I have watched the debate over the “open Internet” with great interest because the open Internet has dramatically improved my life. The very idea of “fast lanes” for paying content providers strikes at the very core of the level playing field and will undoubtedly change the impact of the Internet for the negative. “Fast lanes” is in itself a misnomer, in that the Internet Service Providers get to choose winners and losers when it comes to content delivery. Sites such as YouTube would not even exist today if fast lanes existed on the Internet in 2007.
I am a military member who enlisted in Wisconsin, was stationed in Virginia for ten years, and is now stationed in California. My family- and my wife’s family- are all in central Wisconsin. The distance from our loved ones is difficult at times. However, the Internet has provided ways for us to keep in touch without families in ways not previously possible.

I remember in the 1980s the promise of video calling. That never materialized for whatever reason. The Internet has made this possible. I can fire up Skype or FaceTime on my computer and talk with my family or my wife’s family quickly. With all data on the Internet being treated equal, my family is able to see me, my wife, and my son in real time on the computer. In fact, if not for video calling via the Internet, my son would not even know his grandparents or aunts and uncles.

The Internet is a fantastic medium for connecting with people around the world. I have friends from all over the country, and even overseas. I can chat with them realtime, and I have made friends I would not normally make due to the pervasive nature of the Internet.

The Internet has also enabled me to help friends with their computers. I was recently asked to help diagnose a problem with a computer in Virginia. Since the software I used for remote access was built by a company that was able to rely on all data being equal, I was able to access the computer and repair the issue.

Would the above have happened if there were fast lanes on the Internet? Perhaps, but if it had, the experience would be very different. As an end user, I rely on all bits being treated the same. I NEED all bits to be treated the same. If you were to take a poll right now and present the two options (fast lanes or no fast lanes), the overwhelming majority of end users would say they support the idea of NO fast lanes on the Internet. Why is that? The consumer understands that the idea of fast lanes exist only for corporate benefit, not the benefit of the end user.

Make no mistake- this proposal is NOT about making content more available to the end user. This issue is about ISPs being forced to treat all data without regard for its source and destination. The ISPs talk about being able to deliver a better video streaming experience to their end users. This is a thinly veiled lie. Consider this- the largest video streaming providers, Netflix and YouTube, would not have grown to their current state if it had not been for ALL data being treated equal.

Does anyone remember a video streaming service called Google TV? If you poll end users, they would say no. Google TV was a product developed by a massive company who at the time had plenty of money to pay a fast lane fee. If the fees had existed at the time, a small competitor, YouTube, would have never been able to compete against Google TV. The landscape of the Internet would be very different.

Internet fast lanes are a terrible idea. The only entities benefitting from this proposal are the Internet Service Providers. They want to become more profitable, and this is yet another way to do it. The proposal hurts the end user, and benefits the large corporate entity. This proposal is not in the interest of the American people, and should be scrapped. In fact, regulation should be put forth requiring ISPs to treat all bits equally, regardless of source IP address, destination IP address, etc.

Thank you for your time.