Author here. I just realized someone had submitted this to HN. I spent a lot of time researching and writing this article, and am excited to read any feedback you may have.
Also, here's how you can contact the FCC directly:
1-888-225-5322
press 1, then 4, then 2, then 0
say that you wish to file comments concerning the FCC Chairman’s plan to end net neutrality
It's my understanding that the FCC Chairman intends to reverse net neutrality rules and put big Internet Service Providers in charge of the internet. I am firmly against this action. I believe that these ISPs will operate solely in their own interests and not in the interests of what is best for the American public. In the past 10 years, broadband companies have been guilty of: deliberately throttling internet traffic, squeezing customers with arbitrary data caps, misleading consumers about the meaning of “unlimited” internet, giving privileged treatment to companies they own, strong-arming cities to prevent them from giving their residents high-speed internet, and avoiding real competition at all costs. Consumers, small businesses, and all Americans deserve an open internet. So to restate my position: I am against the chairman's plan to reverse the net neutrality rules. I believe doing so will destroy a vital engine for innovation, growth, and communication.
To be clear, and I do agree with you, that net neutrality is only half the problem. You hint on this very directly several times, but don't actually acknowledge this out right.
There are two warring trusts here, and both are equally evil in that they will abuse you as much as they can. On one hand there is the distribution problem, which is the ISP monopoly. With the recently media fallout around rolling back ISP data collection some of the big ISPs have openly promised to not resell this collected data... but if they own their own advertising networks they have less incentive to.
On the other side there is the content provider mega-states, which actually bigger and scarier than the ISPs. As your facts indicate the top 8 apps in the Apple app store come from Google and Facebook. Using their ad networks they can track your browsing habits as a third party service on second party sites, which means they know who you are even when you have no account with them or are logged out.
Remember the fallout of SOPA. SOPA scared the shit out of social media. If that law passed then social media would actually have to police the content of user submissions without motivation from multi-billion dollar law suits.
On one hand the ISP army is kind of evil in that they force their authority upon the public and the public is often powerless to do anything about it. The benefit of that is that they don't have to be dishonest about it, which is some level of transparency... even if still an aura of corruption.
The content provider side is scarier to me, because they can only gain wealth and influence if users lend it to them... and for convenience most users absolutely give up their privacy. They often don't need the same super-power lobby force the ISPs need if they can convenience their users to scream loudly enough together.
Fortunately, they are each the solution to the other's problems. If you believe the content providers are the greater evil then prioritize distribution and diversify your content sources. If you believe distribution (the ISPs) to be the greater problem then consolidate your content consumption and receive it through alternate providers.
> Fortunately, they are each the solution to the other's problems.
No, they aren't, because the major ISPs are also significant content providers and are trying to use their positions as ISPs to promote their own content-provision businesses. Unless you view "solving" the existence of incumbent large content providers as something that is done by making the oligopoly of ISPs also the oligopoly of content, the ISPs are not offering a solution to anything, just the same problem you are describing, intensified, with their own faces replacing the incumbent dominant content providers.
> the ISPs are not offering a solution to anything
Of course they won't offer anything to you that is not immediately in their commercial interest. You have to take the initiative to use what they provide in a way that does what you need.
"You have to take the initiative to use what they provide in a way that does what you need."
The end of net neutrality means they control what they or others can provide to you. That includes the ability to give you what they need you to use instead of what you need. So, you can't just use what they provide for your needs. The main article showed the ISP's and mediums before them repeatedly did this. There's no reason to trust they won't do it again as they're already scheming on us. The Comcast cap was a recent example I personally had to fight where they were faking my data usage counting up bandwidth when the computers weren't on and wifi was unplugged.
Nah, open, decentralized, and bazaar is the best model for the Internet because that's what gave us all the great things that the Prodigies, Compuserves, MA Bell's, etc didn't.
> The end of net neutrality means they control what they or others can provide to you.
That is not completely accurate. They are not content provides or censors... at least not directly. Some of the major ISPs do own ad networks and so can prioritize advertising distribution in a way that others down stream cannot. They can also irregularly throttle access to content using criteria of their choosing, which isn't completely censorship but is absolutely the slippery slope.
Net neutrality is beneficial and important, but the ISPs aren't the ones you should be most fearful of in these regards.
" They are not content provides or censors... at least not directly. "
They are if they determine what content you can get. They've already reduced that in the past just to save bandwidth costs. Then there's the content side. So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor in practice. A key middleman who might help you out or harm you instead of being impartial.
> They are if they determine what content you can get.
Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality.
> So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor in practice.
No it does not. They are still merely the distributor no matter how directly they censor you. You don't get to use effect to qualify the causality in your argument. This is a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc.
"Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality."
It was made after the Bittorrent blocking that dragonwriter referenced. The next thing they did was start throttling it and other high-bandwidth users. They were secretive about it, too. This was a problem in and of itself since there were content distribution businesses using BitTorrent. Having everything but their product running smoothly on a network makes them look incompetent. People might switch to vendors with steady performance that weren't being throttled. Consumer advocates argued it was bad since they sold us on a specific speed we could use as much as we like. If they wanted tiered access, they should be public about it and/or straight charge for it in their marketing materials. The debate continued.
EDIT to Add: I think the reset packets should probably be mentioned as they're an active attack on users' connections.
"They are still merely the distributor no matter how directly they censor you. "
Ok. Change the word to distributor and my point stands. They control what content you can get if they can arbitrarily block things, inject stuff into your traffic, or seek rent from content suppliers. ISP's have done all these things. It's still puts them in control what content you can receive through a pipe no matter what word you call them.
> Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality.
Blocking -- not throttling or prioritization -- was the issue in the original net neutrality action (the Comcast BitTorrent blocking case) and the threat of ISPs blocking unwelcome content and applications has always been one of the core focuses of FCC net neutrality policy while they were pursuing it.
The word "blocking" is used in the article by the plaintiff, but the actual issue at hand was throttling that the plaintiff perceived as blocked traffic. Even then the lawsuit wasn't about throttling either, but fraudulent advertising.
Blocking was an issue in the discussion, and its been an express concern (and directly, and separately from throttling and prioritization, been addressed in regulation) in each iteration of the FCC's Open Internet rules, which have all addressed both blocking of lawful content and blocking of lawful applications.
The idea that the ability of the ISPs to censor has not previously been an issue in the neutrality debate is utterly wrong; its been a central concern identified and addressed in each public draft and issued version of the FCC's net neutrality rules.
I am absolutely in favor of net neutrality. Variably charging for accessing data is no different than variably charging for accessing water or electricity as the OP described. There is a valid exception for electricity though. When a user requests so much juice that the local infrastructure is harmed they should be fined and throttled. I don't see how this same limitation can be applied to data access due to limitations in the physical distribution technology.
Even with that said I still think the ISP problem is the lesser of the two evils. People don't have any right to complain about NSA spying if they willingly sacrifice their personal data to Google and Facebook. This data isn't for lease or borrow... it is owned, and when it becomes the property of Google or Facebook they can, and should, use it against you to generate revenue.
The software giants have convinced their users they are acting in a benign capacity for the interest of their users. The biggest problem is that most people take them at their word.
> People don't have any right to complain about NSA spying if they willingly sacrifice their personal data to Google and Facebook
Sure they do. People can complain about whatever they want.
You're off on a tangent anyway. If you're for net neutrality, focus on that. That's the point of this thread, to brainstorm about how to maintain net neutrality.
It doesn't matter whether the ISP or content provider is the bigger evil - they're both potentially evil under these circumstances. Let's focus on our opposition to the proposed policy and see how the giants react. My suspicion is FB and Google will not be supportive of the FCC's proposed changes, and that counts for something. If they turn evil at a later date, we address it then. As far as I know, they're not currently supportive so that's not on the table
The ISPs are not trying to help you diversify your content sources, they want in on the content provider's take. Ideally they want to be the content monopoly themselves. Barring that they'll insert themselves in the middle as the gatekeeper and kingmaker charging both sides of the market. Either way consumers lose.
" I just realised someone had submitted this to HN."
I did, important and a good read.
Trivial Q. What search term did you use on google to get show the paid adverts google inserts above "freecodecamp"? Was the term generic? I get this result (no adverts, many links to freecodecamp): https://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/34191703472
Great article! My only feedback on the article is that you cite sources (maybe I missed it).
I find the Western Union and Hayes espionage story emotionally appealing but I couldn't find any serious sources with a quick Google search. The Rutherford B. Hayes Wikipedia article mentions neither Western Union or any sort of spying/espionage.
This is explored in Tim Wu's book, which I strongly recommend reading. "The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires": http://amzn.to/2cjtFDH
Just to be clear, it's not an "Express Filing", it's a "Standard Filing", which allows attaching a document (express just lets you paste in text, with no formatting--not even line breaks). Those are the only two options on the FCC's site for submitting filings.
Could certain cities make laws requiring last mile competition? Somebody in this thread mentioned that this is true in areas of Europe. In the US, maybe the easiest place to start doing that would be on a smaller scale and in urban areas. What cities are under a stranglehold of ISP monopolies? Do we have any maps of ISP coverage?
If we had some data and a map we could pinpoint which areas have high density and low competition.
Cities don't have any leverage. I used to live in Baltimore (quite dense east coast city). Comcast has a de facto monopoly there. Verizon has fiber in most of Maryland, and all the surrounding suburbs, and wanted to build in Baltimore. Baltimore demanded full coverage of the city, and the numbers didn't work out so Verizon didn't build. Baltimore begged Google to build fiber but Google categorically doesn't agree to build out requirements.[1]
What is Baltimore going to do? You can regulate all you want but you can't make companies build. The big dense cities best suited for fiber also tend to be broke, so municipal fiber isn't in the card either. There are no restrictions to municipal fiber here in Maryland--parts of Anne Arundel (heavily rural county around Annapolis) that don't have FiOS are getting municipal fiber. But Baltimore, like most larger US cities, is poorly managed and has no money.
[1] Baltimore is in some ways a great candidate for fiber. The 740 miles of conduit under the city is owned by the city itself; utilities and telcos all rent conduit space per linear foot from the city. It's a significant east coast telecom hub. But fully 1/4 of residents are at or below the poverty line. Very few neighborhoods have enough higher income people who could afford to subscribe to $70/month fiber service. Outside of a handful of rich, heavily gentrified places like D.C., NYC, and SF, most of the dense cities (the ones best suited for fiber) in the US are also extremely poor. (That is in stark contrast to London or Paris, where wealthier people tend to live in the city while lower income people live in close suburbs).
Cities technically do have leverage: at a minimum, they control the right-of-ways that are being used, and may actually own a dark fiber network (this is how Google was able to cut deals with cities for Google Fiber), and can even create (or threaten to create) a municipal broadband service that competes directly with the ISP(s), especially when the cable and phone companies aren't interested in providing FTTH.
Unfortunately, in most states where this has happened, the state legislature has passed laws forbidding (effectively, if not explicitly) local government from competing with the private sector in this way. So far 19 states have passed such laws. Maine is the latest state where such a law has been proposed.
This map provides a good entry point to the subject:
Since Maryland doesn't have such laws, and Baltimore owns the conduit and charges rent for it's use, Verizon can be presented with the option of building out FTTH across the city or face rent increases in order to fund the creation of a municipal fiber network (Verizon can also allow the use of their own fiber for this purpose to offset some of those rents).
> Unfortunately, in most states where this has happened, the state legislature has passed laws forbidding (effectively, if not explicitly) local government from competing with the private sector in this way. So far 19 states have passed such laws. Maine is the latest state where such a law has been proposed.
Some municipal broadband laws amount to an effective ban, but the number is a lot less than 19: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-21-laws-state.... That site lists 21 state laws, but most aren't a really significant restriction. E.g. California has no restrictions on municipalities building networks, but they must sell or lease it to a private company if one shows up willing to maintain and operate it. In Pennsylvania, the municipality has to prepare a broadband plan and take it to the existing ISP, which can agree to build it within one year, or if not the municipality can build itself. Washington State is listed as "restricted" on that list, but the only restriction is that the municipality has to be a "code city" (which is basically any city organized enough to be able to pass its own municipal ordinances).
I think we should federally preempt laws that create an effective ban on municipal networks, but the issue is a red herring. The vast majority of the population lives in states without significant restrictions on municipal broadband, including residents of the 10 largest U.S. cities.
> Since Maryland doesn't have such laws, and Baltimore owns the conduit and charges rent for it's use, Verizon can be presented with the option of building out FTTH across the city or face rent increases in order to fund the creation of a municipal fiber network
I strongly suspect it would be illegal for the city to charge a discriminatory rate to a single entity for a municipal service used by many different kinds of utilities, as leverage in a separate negotiation. Especially considering that Verizon is legally precluded from doing anything but agree to the increased rent--its not allowed to decide not to rent space from the city anymore and discontinue its phone service.
> I strongly suspect it would be illegal for the city to charge a discriminatory rate to a single entity for a municipal service used by many different kinds of utilities, as leverage in a separate negotiation.
Raise the price for all users of the conduit,then.
I don't buy that. Cities have people with voting rights. Average income is higher in the US than in Asia, and coverage in Asia is pretty good.
You can regulate to encourage a non-monopolistic system, particularly when businesses like Comcast are gouging to the sole benefit of investors who have already made theirs back.
Two other commenters noted that competition is forced by law in the last mile of networks in Europe [0] [1].
Would ISPs really be put in dire straits if they were required to be a bit more competitive? I doubt it.
It is very far fetched, particularly under this administration, that such regulation would happen. We can still discuss it now because we see a potential loss of quality in internet content. If that comes to pass, we can refer back to our earlier ideas and have another plan in mind.
These days, I think we all see the need for less silos, not more.
> He also points out that this is because the infrastructure was originally built by state-owned monopolies.
Yup. Doesn't mean competition can't happen another way.
> Also, as I pointed out in another thread, the internet situation in the other big diverse European countries isn't better than in the U.S.
Why limit the comparison to Europe? Also, why focus on situations where quality is the same or worse? No country is identical anyway, so we know apples to apples isn't really happening. And, to see it done somewhere successfully is to know it's possible. Good quality and competition can be found in parts Asia, Europe, and the US.
I'm confident we can figure out how to increase competition among ISPs in the US so we do not have walled gardens shoved down our throats. I don't know that I have the right solutions in mind but I would like to discuss possibilities and see lawmakers attempt various negotiations with data providers.
The question isn't "what's the best policy for maximizing the quality of the broadband network?" It's "what's the best policy for maximizing the quality of the broadband network, in a country where people prioritize many other things more highly?"
It's pointless to compare the U.S. system to an Eastern European or Asian country where the people see broadband, technology, and computers, as a way to close the wealth gap with the US/UK/Germany/France. People in the U.S. don't see broadband that way. To the extent ordinary people care about it at all, they see the issue in terms of the pressing social justice issues the U.S. faces: rural/urban, low-income/high-income, etc. They care (quite reasonably) a lot more about whether low-income folks in Baltimore have access to broadband (and computers to use it!) than whether knowledge workers in Menlo Park have gigabit.
This is particularly relevant in the context of municipally-supported systems displacing private ones. Take Amtrak. A private system aimed at shuttling knowledge workers from DC to New York might actually be pretty good. Instead, we have a public system where the only sensical route is burdened by having to subsidize trains around the country nobody uses.
Here in Annapolis (a D.C. satellite city), Verizon is upgrading our fiber to gigabit and I can get 50-150 mbps downloads on my iPhone. Having experienced the D.C. subway spend a good chunk of the last year literally on fire, there is no way I'd vote to turn internet service over to the government. If I lived in Tokyo I'd feel differently, but I'm stuck with the government I've got.
> Also, why focus on situations where quality is the same or worse?
The countries I picked for comparison are just the 5 largest EU countries, which contain more than 2/3 of the population.
> It's pointless to compare the U.S. system to an Eastern European or Asian country where the people see broadband, technology, and computers, as a way to close the wealth gap with the US/UK/Germany/France.
Hong Kong, Tokyo, Taipei, Seoul are very wealthy and have quality internet options. There are pockets of wealth and poverty all over the world.
Are you saying the US isn't trying to be competitive any more and doesn't need to worry about knowledge workers? If so, that is absurd. We import tons of talent, not because it's cheap, but because we need it. We aren't churning out enough students in high tech and MD roles to satisfy our country's demands.
> If you tried to build a municipal network in Baltimore, the conversation would not be about how it's going to bring in knowledge workers and enhance economic competitiveness. It's going to be about why public money is being spent on wealthy knowledge workers when schools in low income communities are crumbling.
I think we're getting off topic. The question is whether net neutrality is worth supporting, and what we can do to further that discussion among non-techies who might be looking for a better understanding of this topic.
> The countries I picked for comparison are just the 5 largest EU countries, which contain more than 2/3 of the population.
Even a majority doesn't prove it isn't possible. Everything starts small.
> Hong Kong, Tokyo, Taipei, Seoul are very wealthy and have quality internet options.
When the current Prime Minister of Japan was born, the U.S. had a per-capita GDP more than five times higher than Japan. Singapore and South Korea became rich even more recently (and China still isn't). Their political leaders remember when their countries weren't rich, and how they became rich.
Moreover, those countries see their cities as their crown jewels. There is political will to build a new subway or fancy fiber network in the capital city. Contrast say DC (the ostensible capital of the US). When I was growing up in the 1990s, in the D.C. suburbs, people talked about D.C. in hushed tones (you might be able to make out "murder capital" if you listened carefully). Wealthy educated people would certainly never imagine living there, except maybe in Georgetown or DuPont. The idea of directing state (or gasp national) money to DC or New York or SF for fiber is a political non-starter. There are highways that need to be built out to the exurbs, after all (where all the political power is).
> Even a majority doesn't prove it isn't possible.
"Possible" isn't the question. The question is "practically achievable, given the relevant constraints." Germany, the U.K., France, etc. are big diverse economies. They're not dominated by hyper-dense city states. Given that we often do much worse than them (e.g. where it comes to roads, public transit, or healthcare), they're a pretty good benchmark for what's practically achievable for us.
> "Possible" isn't the question. The question is "practically achievable, given the relevant constraints."
I meant the same thing.
> Given that we often do much worse than them (e.g. where it comes to roads, public transit, or healthcare), they're a pretty good benchmark for what's practically achievable for us.
Perhaps that perception has something to do with simultaneously believing that we are the bearers of riches across the world, and that the rest of the world is also responsible for holding us back.
City law doesn't override private property law in most cases. The companies, their assets, their lines, and their plans are all private in that sense. National and state law currently favor the ISP's bribing them. A city might try passing laws and might succeed but it's risking a fight with state and national levels. Those levels that control things like highway funding and where jobs are created with tax revenue.
I'd like to see more try just to see what happens. Meanwhile, there are cities whose energy companies are investing in bringing broadband to consumers. It's partly a result of ISP bribes to states to ban tax-funded Internet where some compromised allowing at least energy companies to do it. Most don't care but some do. In Tennessee near me, they did municipal broadband in 8 cities with Chattanooga doing a gigabit at $70/mo and 10Gbps at $300/mo.
> Meanwhile, there are cities whose energy companies are investing in bringing broadband to consumers. It's partly a result of ISP bribes to states to ban tax-funded Internet where some compromised allowing at least energy companies to do it. Most don't care but some do. In Tennessee near me, they did municipal broadband in 8 cities with Chattanooga doing a gigabit at $70/mo and 10Gbps at $300/mo.
That's cool, thanks for sharing. Hope to see more pushback against current ISPs and their monopolistic tendencies.
If it needs to be public first -- so be it. I think there's still room to argue the ISPs made use of public infrastructure to lay lines. Anyway, I think we all agree that these monopolies are producing bad businesses and we ought to disrupt them before they do more harm in rolling back net neutrality.
> I think there's still room to argue the ISPs made use of public infrastructure to lay lines.
By and large they pay rent to use those rights of way (poles and conduits). Besides that, consider Google Fiber. Fiber cities have agreed to e.g. provide land for hosting things like Fiber huts. Does that give the municipalities unlimited rights to the rest of the Fiber infrastructure in perpetuity? Whatever rights of way phone and cable companies have, they got decades ago in return for building telephone and cable TV networks, which they already did.
> By and large they pay rent to use those rights of way (poles and conduits).
I get that. Yet, the quality of service isn't good enough, and we know competition can help. I'm not claiming to have the magic bullet that solves that, and I imagine the solution will vary from region to region anyway.
At the very least, right now we can stand up against this rollback of net neutrality. It's completely unnecessary and the title, "Restoring internet freedom", is completely ironic. The only freedom this policy would give is enabling more monopolistic behavior to internet service providers. Enabling such large monopolies is not freedom, it's infringement of the rights of consumers and future small businesses, both content providers and service providers who might otherwise later be able to step into a competitive role.
I get why ISPs are asking for this - they want to secure their position and earn more money. It's just not good for the rest of us and I think we ought to say so.
"If it needs to be public first -- so be it. I think there's still room to argue the ISPs made use of public infrastructure to lay lines. "
Oh, they did. They like to act like it's an entirely private thing. What they'll say is it was given willingly for that purpose but doesn't mean that it should happen again. A bullshit argument but one that will prevent legal coercion in states with lawmakers they're paying off.
> A bullshit argument but one that will prevent legal coercion in states with lawmakers they're paying off.
You keep saying that but it doesn't work when the topic is an actual electable one. When people contact their representatives and say they want a certain policy or law, the rep's job is on the line.
The only reason politicians might bow to corporate pressure is they don't have harder pressure from the people on their backs.
"When people contact their representatives and say they want a certain policy or law, the rep's job is on the line."
Hows that worked out in all the states where people griped about Internet speeds, cost, and availability but politicians passed laws for incumbents anyway? It didn't. You're talking a huge campaign of enough voters across enough districts to override what a few lobbyists do. It's asymmetrical. It might work but it usually doesn't. It's also extraordinarily difficult.
I'm for people trying it esp in rural areas. It's just that the ISP's currently outspend them on outreach and politics. Many of the areas getting hit are also already conservative where they believe business does it better. So, there's that too.
> You're talking a huge campaign of enough voters across enough districts to override what a few lobbyists do. It's asymmetrical. It might work but it usually doesn't. It's also extraordinarily difficult.
That's how voting works. Will it happen this election cycle? Maybe not. On the plus side, we've got plenty of discussion on the books saying what might happen to the internet if we allow net neutrality to lapse. In 10 years from now, when the general public goes looking for what happened to the good old internet, there will be a depth of articles and commentary, as well as people who've been following the issue over that period.
It's not worthless to voice your knowledge, even when it appears people will go against you. Consider the FBI record story from yesterday,
> Two years later I regained my seat on the board as the riders finally figured out that the strong helmet rule was a good thing. It then started spreading around the world and has since become standard in racing organizations almost everywhere, saving hundreds of lives and preventing thousands of serious head injuries. I’m proud of that. [1]
Due to his early effort, people knew where to turn when their theories did not pan out. There was a plan B ready to go, and everyone jumped on board.
Not ideal in the formal mathematical-proof sense, but, that's how humans and evolution works. We try stuff, see what works and what doesn't, and adjust if necessary.
> I'm for people trying it esp in rural areas. It's just that the ISP's currently outspend them on outreach and politics. Many of the areas getting hit are also already conservative where they believe business does it better. So, there's that too.
I agree there are a lot of speed bumps. That shouldn't stop us from trying. As technologists, we have an opportunity to share the importance of this topic with our family, friends, and representatives.
Perhaps we're wrong. No harm done. In the event we're right, people may consider your words more carefully in the future.
Any law regulating last mile could potentially conflict with the telcos property rights and might actually be unconstitutional(despite the fact that to some extend US was founded to get away from the communications monopoly of the British East India company).
Europe gets around this by the fact that all of the telcos i descended from a state monopoly and bound by contract to behave like a common carrier and allow 3rd party raw cable access.
Yes I think Americans are still pretty aware of not wanting to fall prey to too many monopolies.
I realize a constitutional amendment protecting open internet access is a moon shot, particularly under this admin, but, what else can we do but speak our minds on how this rollback of net neutrality may negatively impact education and communication in the future?
We still have our vote, and we can try to make this an issue over time, perhaps many many more years.
If you don't have showdead enabled, you should enable it. There's at least one real comment currently marked dead (from user rustynails, whose account is almost 2000 days old and appears to have been autokilled after posting a MRA rant around 6 months ago). You said you're excited for feedback, so heads up.
Also, here's how you can contact the FCC directly:
1-888-225-5322
press 1, then 4, then 2, then 0 say that you wish to file comments concerning the FCC Chairman’s plan to end net neutrality
Or on the web:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express Under Proceedings, enter 14-28 and 17-108
Suggested script:
It's my understanding that the FCC Chairman intends to reverse net neutrality rules and put big Internet Service Providers in charge of the internet. I am firmly against this action. I believe that these ISPs will operate solely in their own interests and not in the interests of what is best for the American public. In the past 10 years, broadband companies have been guilty of: deliberately throttling internet traffic, squeezing customers with arbitrary data caps, misleading consumers about the meaning of “unlimited” internet, giving privileged treatment to companies they own, strong-arming cities to prevent them from giving their residents high-speed internet, and avoiding real competition at all costs. Consumers, small businesses, and all Americans deserve an open internet. So to restate my position: I am against the chairman's plan to reverse the net neutrality rules. I believe doing so will destroy a vital engine for innovation, growth, and communication.
This information is taken from this thread on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6894i9/heres_ho...