

Page 1

===

7521730691.txt

Hello, I am very much against removing net neutrality. Its ability to let everyone speak at the same volume is amazing, but if this is passed some people

(large weathy companies) will be much louder. The people/companies pushing for this will greatly benefit. This is possibly my last chance to have an equal voice, so I'll just say one last thing. Please listen to these comments and hear everyone against removing net neutrality and understand that this is, to us, a precious place where everyone can be seen and heard equally. Thank you.

Page 1

===

7521730643.txt

Thank you for taking the time to read these comments.

I'm 34 years old. The internet is my generation's greatest asset. It has been the single most important invention during my lifetime.

Please do everything you can to protect this asset for us.

I believe that someday there will be enough Internet Service Providers and enough choices of providers that the free market will be able to govern itself.

Capitalism will weed out unfair treatment of consumers.

However, as of yet, there are not enough options nor enough ISPs.

Therefore, you must protect Net Neutrality.

Thank you,

Chris Magleby

Page 1

===

7521730625.txt

The internet deserves consumer and provider equality. However I have come to the conclusion that this comment will not be read and will be soon forgotten.

It is sad to see what has happened to our country, the rich have successfully managed to manipulate everything around them. Our government is a disgrace.

Thank you for ignoring your citizens,

Zaid Ansari

Page 1

===

7521730614.txt

Please bring things back to the way they were. Everything was fine before you guys decided to change everything. I have verizon fios and now whenever I try to use the internet I paid for it is slower than it should be. If i try to watch a movie on netflix, it buffers for a good 3 minutes before the movies starts with a subpar picture quality. It is not fair and I am very disappointed with everything that you guys have done. ISPs have already shown that they cannot be trusted with a non-open

internet. You are a government agency that is supposed to fight for the best interests of the American people, not money grubbing companies only looking out for themselves. I am mortified. How could you do this to us? All the taxes we pay to give you guys jobs and you use it to ruin the quality of our lives? You should feel ashamed of yourselves. Bring back net neutrality. Please! For the good of literally everyone, stop this nonsense right now. I am a person; Don't just look at this comment as a bunch of words. I want you to picture the disappointment on my face.

You can still make this right and I hope you do.

Page 1

===

7521697179.txt

I've sent a comment to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and he lied and said he supported

Net Neutrality in his response. I now know Our voices don't hold any political sway, so for the freak of it, I'm signing on to yet another appeal to maintain

Open Access to the internet. Thank you.









Page 1

===

7521692636.txt

The internet should be as available as public roadways, with no advantage given to those who can pay more. There's enough of that going on everywhere else, exemplified by those who are lobbying against Net Neutrality.

For one thing, our economy will be stronger if start-ups are able to provide access to their business without needing to have deep pockets. This makes Net

Neutrality good for everyone, including the conglomerates who want to dominate it-

If no one has money to buy their products, what good is their domination of the market?

On the other side of things, as a frequent user of the internet, I don't want my access to diversity compromised by money-controlled speeds. If users are paying for fast service, that speed should get us to every site we want to visit. If the bigwigs- complaint is that the technology can-t handle it, then demand better technology. What is R&D for anyway?

Lastly, our very democracy can be compromised with the proposed changes to access.

At this point, sometimes the only way to get information that isn't controlled by wealthy special interest groups is to search online. Now you would take that away too? It would be the "Citizens United" of the internet.

There should be no hesitation on this issue: the FCC should use its Title

II authority to protect Net Neutrality.

Thank you for extending the comment period. I hope you are listening.

Page 1

===

7521691973.txt

I received a reply to another comment from Mr. Wheeler saying how much he supported net neutrality. I'm glad to hear it but...

If that were true, why would he propose the two-tier system he did? That is NOT neutral. That is a high-speed lane for those that can pay, and a donkey cart for everyone else.

Scrap that proposal and make one that treats all comers equally. Better yet, make

Internet companies common carriers. That's how you preserve neutrality and the opportunity and innovation that neutrality brings.

Thank You,

Hugh Brown

Page 1

===

7521690804.txt

I don't need to tell you what Net Neutrality means, I don't need to tell you how important it is, I don't need to even participate in this comment program. But I am,

because I have to. It's in society's best interest that the internet remain neutral and free of ISP meddling.

You at the FCC should follow my example and do what you should do regardless of how absurd, fruitless, contrary, impersonal, or unprofitable. Part of being a responsible adult, a good citizen, a good leader, a good ANYTHING is to do what's right, even if it means sacrificing your own best interests for the greater good.

In this case, you have a nation of people telling you what they need, and you have a handful of businesses telling you what they want.

If corporations are supposed to be people, how do the needs of this minority outweigh the needs of the nation?

You know what you're supposed to do, you know who is best served, you're a group of well-informed and intelligent adults. Please, be responsible, be good, advocate for the people. Be a beacon of hope for us, for everyone.

Please.

Page 1

===

7521690300.txt

I am, by most standards, an economic conservative. The political left often likes to equate this with being pro-corporate or anti-regulation, but that is their spin.

To me, being an economic conservative means being pro-market. This means

I might oppose government regulations that ultimately serve to limit the free market (e.g., price controls), while supporting government regulations that defend the free market

(e.g., antitrust laws; because monopolies aren't markets).

Which end, then, would be served by Chairman Wheeler's proposal and the end of net neutrality? On the surface, it might seem to be a pro-market proposal. It has certainly been sold with such language, and it has found defenders in

Congress on those grounds.

But that is a feint, and its dishonesty is perhaps most evident in the identity of its proponents. Markets involve successes and failures, and attempts to intervene in markets will ultimately create those who benefit or suffer as a result of those interventions. Those who stand to benefit can reliably be trusted to defend whatever that intervention (or lack of intervention) might be. This may create odd alliances, or it may result in an interest group taking inconsistent stances, but at the very least it can help to identify *who* stands to benefit from a change, and conversely, who stands to lose.

And from all appearances, there is only one, discrete beneficiary to the

Chairman's

proposal: Internet Service Providers. Content providers, both large and small, stand to lose, and have vocally opposed the end of net neutrality.

Content consumers stand to lose, and have inundated this website with comments expressing their outrage. This is a regulatory issue where one side has nearlyuniversal support, support that is seemingly bipartisan and non-ideological. That is

*incredibly* rare. Moreover, it is a regulatory issue where the opposite side is seemingly endorsed by the Chairman and a handful of billion dollar corporations who stand to make even more billions if they prevail.

And to that end, those corporations have spent astonishing sums to lobby and promote this overwhelmingly unpopular proposal, because they know that the money they stand to gain from the proposed change will dwarf the money they had to spend to push it through. That money can't buy them votes, of course, but it can buy them the time and opportunity to sell their story about why they should be granted this favor.

And they can spin a persuasive-sounding story when they employ people whose full-time jobs are to make self-serving laws look like public-benefiting, pro-market laws.

American internet consumers are already at a market disadvantage to the lack of competition between ISPs. If there were a thriving, competitive market between multiple ISPs, then the end of net neutrality might be less forboding.

ISPs that still treated all traffic equally could be rewarded, and ISPs that abused their power and attempted to exploit creators and consumers could suffer in the market for employing unpopular and unethical policies. But there is not enough of a market between ISPs for this to happen; the few major ISPs have virtually no disincentive to behave, because creators and consumers have no other market options to turn to.

Thus, the end of net neutrality is to hand even MORE power over to this oligopoly.

Net neutrality benefits both ends of internet communication, the content providers and the content consumers, but most importantly it benefits the market.

Whereas the end of net neutrality benefits not the creators and not the consumers, but only the handful of powerful middlemen. The loss of net neutrality might thus be an appealing idea to the liberal's caricature of a pro-corporate conservative, but to a true free-market conservative, it should be seen as a tragedy in the making.

Page 1

===

7521529683.txt

Most of the public understands that this is a matter of what the public wants vs what yet another big corporation wants.

I think most people also understand which way it's going to go, but I decided to leave this comment anyhow.

Page 1

===

7521529322.txt

This comment period is pointless as the FCC is already in the pocket of the cable industry, and will act against the will of the people to please their corporate masters. Creating an internet fast lane is just another step in stifling innovation and crushing competition so that the rich and powerful do not have to work as hard to stay ahead and can instead rely on their superior resources to get what they want. Just as they always have.

Page 1

===

7521528972.txt

I actually understand and agree with the content of this comment. As a computer scientist who works on systems located all across the USA, it is vitally important to me that my Internet connection not be useful only for consumption, or for communicating with companies that have agreed to extortionate demands by my ISP.

Like many Americans, I really only have one reasonable "choice" of ISP, so the notion that market competition will make my ISP act in a reasonable manner is hollow. We consider land-line telephones to be utilities, but I honestly do not know any members of my 30-something peer group who have land lines. We all have

Internet access, and consider it at least as important as previous generations considered telephone access. The Internet is a 21st century utility, and any company or organization claiming otherwise assumes that it is communicating with idiots.










Page 1

===

7521528972.txt

I actually understand and agree with the content of this comment. As a computer scientist who works on systems located all across the USA, it is vitally important to me that my Internet connection not be useful only for consumption, or for communicating with companies that have agreed to extortionate demands by my ISP.

Like many Americans, I really only have one reasonable "choice" of ISP, so the notion that market competition will make my ISP act in a reasonable manner is hollow. We consider land-line telephones to be utilities, but I honestly do not know any members of my 30-something peer group who have land lines. We all have

Internet access, and consider it at least as important as previous generations considered telephone access. The Internet is a 21st century utility, and any company or organization claiming otherwise assumes that it is communicating with idiots.









Page 1

===

700_comments - ChewyChunks

Related documents

Products

Support

700_comments - ChewyChunks

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib