Federal Communications Commission
Reboot.FCC.gov
Home » Blog

Preserving Openness to Protect Jobs

December 7th, 2010 by Julius Genachowski - Chairman, Federal Communications Commission.

The impact that Internet entrepreneurs have made on the world is unquestioned.

These businesses push the limits of innovation and move America's economy forward, bound only by their imagination as they grow and expand their reach. This free spirit of creativity doesn’t just make new tech, it also helps create new jobs.

Small businesses and start-ups have accounted for more than 22 million new American jobs over the last 15 years. And broadband has played a central part, enabling small business to lower their costs and reach new customers in new markets around the country and, indeed, the globe.

As these businesses grow stronger, they make room for new jobs that help America compete in the global technology marketplace. Take eBay, for example, which in its short history has been a force multiplier for economic production, facilitating 60 billion dollars a year in economic activity.

The animating force behind all of these efforts is a shared appreciation for the Internet’s wondrous contributions to our economy and our way of life. Over the past generation we’ve seen American-made Internet innovations connect people across the globe. Social networking tools, online video services, and other new tech haven’t just changed the way we stay in touch -- they’ve helped create a booming sector of unbound creativity and economic opportunity.

I’ve learned a key lesson from these entrepreneurs and their businesses. Their spectacular growth is powered by a core value, one shared by the founders of our nation and the architects of the Internet: restrictions on freedom shackle the human spirit, and constrain the promise of bold, new ventures.

The success of these businesses has made America’s tech economy the envy of the world. These businesses are proof that the Internet’s open principles have helped clear the way for unfettered growth. Changing those principles, or regulating this growing market in a way that disfavors innovation, is unacceptable.

This founding principle -- the openness of the Internet -- is at issue today. Interfering with this growth threatens jobs at a time when Americans can hardly afford the risk.  

This is not just a plan to protect a free and open Internet -- this is a plan to protect jobs, now and in America’s future. It is my responsibility to make sure that the economic and legal environment that allowed these jobs to grow remains just as healthy and competitive for future generations.

I’m proud to oversee the FCC at a moment of unprecedented technological advancement. It’s my responsibility to act as a just steward for America’s technology economy and protect these valuable jobs. I’ve seen what works from some of the most dazzling entrepreneurs America has ever known. It’s my responsibility to fight to uphold the free and open principles that have brought us to where we are -- and I am committed to this goal.

(This is cross-posted on the Open Internet blog. Please leave comments there.)

206 Responses to “Preserving Openness to Protect Jobs”

  1. K-Marie says:

    Mr. Chairman,

    Clearly you're capable of flowery prose.

    What I'm more concerned about, though, is the Washington Post report that your plan allows for the sort of paid-priortization that favors incumbents over the type of Internet upstarts you here claim are essential to economic growth, jobs and innovation. What's so "wondrous," "spectacular" and "dazzling" about a scheme that lets the big boys collude with carriers to squash smaller innovators?

  2. Levi C. Maaia says:

    As vice president of a small cable operator and Internet service provider, I often find myself swimming upstream against the cable industry tides. Again I find that my opinion is in opposition to that of most cable and phone companies, but I have not hidden my position on Net Neutrality from my industry colleagues.

    The value of high-speed Internet service is based on the existence of an open and free network. Without that freedom, the Internet will become the nightmarish legal quagmire that cable and satellite TV tiers have become: a corporation-controlled landscape of confidential deals and force-fed consumers.

    I am concerned about the recent developments that threaten free speech on the Internet. Less than five years ago, congress was poised to attack the cable networks' programming tier model by mandating a-la-carté offerings. Today, amidst the political distractions of our nation’s other, seemingly more pressing woes, the Internet is edging closer and closer toward a locked-down oligarchical model and a disastrous future for consumers and small businesses alike. My challenge has been convincing other small and medium sized cable operators to see that it makes good business sense for them to support a neutral Internet, as a network under any other structure will stifle free speech under the control of the largest of the media giants.

    I urge you, Mr. Chairman, to reconsider and take a stronger position in favor of Network Neutrality. As an advocate for the American people you owe it to them to protect online freedom of speech, which in the 21st century, is as important as any other.

    Levi C. Maaia
    VP, Full Channel
    Warren, R.I.

  3. Brian in Phoenix says:

    So long as paid-prioritization is allowed on the internet - be that on wired or wireless connections - the internet is not open and the innovation, small business, and jobs every suit in Washington would have us believe they care about is at risk.

    I agree, the organizations who pay for the infrastructure making the internet possible should have a say in the future of the internet, but for every corporate lobbyist buying you lunch and inundating you with polished, propagandist studies and reports, there are ten thousand hard-working Americans at risk of being marginalized in favor of preserving the luxuries of the old guard.

    The FCC serves - the people. Big business serves - the people. This is obvious lip service and it is insulting.

  4. Alex Garcia says:

    Behind all that complex rhetoric and excuses to further stomp in our rights and freedoms; There's an obvious intent in your words to justify the "Corpocracie's" intents and advances to limit even further our democratic principles...

    MR. CHAIRMAN: DO THE RIGHT THING !!!

    "We the people..." need Internet Neutrality to survive, and we will fight for it, till death if necessary...

    Do not use the recession and job losses and any other excuse to give up our rights away...
    Who do you think you're fooling ???????

  5. Julie C says:

    It think everyone agrees that small businesses are the "backbone" of our economy, enuf said on that. Now let's get real about the FCC's role in PROTECTING these businesses and enforcing a plan that actually does what you CLAIM to value Mr. Chairman. Your "flowery prose" is not fooling anyone.

  6. Maxim Fetissenko says:

    Mr. Chairman:

    Your proposal has little to do with net neutrality, unless by "neutrality" you mean allowing a few dominant players to set their own rules, free from any meaningful regulation. Your statement implies that only government regulation restricts freedom, while private enterprises, when left to their own devices, will always promote competition, innovation, and job growth. You are quite wrong.

    Totally free markets can function as engines of innovation only at the early stages of their life cycle. If left unregulated, they eventually degenerate into monopolies, trusts, and other seedy arrangements that ensure high profit margins for a few winners by killing off all meaningful competition.

    The internet market in the US has reached the point when the hands-off approach that worked so effectively during its first few years is no longer adequate. Allowing paid prioritization and exempting wireless providers from meaningful net neutrality rules will stifle, not foster innovation. The pseudo-neutrality you are proposing will ensure high profit margins for the likes of Comcast and ATT by helping them to further consolidate their grip on the internet. In the process, it will harm, not promote innovation, economic growth, and job creation.

    FCC must reclassify broadband and enact strict rules that go far beyond what you have put on the table. Sure, industry giants and their minions on K Street and in Congress will cry "foul!" when you do. Let them. This is how you will know that the FCC is doing its job "as a just steward for America’s technology economy." Until then, please spare us from the talk about "protecting jobs." Your current proposal does no such thing.

  7. Jerry says:

    "Paid prioritization" in a NOT an open internet. It's not what we pay for when we contract with a service provider, and there are only a few who are organized like a cartel.

  8. Guest says:

    Mr. Chairman,
    Right now there are millions of individuals in America running home based businesses either by choice or because of corporate downsizing. People from all walks of life, from a huge variety of occupational backgrounds, are able to do this, instead of being unemployed, because of the free and open Internet.

    I am a graphic designer working from my home for 22 years now. My web site is my portfolio and is almost entirely image based. What will happen if I am not able to afford the speeds necessary to market my capabilities effectively to prospective clients? I can't just go back to running around with a hard copy portfolio especially since much of my work now is web based. I also live in a small town and need the advantages of a broader market that I enjoy because of the free and open internet.

    I'll tell you what will happen if I can no longer afford the speed and access I need. I'll be out looking for a job at a time when there aren't any.

    Allowing paid prioritization will create more unemployed when home based businesses are squeezed out due to excessive overhead created by the media giants on the internet. It's already hard enough to deal with the ever rising out of control ISP access fees.

    Remember too the large employers who started in one person's home garage. In today's world that will not happen without true, rock solid, Net Neutrality.

    Please reconsider your plan and make it much, much stronger by closing ALL the loopholes.

  9. Ariane says:

    Chairman Genachowski,
    Please, the "spin" you are putting on your new rules is truly heartbreaking. Look, after years and years of struggling I've finally founded a small online company that is thriving. Your "new rules" will give it all to the Big Fat Cats (read: Big Boys), and leave the rest us (read: divorced single mom) hanging on by our fingernails once again.

    When are you EVER going to stand up for the rest of us? When? I need you to protect me - not them! They've already got it ALL. Me, I'm paying my fair share of taxes, thanks to my Internet company, and you want to snuff out that revenue so Those Greed Boys can line their pockets once again.

    Shame on you. Where's your humanity, your common sense.

    Ariane Goodwin, Ed.D.

  10. Guest says:

    Net Neutrality? Mr Chairman, you are not even close to understanding what needs to be protected here. I am watching this issue very closely. I voted in the Presidential Election for the person who would most likely protect the Internet. At least I though I did. Your decisions will be a major factor in my vote for the next President also. You can't mislead the folks that obviously understand this issue more than what you do. No one will be happy here except for the lobbyists, telcoms, and big business. Who exactly do you work for anyway? You certainly are not doing this for the people!

  11. Erik Larson says:

    "Small businesses and start-ups have accounted for more than 22 million new American jobs over the last 15 years."

    Mr. Genachowski acknowledges the contribution of small business to US employment- and small businesses employ more people than big business. Yet Mr. Genachowski's proposed plan for the internet protects and serves the business interests of the large telecoms, not small business or the public. Some of these corporations, like Comcast, have already demonstrated they will abuse their power, subvert the public interest and lie about what they're doing.

    Mr. Genachowski, if you're serious about helping small business and protecting the "openness of the internet" you need to enshrine Net Neutrality principles in the FCC's regs, and do more to foster competition in internet infrastructure and service.

    http://www.savetheinternet.com

  12. Dr. Bob says:

    We have already seen, In the Gulf of Mexico, On Wall St., and in the Coal Mines, what catastrophes the failure of government regulation to protect the public interest can produce.

    We have seen that "competition" or the "free market" does not protect the public interest.

    We have also seen that appropriate government regulation creates the conditions that permit a free market to flourish.

    We must have appropriate government regulation to keep the internet a level playing field as it has been. A tiered, pay more for faster, internet is not level.

  13. A Concerned Citizen says:

    Chairman Genachowski,
    While creating jobs is good for the select few individuals and the corporations they are employed by, it should not factor into your decisive actions for the preservation of an open internet or net neutrality. It is your responsibility to fight for the rights of **every** American, not just the wealthy few who can afford the internet fast lanes you are proposing. I hope you reconsider your position of allowing corporations to control the fate of the internet for the benefit of our country as a whole. The internet has prospered because of hard working individuals, not because of the greedy corporations that have capitalized on the success of internet pioneers. Furthermore, I urge you to brush up on your internet history. eBay way started by an individual, the same type of individual whose voice you threaten to silence by removing the level playing field that is the interent. If you cannot fight to maintain the internet freedoms entitled to every American without buckling under the pressure of corporate interests you do not deserve to be the chairman of the FCC. Before your misguided proposition cripples the Digital Renaissance in America, perhaps you should consider stepping down from your position so a younger candidate with a better morality and understanding of the issues at hand can take your place.
    ~A Concerned Citizen~

  14. Marcus Denton says:

    Actions > Words
    Preserve real net neutrality.
    Marcus Denton, Austin Texas

  15. Guest says:

    NO TO FAKE NN!

  16. Guest says:

    Chairman Genachowski-

    Based on your words at the confirmation hearings and vows to protect an open Internet since then, I was one of many who were pleased with your appointment. However, I became concerned over the summer as the Commission began holding closed door meetings with industry representatives on the issue of net neutrality. My fear was that like so many other communication law and policy issues, net neutrality was inching its way to favoring commercial rather than public interests. The release of the Google/Verizon plan did little to quell these concerns, and the proposal you outlined on December 1 confirmed them.

    Mr. Chairman, the proposed rules are not real network neutrality. They are a watered-down version of the openness that has characterized the Internet since it became a medium accessible to the American public. The amount of praise heaped upon these plans by industry parties who for so long opposed network neutrality is telling - as is the concern your proposals have raised with public interest groups. As a media scholar, an educator, a consumer, and an avid Internet user, I urge you to reexamine your position, and to put REAL net neutrality on the table. Reclassify the Internet under title II. Don't apply principles of neutrality to wired services only. Do not open the door for metered pricing and tiered service. Don't become yet another example of an FCC Chairman who acts in the interest of the industry you're supposed to regulate, rather than the public whom you're supposed to serve.

  17. George Greene says:

    You have before you an opportunity to decide something that will alter the curse of human communication from this point forward.

    You can choose to keep the Internet in the hands of the people, ensuring the blossoming of America's entrepreneurs, thinkers, non profits, entertainers and an others, or you can choose to protect profit for a few already too powerful companies and, in the process, choke off the very thing that made the Internet what it is today.

    Your proposal gives Comcast and large telecoms control over what is rightfully ours. Why is their profit more important than the citizens' right to free expression?

  18. Jim K says:

    Just reading this article it is apparent that you have become a lover of internet companies. Are you blind to the threat they are posing to American Freedom? Do you praise these potentially dangerous companies more than you priase Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and the other fathers of our country who knew the importance of freedom? You are acting as the enemy of that freedom. WAKE UP! Look what you are doing.


  19. Martin Bowen says:

    No paid prioritization, very simple. get govt involvement in funding the greatest infrastructure of human intercourse. as the wikileaks fiasco showed, paid prioritization could ultimately mean censorship and the death knell of democracy in this information age.

  20. Sean Olson says:

    Mr. Genachowski,

    I am writing this to express my deepest and most sincere opposition to the proposed rules being set forth for network neutrality. Allowing this plan to proceed as outlined will be setting a disastrous precedent, and will only serve the ISPs and content gatekeepers' bottom line. For the first time in human history, we have a mechanism in place which allows us to communicate in ways never before thought possible. Political activism, creative content, journalism-- all of these things are at stake for the common person such as myself.

    I beg you to consider the ramifications of allowing this plan to proceed in its current state. It will help no one but the already-gratuitously wealthy and power-hungry providers and content creators. This, in my opinion, does not benefit a free, democratic society, nor does it help to spur innovation and collaboration among developers.

    A very concerned internet citizen,

    Sean Olson

  21. Guest says:

    Enforce REAL Net Neutrality as you are the keeper of the gate. Do the right thing and enhance society.

  22. Guest says:

    Preserve real net neutrality.

    Take your time. Take a breath. Get it right.

    Do not feel pressured to do the wrong thing for short-term gain. This is a long term issue.

  23. Alex T says:

    Paid Prioritization will be a disaster for free speech. Is there nothing left in government that isn't a corporate sell out! Please do the right thing and protect real people's rights, not corporate interests.

  24. Tom Tripp says:

    True Net Neutrality is the only way forward. This is about a lot more than jobs, its about equal access to information. No toll roads on the internet, no prioritized content. Anything but a truly neutral system is not good enough.

  25. Michael S says:

    "Restrictions on freedom shackle the human spirit, and constrain the promise of bold, new ventures"

    If you believe this sentiment, then why are you selling Internet freedom to the highest bidder? The "entrepreneurs" you speak of did not invent the Internet. In fact, they have very little to do with it. They in part provide the conduit through which people access the Internet, but they have added no other value other than access. In fact, they seek to limit content based on commercial concerns. The Internet will be "free" for those who can pay the most, and the rest of the population can watch everything that has made the Internet great get sucked away by corporate Interests.

    The real innovators on the Net are those who provide content, but the ability to create such sites as YouTube, eBay, Blogspot, etc., will cease. Large companies have zero imagination. None of the companies that have lobbied your support are "small businesses." Google and Verizon are large voracious companies that want to devour what's in site, and you hope to serve it to them.

  26. Judy Gottlieb says:

    Mr. Genachowski,
    Paid prioritization is not net neutrality. Do not cripple this incredible instrument for connecting, buying and selling, informing, educating, organizing! Its creation occurred in the public sector, in government and universities, among scientests. It now belongs to all of us. Businesses and corporations don't own it and don't have the right to suborn it and limit the access of others. WE WANT REAL NET NEUTRALITY.

  27. harnold says:

    We thought we were getting someone that would take his position seriously. If you can't get the job done, step aside and let someone with some honor do the task.

  28. K. OBrien says:

    We need REAL net neutrality. Anything else -- including your current proposal -- will hurt innovation and democracy. Please amend your stance!

  29. Viki says:

    There are many many people, large companies, small businesses around the world that use the Internet to express, educate, review, create and share many things... it will be one of the most illogical things that could make! each and every one of the people are in their full right to make their decisions! In this case access to the sites you want! DEMAND LIBERTY! we call for net neutrality! Prohibit net neutrality is to prohibit the expression!

  30. J.A. McCool says:

    We want true net neutrality.

    Don't step on a good thing.

  31. Guest says:

    Only real Net Neutrality will be acceptable to the people. Free speech and equal access! No fake plans that sound good but in reality put the foxes in charge of the hen house!

  32. American Tax-Payer says:

    The last bastion of freedom, the Internet, is being pulled out from under our feet and people have barely noticed. You patronize us and laugh at us in your closed meetings with big business. There are people in these tubes that are smarter than you, they know how to traverse this digital highway and it'd be prudent for you to heed their warnings. I believe they said, "We don't forgive. We don't forget. Expect us."

  33. Daniel R says:

    I work for a small business. Please think of the me and over half of the American workers and require net neutrality.

  34. Matthew Alexander says:

    Please, do your job for the citizens of the United States. Give us *true* Net Neutrality.

  35. Phil Tarley says:

    I can not imagine my life or my work as a journalist with a free and liberated world wide net.
    An Orwellian future looms and it frightens me

  36. Guest says:

    Chairman Genachowski’s proposed open Internet rules don’t meet any acceptable standard of real Net Neutrality. Unless they’re changed significantly, we urge you not to support them when you vote on Dec. 21.

    First, the rules need to extend full Net Neutrality protections to both wired and wireless Internet users.

    Second, they must have stronger language to prohibit “paid prioritization” schemes, which give phone and cable companies the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet.

    Third, they must close massive loopholes for “specialized services” that allow industry to discriminate unfairly online.

    Finally, they must ensure that Net Neutrality rests on a secure legal foundation that can withstand a court challenge.

    Please institute real Net Neutrality protections and fix these rules.

  37. Phil Tarley says:

    I can not imagine my life or my work as a journalist without a free and liberated world wide net.
    An Orwellian future looms and it frightens me

  38. Guest says:

    •First, the rules need to extend full Net Neutrality protections to both wired and wireless Internet users.
    •Second, they must have stronger language to prohibit "paid prioritization" schemes, which give phone and cable companies the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet.
    •Third, they must close massive loopholes for "specialized services" that allow industry to discriminate unfairly online.
    •Finally, they must ensure that Net Neutrality rests on a secure legal foundation that can withstand a court challenge.

  39. Ed Ferrara says:

    I urge you to enforce ACTUAL Net Neutrality... not the current "wolf in sheep's clothing" scheme that will hand the internet over to corporate interests. The US government has allowed corporate interests to purchase many key elements of our society -- Big Food, CAFOs, healthcare and pharmaceuticals -- and we need to stem the bleeding. The interests of the American people have been sold off time and time again, all in the name of corporate greed at the expense of the individual. No more. We need to stop the madness.

    Any new rules (re: the internet) need to extend full Net Neutrality protections to both wired and wireless Internet users.

    These new rules must have stronger language to prohibit "paid prioritization" schemes, which give phone and cable companies the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet.

    These new rules must also close massive loopholes for "specialized services" that allow industry to discriminate unfairly online.

    And these new rules must ensure that Net Neutrality rests on a secure legal foundation that can withstand a court challenge.

  40. Guest says:

    Just another case of corporate money influencing government. What happened to government for the people?

  41. lynn says:

    please, please, please, SUPPORT real net neutrality, thus, DEMOCRACY not this fake one proposed.

  42. William Miller says:

    The internet needs to be free and equal for all! Please use Title II of the Communications Act.

    First, the rules need to extend full Net Neutrality protections to both wired and wireless Internet users.
    Second, they must have stronger language to prohibit "paid prioritization" schemes, which give phone and cable companies the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet.
    Third, they must close massive loopholes for "specialized services" that allow industry to discriminate unfairly online.
    Finally, they must ensure that Net Neutrality rests on a secure legal foundation that can withstand a court challenge.

  43. Annie Bailey says:

    Please support genuine Net Neutrality and do NOT allow big business to continue usurping on our rights and limiting our access to information.

  44. Chris Abouzeid says:

    Dear Mr. Chairman,

    The Internet entrepreneurs that you so greatly value (and favor above the actual users of the Internet) will find themselves far less relevant (or profitable) when the public abandons them for true Net Neutrality. Creating loopholes and protection for the telecommunications companies will give them control over the Net for the short term. But in the long run, all they'll be doing is ensuring that the American public abandons them for whoever will provide the kind of access they can trust.

    In the age of satellites, proxy servers, offshore ISPs and other data avenues, Americans will find a way to bypass the feudal network you propose, no matter what kind of regulations you propose. The only thing you will be remembered for is driving more business out of the United States and being the architect of America's demise in the Internet market.

    Respectfully,

    Chris Abouzeid
    Somerville, MA

  45. Guest says:

    Our country and the rest of the world needs a place to share ideas openly and freely without the infringement of ANY world govt. Your supposed neutrality is a fist in the face of free speech. If our forefathers were here to witness this sham thaey would declare that you are an enemy of freedom

  46. Guest says:

    First, the rules need to extend full Net Neutrality protections to both wired and wireless Internet users.
    Second, they must have stronger language to prohibit "paid prioritization" schemes, which give phone and cable companies the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet.
    Third, they must close massive loopholes for "specialized services" that allow industry to discriminate unfairly online.
    Finally, they must ensure that Net Neutrality rests on a secure legal foundation that can withstand a court challenge.

    Stop the copout!

  47. Guest says:

    I worry that without true Net Neutrality we will be charged, overcharged, for what we are being promised in the future on the Net. I do not understand how we are going to receive all these "promised" features on the Net - programs, movies, etc. I already see that many TV networks have removed episodes of their programs that were previously free on their websites - they are just gone, or they want to charge to see them. I worry that any time one wants to see video of any sort on the web, there will be a cost involved. We already have seen "free" broadcast TV eliminated. This is a serious problem where I live, in an area where we have hurricanes and no one has thought to produce inexpensive portable digital TVs yet. I already pay premium prices for the satellite TV I get; premium prices for my internet access, which I am lucky to get at all where I live, in the country; and premium prices for my phone service ($60/month just for landline access). Prices for cell service in this country could be reduced 90% and those companies could still make a healthy profit, something I found out over 10 years ago. It is inexcusable that these big companies can control the Net and demand and get what they want - services they want but the users, who pay for everything, get screwed. I am so glad I do not have to deal with a company like Comcast for my internet service - I have heard such terrible tales from those who have to deal with them. I tremble if they have their way. Let's see the Government and the FCC serve the People and not the Corporations. Let's have True Net Neutrality, which serves the People.

  48. Guest says:

    We want true net neutrality, not this garbage deal being made with cable companies. The internet should remain free and belonging to the public.

  49. Dawn Razor says:

    What do we want?

    NET NEUTRALITY!

    When do we want it?

    NOW!

  50. Shawn H says:

    Chairman Genachowski,
    Can you not see the long a dark road this is leading down. In the same way that Cable providers have chopped up and set individual price tags their service options; the internet eventually will also. The providers will push the extreme as many cable companies already are considering that some of them are already one and the same. You have to seriously ask yourself "Is this the end?". In twenty years, am I going to be able to have a private conversation with a friend in public without a Comcast, AT&T or Verizon representative coming up to me with a list of what I can and can not talk about without paying certain charges? This is frankly insane. The repercussions will echo throughout the economy in the US the same way that the stock market fiasco has impacted up. The stated guideline will open up the eventual monetization of the internet which will bring American money from other goods and services and into a cheap sinkhole straight into the pockets of these companies CEOs.

    All I ask is that you have some foresight. In the same way that credit and lending fiascos that were divided and sold to wall street caused the Market crash in the US this could cause a major blow to the American populace in a much more direct way. In ten years I don't want to have a 50 trillion dollar debt because of the complete collapse of the American business upstart.

  51. Gordon Levin says:

    The Internet was built by the public and has evolved as a open information and free speech forum. It is now essential that the Internet remain open, free, and unfiltered for democracy to function.
    This means a single open Internet, not tiered or for pay access. This is a public resource that should not be changed to provide profit centers for telecoms and media companies.

  52. Cheryl T says:

    "Of the people, by the people, for the people" cannot survive with paid prioritization. Please preserve the sacred freedom of speech that so many have given their lives to protect.

  53. Guest says:

    if it ain't broke, why are you trying to "fix" it?

    The internet has been doing just fine without your bureaucratic regulations so far. Fuck off.

  54. Cherie Miner says:

    I have written and called and posted comments many times previously. And I say again, reclassify broadband and regulate it.

    The message of your entire post is simply that you and the administration are selling Net Neutrality in exchange for jobs. But for how long? You really think corporate telecoms won't abandon those jobs if it's more profitable to take them elsewhere later? C'mon. The real future of the economy in this country is in all the new businesses that will be created around a free and open Internet.

    You are allowing the FCC to succumb to extortion, plain and simple. For the sake of free speech and free enterprise, find your spine and tell these telecom giants to back off. And if I sound angry, it's because you are about to destroy my livelihood along with millions of other small businesspeople.

  55. Guest says:

    What is the position regarding wireless internet/devices and so-called "special content" ? They sound like two big loopholes.

  56. Gerard J. Cerchio says:

    Mr. Chairman,

    I applaud your goal to create jobs and opportunity for small business. What is in your plan that will allow my small boutique ISP http://www.ob1net.net to buy bandwidth for resale at a reasonable price?

    We are located in a section of San Francisco that has a single high speed provider, Comcast. Comcast refuses to sell us bandwidth for resale. We are losing our customers to this one monopoly.

    What is in you plan for us?

    gjpc@ob1net.net

  57. Guest says:

    What you are proposing, Mr. Chairman, is not a "Neutrality" that would be neutral. The proposal would unfairly profit large companies that already have a foothold in the internet business and would prevent startup companies from succeeding. If companies like Netflix, Amazon or Ebay were charged toll fees for the amount of data they used they wouldn't be what they are today.

    Whether companies have to pay a toll to the provider or customers have to pay per usage, it will prevent companies with innovative services from prospering. Why would I pay extra fees to my ISP to go to a startup website if I've never heard of them before. In a situation like that most people never will.

    Aside from it being a horrible plan that only profits large companies, it does nothing to speed up our networks or get highspeed to areas of the country that are without. How is it possible we fall behind all other "modern" countries in this area.

    We already have Comcast charging Level 3 fees for putting Netflix videos through. The ISP's say they don't want a pay per usage plan but charging tolls already just proves otherwise.

    As it has been said "it's like paying per word in a book"

  58. Alexandra Gordon says:

    Paid prioritization does not enhance or strengthen an open internet with equal access for all. We need an equal playing field for small businesses to be able to compete, especially in a down economy.

  59. Steve Hofstatter says:

    It appears that your proposed rules do not protect a truly open internet. Paid prioritization dashes any objective of net neutrality. We see what the large providers do when given any semblance of autonomy in this regard. Damage to small business from poor judgment at this stage of the industry's maturity will be virtually impossible to undo later.

  60. Terry S says:

    "Paid-prioritization" is a nice catch-phrase for those that pay more get more. So a big internet service provider is free to take money from an internet retailer and then provide that retailer the fastest, best service to the point that they can throttle the life out of all of these start-up jobs you claim to protect. So the big guys get bigger and the internet is less free and far less of a level playing field. I've never understood why internet service providers can't be content with providing "bandwidth" or simply "pipe" to connect things together. They see money and opportunity in being able to control the flow of data through their pipes so you will hand them "paid-prioritization" under the guise of a free and level neutral net. That doesn't work for me. It is NOT what made American tech economy "the envy of the world".

  61. K Kane says:

    As long as there is paid prioritization, the Internet cannot be truly free and open to all. Giant companies like Comcast will own it.

  62. Guest says:

    I'm sorry, but any type of paid prioritizing on behalf of the internet is nowhere NEAR net neutrality. Net neutrality is allowing the internet to roam free, and not to be manhandled by the government and big business.

    The internet is a place to spark growth. Not limit speeds to those who are rich. Without the internet, then I might still be stuck making less than 30 grand a year. Now I make well over 65 first year utilizing it.

  63. Greg says:

    Please do not put any regulations in place that allow paid prioritization on the internet.

  64. Paul C says:

    Keep the internet neutral and free. Most other countries do this well. We must follow their leadership.

  65. Guest says:

    As long as there is paid prioritization, the Internet cannot be truly free and open to all. Small businesses will lose out. Please change your position Chairman Genachowski.

  66. Josh C says:

    Redefining the term "neutral" does not make your case valid either. "Paid prioritization" is not neutral nor does it promote wider general access.

  67. Adam C says:

    Enough other respondents to this post have made the point eloquently, so I'll restate it simply: "net neutrality" with "paid prioritization" is not net neutrality. "Neutrality with prioritization" is like those drinks "made with real fruit juice" that are 90% sugar, citric acid, and chemical flavorings and 10% juice--they're deceptive in just the same way as your proposal. Neutrality is *neutral*--no-one gets priority, period. THAT IS THE WHOLE DAMN POINT, SIR!

  68. Guest says:

    The Internet is the one great level playing field in the world of communication. PLEASE preserve it for your children and mine, and for the reat of humanity

  69. Guest says:

    The internet is the one remaining level playing field in the world of communication. PLEASE preserve it as such for our children and the rest of the world

  70. Seraphim says:

    Before the 'net went mainstream, we BBSers had a real "net neutrality"- we could connect to a BBS at whatever speed our particular modem could handle: We had equal access to both Fidonet and local small networks. "MomAndPopNet" had the same potential to grow and be successful as Fidonet based on demand alone. Nothing was given preferential treatment based on how much they paid, and nothing was left to stagnate because they didn't pay.

    When Online Service Providers (OSPs) like AOL and Prodigy went mainstream, we BBSers saw what a "non-neutral net" would look like: One OSP would offer games, while another would offer shopping, and yet another would offer chat and web access, yet none would offer everything. To actually *get* everything that the internet currently offers, you would have to rack up hundreds of dollars in bills to various OSPs... so, for an OSP to compete with the truly "free" networks of BBSes, they had to adapt to be more "BBS-like", and offer *everything* equally. There's a reason OSPs like Prodigy and Compuserve didn't become ISPs like AOL did- they did not adapt, and would not cease to give preferential treatment to one thing or another. AOL did adapt, however, and I'm sure no one would argue over how successful they've been.

    People *want* equal access to everything. Nobody wants to pay an extra fee to have access to this or that. We don't *want* to be divided into classes of "e-rich" and "e-poor". And if we're a small business, we don't *want* to have our bandwidth hogged up by someone who essentially *bribed* an ISP to take from the poor and give to the rich (themselves).

    You see, we don't pay extra for TV channels like Fox or NBC in comparison to PBS or Public Access, despite them being rich companies- the cable used to transmit data is "free and open", being innately unbiased against whether a channel is local or global, rich or poor, or how often the channel is watched. So it is with the cables that transmit data to and from the 'net.

    In the end, the 'net a beautiful invention, one that has changed the lives of my generation, and my children's generation. However, those of us who were first on the net understood freedom- that none of us are better than another, and none deserve better treatment than another just because of how many "green bits of paper" line their wallet. And I don't know about anyone else, but if the net is no longer neutral, I, and those like me, will move on to something that *is* neutral, and the internet will stagnate and die, just as Prodigy and Compuserve did, because people like yourself are promoting the same lack of freedom those two companies embraced.

  71. Mickey says:

    It appears that we have different definitions of the term "the openness of the Internet". There will be no real openness if you allow "paid-prioritization." I'm also confused by the fact that you write about the importance of small businesses and start-ups but at the same time want to put them at a clear disadvantage.

    You should be advocating for true Net Neutrality.

  72. Ann Catherine says:

    Sir, I've read the comments posted in response to your posting. I can't really say anything that is new and different because it has all been said. I just hope you'll be man enough to realize that your stance is in error, a bit ignorant and certainly unfair to folks like me. Please don't pull an Obama and sell us out on the internet too.

  73. carol gibson says:

    If the paid prioritization happens, the everyday user/contributor will become like EE Cumming's descriptive poem - a "titi bird neath the bellies of bulls." There are some of us who eek out a small living on the Internet, and that is only because of wise use of the millisecond timing of events. Once the big businesses are paying for priority, the small business access becomes marginalized. It would be such a loss.

  74. Glen Behrend says:

    How did they get to you?

    Never quit, never give up, never give in.

    People that are telling you jobs are at stake are lying to you. Jobs will shift, not be lost.

    Quitting on real neutrality will haunt you till the end.

  75. neutralitynowpls says:

    Your plan is unacceptable at maitaining net neutrality. Please start the process over and meet with consumer advocacy groups instead of those from Corportate America. How can their profits over public domain be in our interest? We demand a truly neutral internet. Our nation already ranks in the high teens internationally for internet speed and access - your plan will further inhibit our technological standing worldwide.

  76. Brandon J says:

    Chairman Genachowski, your Net Neutrality Rules are not going to protect the small business innovation you say you cherish and you know it. Like others in the Obama Administration, you say one thing and do the other. Stop the lies and do what's right. I know you're up against strong corporate powers, but this is bigger than you or them. Stop catering to the corporate elite's desires and help us win the Information War. The Internet may be our last weapon against total corporate fascism in this country.

  77. Jonn S says:

    Corporations cannot be allowed to control; or even own the internet. A free and open internet, both wired and wireless, is too important to our economy and our democracy to allow anyone to throttle IT.

  78. Mrs. B says:

    Net Neutrality protects the free Internet that Americans have always enjoyed.

    Network providers have already tried to engage in content and user discrimination, and that will only grow without Net Neutrality or with partial Net Neutrality. Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com, an advocacy campaign opposing AOL's pay-to-send e-mail scheme. BellSouth blocked access to Myspace.com in Tennessee and Florida. Verizon Wireless has blocked access to PayPal in favor of its own competing online payment service for sites such as eBay.

    Reclassification is necessary to enshrine key anti-discrimination provisions so that users can access the websites of their choice and use the equipment they want without interference or degraded service. Chairman Genachowski's framework is a true start, but it must be expanded to include reclassification, as well as protections for wireless Internet, if we are to truly achieve Net Neutrality.

  79. Guest says:

    Chairman Genachowski,

    Your plan for Net Neutrality is a poor version of what could be achieved with a little willingness on your part to consider public rather than corporate benefit. We do not need corporate control of the internet - communication companies have too much control anyway. Any claim that we need this measure to guarantee widespread access to broadband is fiction; a large number of European and Asian countries have far outstripped the US in this respect, without needing to hand everything to corporations. There should be no ability to create tiers of access [ other than perhaps on the basis of excessive usage - excessive being statistically defined, not an arbitrary limit] and ini particular no exclusion of wireless services from the net neutrality provisions you are proposing for land-line based communication

  80. Barbara L says:

    You hold such an important post at this turning point in history. The web can be either a powerful instrument of communication, education, innovation and creativity, open to everyone with interest and skill to use it, or a powerful instrument of control for the wealthy and powerful elites. Please return to your commitment to make new rules under Title II of the Communications Act. Please take your responsibilities to this nation and its people seriously. We need real, not faux, net neutrality.

  81. Jim K says:

    You are selling out the ideals that earned my vote for Obama. And he is nowhere to be seen. I know you are intelligent enough to understand this. If you succeed I will no longer be a democrat and will dedicate my efforts to making sure this is a one-term administration. This is the most important long term issue facing this administration and they are abandoning the correct path that they initially championed. Why???? I'm baffled at how you could completely cave, and fail to uphold the ideals you were going to support. It will be interesting to see if you end up working with the companies you are caving in to.

    What are you afraid of? Why do you cave in to the companies that pose such perilous threat to the freedom of the internet? Do you not care? It is truly a mystery.

  82. Guest says:

    Look inside your heart and ask yourself: "Am I doing what is best for the people, or am I doing what is best for corporate profits?" In this case they are mutually exclusive.

  83. Bob Dinitto says:

    Please don't saddle us with this horrible not-net-neutrality bill! The people of this country deserve better than an FCC that panders to the major corporations against the interests of the consumer. We've had enough!

  84. Guest says:

    The importance of maintaining an open internet cannot be overstated!
    Allowing Paid priority to wealthy companies will only concentrate wealth into fewer and fewer hands. This is bad for our economy, as it will hinder the development of new, independent web based businesses. it would also create de facto censorship of information on the internet.

  85. Alan B says:

    The media corporations have repeatedly shown they don't respect the principle of free speech. Allowing them control over our communications is an attack on free speech. We demand REAL net neutrality!

  86. John H says:

    The internet must be available to small business. The proposed rule fails in major ways.
    "Paid-prioritization" is a killer for new ideas and small businesses and ideas unpopular with big business.

    The proposed rule offers weak protections against "paid prioritization." That is, it could allow ISPs to create tolls on the open Internet that would favor the traffic of a select few who could pay by slowing down the traffic of everyone else. Worse yet, it opens a loophole for "specialized services" that could lead to the creation of a new "private Internet" for a few giant media companies.

    The proposed rule fails to restore the FCC's authority over Internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast Verizon and AT&T.

    The proposed rule fails to apply to wireless connections using mobile devices that will increasingly be a major factor in internet connections. By excluding wireless connections the proposed rule will allow the large providers to stiffle small businesses.

  87. Mallory says:

    This is your last chance to stand with the people, not the media giants who are only interested in their bottom line and their control of the internet, which should remain free for all. Your stance does not do enough!

  88. Rev. t says:

    No, no, no. "Paid prioritiziation" is corporate speak for ISP content control. The American people deserve real net neutrality, and what's left of our Democracy must have it. Please be someone in government who does not cave to corporate interests and looks out for the citizenry. Please. Please.

  89. KS says:

    Preserve genuine net neutrality!

  90. Karen says:

    We need true net neutrality-not an internet controlled by a few large, greedy conglomerates. The net is the last place that is truly a frontier; so much information is there to be accessed by everyone. It needs to be kept that way!

  91. Dorothy Reik says:

    We need an open internet on wireless as well as broadband. This underhanded attempt to used a tiered system for wireless fools no one. It is too bad that many people are too worried about where their next meal is coming from to deal with this but maybe that was your plan - yours and Obama's.

  92. Theresa Christiani says:

    You can not hand over ownership of the world's largest platform for business innovation and democratic speech to a few corporations who will effectively silence their critics and competitors through prioritizing traffic and bandwidth. While I understand that corporate $ is considered speech by the Supreme Court, you can not give corporate interests their way in this fight. US tax dollars helped to fund the infrastructure of what is now the Internet and there is no reason that commercial enterprises should take precedence over the people. We want real net neutrality, not paid prioritization!

  93. Melinda Gonzalez says:

    I'm not going to beg you to champion net neutrality or tell you your plan restricts freedom. You're an intelligent man. I'm going to tell you something of your character that should keep you up at night thinking about the legacy you will leave for humanity. Your moral compass is the opposite of William Tyndale who said, "If God spare my life, I will see to it that the boy who drives the plowshare knows more of the scripture than you, Sir!" William Tyndale has the honor of being the first man to print the New Testament in English. Your position on net neutrality makes you the Sir who needs to be addressed. Information is power and it is freedom, and it is the only tool the common man has to understand tyrannies set upon him. Will you be like the church, stifling access to knowledge or will you be like the reformer remembered in history as a hero? If you choose the latter, then burn the Constitution under my feet when I'm tied to a post

  94. Andrew H says:

    Chairman,

    Please defer to your elder Mr. Copps on this matter and come up with a true net neutrality proposal, not the watered-down version you have floated. He is looking out for the best interests of the American people, not its corporations - please do the same.

  95. pmorlan says:

    We want REAL net neutrality not the bogus plan put forth. Please show some spine. There are millions of Americans counting on you to stand up for us.

  96. Adrian Zupp says:

    We want Net Neutrality! First the airwaves were stolen from the people and now the corporations want the Internet. It is OURS!! No compromise!!

  97. N DiMauro says:

    Agreed: NO to FAKE neutrality.

  98. LARRY HUTCERSOND says:

    Don't sell out the internet. You don't want that on your conscience. Stand up for democracy.

  99. Guest says:

    All of the above. You are fooling nobody, except perhaps yourself, and probably not even yourself. If you honestly believe that turning the communications media of a country to private, for-profit interests that have proven themselves unable or unwilling even to run an honest banking system is in the interests of the nation, or of democracy -- not necessarily the same -- then postpone this vote and LISTEN to those who disagree with you.

    Scott A. Weir, Ph.D. (Economics)

  100. Guest says:

    The internet is the last refuge for free speech and the promotion of freedom across the world.

  101. Guest says:

    Don't give these wolves a foothold into our safe harbor of net neutrality. Stand firm and stop our freedoms from being watered down!

  102. Mike K says:

    It is clear to me from your blog post that you understand the importance of Net Neutrality. It is with an open internet that the information age has been allowed to prosper and that great companies have been born. But even small businesses and millions of jobs, including mine rely on having access to the parts of the internet that we need, and giving the ISPs the power to control this access will allow them to provide worse service at best, and destroy the fabric of the internet at worst. Allowing ISPs to throttle sites, even on the rapidly growing wireless segment will completely destroy the innovation and opportunity that the open internet has given to us.

    The current proposal is not true net neutrality and I think that you know that. You may think that giving some protection to the internet is better than risking there being none; and I respect that. But you are wrong. Signing into policy the destruction of a significant part of Net Neutrality will embolden the ISPs to restrict the internet in ways that they wouldn't if there was no policy, as well as to find and exploit loopholes to restrict it even more. Please think of the American people when you make your decision, and not just the large companies clamoring for policies that they can exploit for profit at the expense of everyone else.

  103. Arthur Bechstein says:

    As a computer professional for thirty years, an internet professional for ten years, and the founder of some of the small businesses you claim to want to protect, I think I need to remind you and the Obama administration that some things should be beyond compromise. We need real net neutrality.

    Furthermore, the United States already ranks 30th in terms of average broadband speed according to some reports, has seized internet domains through ICANN, is making even more threats on free speech and freedom of the press than under President Bush, our patent and copyright systems is in shambles, and our legal system is broken (this week's Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega S.A. is a great example). The entire county is being gutted in order to bend over backwards for big business, when, as pointed out so well by Sen. Sanders last week, big business is only using the United States and actually spending all of their money elsewhere. The rest of the world is not ignoring all of this, and they are already tired and weary of our tantrums. They will move ICANN out of the US or replace it altogether, and we will find ourselves an internet backwater.

    We must have real net neutrality if we are to have any hope of reversing this trend.

  104. R says:

    Paid prioritization is NOT true net neutrality! Net neutrality means equal access for all.

  105. Guest says:

    I tried to post a comment here a few hours ago, and left it in the hands of whomever moderates, trusting it would be up shortly.

    It. Wasn't. Posted.

    The comment count says 78 (now perhaps 79). But how many people have ACTUALLY commented? Perhaps their comments weren't "prioritized." The new euphemism of a newly restricted internet age.

  106. Johnny Boy says:

    How large was the bribe Mr. Chairman?

  107. Danny N says:

    Please Enforce true net neutrality. No paid prioritization

  108. Ben Zolno says:

    "Paid prioritization"? No way, no how. The beginning of the end, period.

  109. Guest says:

    No to paid prioritization. Yes to genuine net neutrality.

  110. TJ Pagliaro Jr says:

    Mr. Chairman,
    Please support free and unfettered internet.
    First, the rules need to extend full Net Neutrality protections to both wired and wireless Internet users.
    Second, they must have stronger language to prohibit "paid prioritization" schemes, which give phone and cable companies the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet.
    Third, they must close massive loopholes for "specialized services" that allow industry to discriminate unfairly online.
    Finally, they must ensure that Net Neutrality rests on a secure legal foundation that can withstand a court challenge.
    The open platform of the Internet has given the public unprecedented freedom for expression, creativity, innovation, connection, and social activism. If the FCC passes a watered down version of Net Neutrality, then we'll see an end to this independence from corporate gatekeepers.

  111. C Herrera says:

    As long as there is paid prioritization, the Internet cannot be truly free and open to all.

  112. Guest says:

    Real Net Neutrality means there is one Internet with one set of rules, whether you get online at home or using a mobile phone; it means no special toll roads or fast lanes reserved for a few powerful corporations; it means no giant loopholes that would undermine the Internet's level playing field.

    It is in the public interest......not just a few giant corporations who want to get richer thanks to a cooperative FCC.

  113. R Power says:

    i AM IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL WHO WANT FULL, TRANSPARENT AND TRUE NET NEUTRALITY. I ask that you change your behavior, public and private statements and emphasis to ensure true net neutrality.

  114. Travis says:

    These proposed regulations do not go nearly far enough to preserve a free, open and unfettered Internet. Net neutrality is tantamount to the Internet's first amendment, and failure to place it on as secure a legal footing as possible will be devastating to freedom of expression online. Any net neutrality rules need to extend full Net Neutrality protections to both wired and wireless Internet users--it is nonsensical to do otherwise. The rules must also have stronger language to prohibit "paid prioritization" schemes, which give phone and cable companies the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet. In addition, they must close massive loopholes for "specialized services" that allow industry to discriminate unfairly online. Finally, they must ensure that Net Neutrality rests on a secure legal foundation that can withstand a court challenge. Failure to put these provisions in place amounts to a selling out of the American people.

  115. Dawn G says:

    I strongly support true net neutrality, NOT the currently proposed plan. First, the rules need to extend full Net Neutrality protections to both wired and wireless Internet users. Second, they must have stronger language to prohibit "paid prioritization" schemes, which give phone and cable companies the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet. Third, they must close massive loopholes for "specialized services" that allow industry to discriminate unfairly online. Finally, they must ensure that Net Neutrality rests on a secure legal foundation that can withstand a court challenge. To do any less is to fail at the job for which the American People hired you.

  116. Guest robertt says:


    Close the massive loopholes for "specialized services" that allow industry to discriminate unfairly online and keep "paid prioritization" schemes, which give phone and cable companies the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet off the web. Don't give away the web to big businesses!

  117. Jessica Presley-Grusin says:

    We want true Net Neutrality, not a fake compromise with phone and cable companies that will kill free speech and innovation. Whenever the FCC takes comments from the public about important issues, it's never publicized. Most of the citizenry has no idea that you are going to vote on this issue. If so, you would be flooded with comments against this net neutrality compromise. You must take the following steps to ensure net neutrality:
    First, the rules need to extend full Net Neutrality protections to both wired and wireless Internet users.
    Second, they must have stronger language to prohibit "paid prioritization" schemes, which give phone and cable companies the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet.
    Third, they must close massive loopholes for "specialized services" that allow industry to discriminate unfairly online.
    Finally, they must ensure that Net Neutrality rests on a secure legal foundation that can withstand a court challenge.

  118. Guest says:

    Today's small businesses who are working on the next generation of innovations that will keep our economy strong, MUST have net neutrality to have a chance to start and to grow.

    The deep-pocketed, older industries can frame things any way they want but, it doesn't compensate for their lack of innovation or willingness to change and meet changing market conditions. It is much easier to run to Congress or a government agency to seek legislative or regulatory relief in order to create anti-competitive policies that greatly benefit themselves.

    Today's large corporate players (and their peers on Wall Street) have an over-sized voice in our democracy. They have a right to be represented. They do not have a right to market hegemony, particularly at the expense of an innovative and vibrant economic future.

    I have worked for both these large, older companies and their small, new competitors. I understand the thinking at an AT&T, Comcast, etc. Innovating is hard and expensive but, the price of ignoring or restricting it is to let others overtake you in the marketplace.

  119. Guest says:

    Years down the road when your children ask what happened to the free and open Internet that gave birth to Google ... and Wikileaks ,,,, the free and open Internet whose creation was funded by public tax monies - you remember that Internet, don't you? What are going to tell them - Daddy sold out to Comcast, Verizon & the other big companies who now choke off innovation make the public pay through the nose to use the infrastructure for which we paid. It's our Internet. We paid for its creation. We own it. You have no right to sell it, and no right to sell us out. Be the first in Obama's inner circle to do the right thing, would you? Surprise us. We still retain the last few vestiges of "Hope."

  120. CitizenofUSAsince95 says:

    Chairman,

    Please do not cave into the interests of corporate America over civilian America. I understand there are various elements at play, but the privatizing of the Internet will forever change our history. The freedoms which the Internet has naturally provided for the World (not just U.S, but the entirety of Planet Earth) are in jeopardy. And you, sir, are in control of its plight.

    Please do not succumb to greed, whether it is your own, or corporate America's. Look at our economy for a simple analogy, and you will see how benefiting corporate America never benefits America.

  121. Ben Schainker says:

    Julius Genachowski's plan is a great step backwards.

    Given that the United states is lagging more than 15 years behind other western countries in affordable broadband deployment, and these countries are setting even greater goals for the next four to five years, Julius Genachowski's plan for 2020 will leave the United States more than 20 years behind the rest of the developed world.

    Will the United States insist on falling further and further behind just so the free market can reward fewer and fewer people, more and more wealth, for doing less and less?

    One thing is certain... If you plan for failure, you surely shall achieve it.

    I would recommend that Julius Genachowski take a junket to Switzerland and Japan, and find out what Public Servants who are truly committed to their countries' broadband future are doing.

    And now Julius Genachowski wants to take the American Internet, already lagging behind the rest of the civilized world, weighed down by the Monopolies tied around its neck, and allow those same Monopolies to slow it down even further and charge the American People a toll for the privilege. We already pay more for less.

    The United States gave the internet to the world; and the United States is destroying the internet within its own borders. At every turn, the United States is betraying its People and its Promise. Yielding the future unto others.

    Julius Genachowski, you have an affirmative duty to regulate on behalf of the people, not corporations. You have an affirmative duty to promote competition. You have an affirmative duty to enact regulation in accordance with anti-trust Law.

    Julius Genachowski your behavior smacks of collusion and criminal malfeasance.


    Sincerely,

    Ben Schainker

  122. Lou Graziani says:

    There is no room for any "paid prioritization" in a truly open internet. Do not think you are helping anyone with legislation that benefits monopolistic companies like Comcast.

  123. Guest says:

    This is such a sham.

    I agree that Net Neutrality is very important, but this plan destroys any hope of Net Neutrality.

    How can you say this is real Net Neutrality? It gives companies the option for paid prioritization of data.

    I guess Obama sold out on healthcare, sold out on the tax cuts, sold out on don't ask don't tell, so it's not surprising that he is selling out on Net Neutrality too.

    This is the change we can believe in folks. What exactly is different from when Bush was president? Remind me what exactly is changing for me? I will have my same healthcare plan that I have had from my job that I started well before Obama was president, I will have the same tax rate that I had under Bush, oh yeah- I will no longer be guaranteed Net Neutrality. I guess that's the change I was promised when I voted for Obama.

    Thanks Genachowski. Now please resign and save some dignity.

  124. Edi Jenkins says:

    Sir,
    Small business has been the driving force of America for years. But this plan to put undue ability for competition to be squashed will put an end to that.
    We must not allow paid toll roads to be built over a structure which NOW ALREADY FOSTERS competition and a truly free market.
    Please re-think your position.

  125. Ned Hamson says:

    As long as the plan does not include the creation of tiers of pay for advantage or speed, I am with you. But make me a second class citizen because I cannot pay for extra speed or bandwidth and everyone will see quickly that there is no cake with the icing just sugar! Sweet but no real content.

  126. Tom Ballan says:

    I'm with Marie. While you've certainly painted a beautiful picture about the impact the open Internet has had, there seem to be quite a few contradictions between this statement and your proposed Net Neutrality plans. There doesn't seem to be any way that paid prioritization of bandwidth in ANY way promotes the values you seem to hold so high here.

    I'd be interested to hear your comments on this...

  127. Joe Newman says:

    The innovation and free discourse that has made the internet a major force in just a few short years will be stunted by this plan. We cannot have paid tiers for preferred access, and leave out wireless networks, and still call a plan "Net Neutral".

  128. David Kahl says:

    Mr. Chairman:

    When I put the shifter in my automobile into "Neutral", it disengages the transmission, allowing for outside forces to move it forward or backward.

    In the case of Net Neutrality, these outside forces would be represented by both sides of the innovation equation -- Comcast-type corporates, on the one hand, and smaller, visionary inventors, developers, and entrepreneurs.

    Your role should be one that understands it is the PEOPLE who, by funding creation of the Internet through their taxes, are its rightful owners. As their trustee, it is your job to guard that no one entity or alliance wrests control of the vehicle.

    Enough with the speech; I want responsible action.

  129. Guest says:

    I can not help but wonder for what $$$$$$$ was the FCC chairman bought and or other sinister corporate coercion employed?

  130. Larry Haworth says:

    Please take seriously what is being said to you about protecting the Internet from corporate control. This is a public utility and must remain open to the public. Can you really say you trust these corporations with our free speech? Because that's what we're talking about here: the last truly open forum in our democracy. Do not let the corporations divide the Internet into a paid two-tier system where the the rich get the best and everybody else has to live by their rules. That's not democracy.

  131. Guest says:

    Chairman Genachowski,
    Your plan does everything to remove freedom of speech. It is that simple. Please enforce true net neutrality and preserve our freedom of speech.

  132. Brett Glass says:

    Chairman Genachowski, I realize that the chances of you actually reading this posting are slim. However, I'll do so anyway with the faint hope that you might see this. Alas, the claim that regulating the Internet will "protect jobs" simply does not hold up to scrutiny. My small company - an innovative wireless Internet service provider - provides access where it will be financially infeasible for telephone or cable companies ever to do so, with only those restrictions on the service which are necessary to make it economically viable (see my filings in dockets 07-52 and 09-191). Just the Notice of Proposed Rule Making actually destroyed jobs by depriving my company of investors, preventing me from expanding the business and hiring more employees to staff it. And my current employees are very worried this holiday season: will they have jobs next year? None of us have seen the rules, but from your remarks and the remarks of FCC staff it appears that the Commission will relax the rules for mobile wireless broadband providers but not for fixed ones - an action that has no basis in science, engineering, or economics and is fundamentally unfair.

    My business is one of more than 4,000 small technology businesses of its kind throughout the United States. And we're not just something that's amusing or nice to have - like Twitter - but an essential link to the Net for our customers. Yet, the proposed rules threaten to destroy our businesses and harm our customers and our community even though there is no actual problem for them to solve and no harm to alleviate. By preventing us from aligning what we charge with actual costs, and from continuing to offer our most popular and well liked service plans, they would harm - not help - consumers.

    Mr. Chairman, do not pass these rules. They will do no good for consumers, are on exceedingly shaky legal ground, will antagonize Congress, and will do real harm. However, if politics and the President's campaign promise (which he should reconsider) are really such strong forces that you feel you absolutely must enact something regardless of the damage it will do, do not double that damage by treating fixed wireless more harshly than mobile wireless. Fixed wireless, in fact, faces greater challenges than mobile: lack of access to licensed spectrum; lower market penetration than mobile; extremely high backhaul costs; much higher expectations of quality, speed, and reliability than mobile. Encourage innovation, entrepreneurship, and broadband competition - and keep my employees employed - by ensuring that it is possible for us to do the useful, productive, and innovative work we love to do without being strangled by needless regulation.

  133. John F says:

    Enforce true net neutrality, not the sham you are marketing as such. We're not as stupid as you think we are so don't patronize us. Weasel.

  134. Clinton Flynn says:

    Chairman Genachowski,
    Mr. Chairman, please don't ever confuse information with the vehicle that delivers it. Comcast, AT&T and others are merely vehicles. It should be your mission to assure equal access to information, and that includes the rate of that information, for all Americans.
    Sincerely,
    Clintion Flynn

  135. Guest says:

    The U.S. ranks in the high teens world wide for internet speed largely due to little competition that exists among internet service providers. Your intention to "maintain" net neutrality is not only laughable in terms, it will also mean corporations will further inhibit our freedoms and creativity for an easy profit.

    President Obama should replace you with a true peoples' representative. Allowing corporate hacks to represent consumers is clearly erroneous.

  136. Mike from SF says:

    please do not split the internet into two pieces or seperate mobile and broadband. There is but one internet and all websites should be equal.

  137. Guest says:

    Enforce REAL Net Neutrality as you are the keeper of the gate. Do the right thing that enhances society.

  138. Jane in Redondo says:

    You represent us, the American people and not the monied interests. Net neutrality, real net neutrality is crucial to democracy. We know it. You know it.

    What will your legacy be?

  139. Guest says:

    Don't do this please!

  140. The Internet says:

    Hey. You. Yeah you, with the big important job.
    Stand up to the telecoms and pass real net neutrality, not their little fake version of it.

  141. Guest says:

    We need a fully open internet to preserve free expression and open discussion with real content unrestricted by corporate gatekeepers.
    We need an internet that is open to technological, cultural and political thought and innovation, free from corporate restrictions of ANY kind.
    What is the problem with those positions?
    Please tell me what is the problem with those positions?
    Real net neutrality please!

  142. Darrell says:

    Please keep the internet open for all, with no tollbooth like plans that favor business over everyone else. Keep the net free and fast.

  143. Guest says:

    As a small business owner that has paid this industry tens of thousands of dollars for phonebook and internet advertising, my opinion is that it would be a mistake to leave this industry in charge of the internet highway. I have been treated unfairly in many instances by the communications industry, running the gamut from: very poorly placed ads in the phonebook, misapplied payments, phone company advertising billing errors I was forced to pay after they disconnected my business phone lines, repeated telephone "slamming" (remember that scam?) - who got the kickbacks on that I wonder?, forced to pay for months on my website that was down (because I signed their one-sided contracts), per line phone charges that mysteriously creep upward, even though their crooked contract states a frozen price for the duration, calling across the country or around the world to reach the "customer service" department, only to be put on hold and listen to the repeated message "Your call is very important to us" or, recently to call cross- country to the California customer service, be transferred, put on hold for 25 minutes, then to get the final automated message "We're sorry, we are closed for the day please call back tomorrow". Understaffed customer service departments and overstaffed collections and sales departments are the norm in the communications industry. Time is very valuable in small business, and to be put on "hold" is a tremendous cost for a small business, and in fact I consider it time theft.
    This is the industry that will be in charge if Net Neutrality fails. And how about the crap every small business in America needs to delete out of their emails, all the wasted time filtering out spam?
    Am I going to pay more for the privilege of receiving faster spam? At this point "the internets" are a national resource and should be maintained, apportioned, regulated and developed by our US government for the good of the citizens, the common welfare, not the private sector.

    PS: The private sector has still not delivered decent internet access to millions of rural Americans and poor inner city residents. Let's address that inequality, not make it worse by letting the lobbyists once again dictate the direction America should take.

  144. Mel F says:

    How can we simultaneously criticize China for its censorship of the internet and consider laws to limit our access at the same time? This is the part of the world that's supposed to have all the information.

  145. Guest says:

    Net neutrality is what is needed. Not some haveway have baked maybe.
    We as free people and free enterprize deserve the best, so give us the best, step up to the plate and do what you knowis right for the people. step up to the plate without taking into account big money and big power tacktics.

  146. Devin H says:

    Mr. Genachowski, we want real Net Neutrality. We NEED real Net Neutrality. No compromises on this, if there is anything but true Net Neutrality then you might as well shut off the Internet entirely. Because, in essence, that's exactly what you'll be doing.

    People or money, citizens or corporations, Mr. Genachowski, choose wisely.

  147. Martin says:

    We want real net neutrality, not the fake one you're planning to institute! Shame on you for trying to us!

  148. Connor Leahy says:

    NET

    NEUTRALITY.

  149. Windy M says:

    Please think again, and let us keep a fair and open internet!! Corporations have destroyed the free market economy, destroy capitalism, and destroy democracy, don't let them destroy our access to knowledge, ideas and communication with friends, family, colleagues and inspiration around the world. Please reconsider what you are doing to those of us who are slowly losing our rights and whose voices are small - we need access to information and to share that information with others in order to empower ourselves! Shame on those of you who have the power, but are too full of greed and cowardice to defend the rights of others!

  150. Barry DeJa says:

    What a rationalization. Money will not keep the internet fair and neutral. Only true internet neutrality is supportive a of Democracy.

  151. Guest says:

    •First, the rules need to extend full Net Neutrality protections to both wired and wireless Internet users.
    •Second, they must have stronger language to prohibit "paid prioritization" schemes, which give phone and cable companies the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet.
    •Third, they must close massive loopholes for "specialized services" that allow industry to discriminate unfairly online.
    •Finally, they must ensure that Net Neutrality rests on a secure legal foundation that can withstand a court challenge.
    ye

  152. Ben Thomas says:

    As many others have stated here, this proposal is woefully inadequate and does not provide any true net neutrality protections. "Paid prioritization" is ***exactly the opposite*** of net neutrality!

    I realize that you are likely receiving a lot of pressure from the big telecommunication companies to create rules in their favor, but I assure you that doing so will destroy the Internet as we know it. The FCC has the opportunity to set proper rules now to ensure that information is not censored by these companies (and it is totally necessary to have net neutrality rules for this purpose, as the telecommunication companies have already demonstrated that they will restrict content that they find "questionable").

    You surely know the public's position on this issue. It's up to you to heed it or ignore it.

  153. Aaron H says:

    The internet is meant to be an area of free and open exchange. Limiting that in any way fundamentally degrades the ability of its users to learn, explore, and discuss ideas and issues. Allowing ISP companies to decide what is a priority for its users effectively makes the companies the defacto intellectual gateway for all of its subscribers.

    Start enforcing actual Net Neutrality, not the spun up, pro corporation version you are selling to the American public.

  154. Mary says:

    •First, the rules need to extend full Net Neutrality protections to both wired and wireless Internet users.
    •Second, they must have stronger language to prohibit "paid prioritization" schemes, which give phone and cable companies the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet.
    •Third, they must close massive loopholes for "specialized services" that allow industry to discriminate unfairly online.
    •Finally, they must ensure that Net Neutrality rests on a secure legal foundation that can withstand a court challenge.

  155. Guest says:

    Enforce true net neutrality, not some watered down facsimile of it. True net neutrality means that all have equal access to the net, not some getting favorable treatment since they pay for it. Let the corporations know that they DO NOT own the internet and that the internet belongs to everyone, NOT a couple of greedy CEO's. Letting companies determine who's voices are heard is NOT the American way. Net neutrality is part and parcel of free speech and I will NOT let some greedy corporation infringe on my free speech or any other rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.

  156. Athanasor says:

    If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.

  157. James Williamson says:

    Dear Julius: We met briefly recently at the Harvard Law School.
    I sincerely hope we are not about to be sold down the river again by
    the Obama administration on another important public policy issue.
    You have chosen to call it "openness." I understand it best as Net
    Neutrality. However you wish to re-label it, I can generally tell the
    difference between policies which benefit the public-at-large vs.
    those crafted to suit big corporations. (How much is enough for
    those greedheads??) Hope you'll have some backbone, and that
    for once with this administration we'll see a policy decision grounded
    in what's in the best interests of the American _people_, not the corporations!
    Do the Right Thing!!! cheers James

  158. Guest says:

    NO NO NO NO TO FAKE NET NEUTRALITY!!!!

  159. Jennifer E says:

    Mr. Chairman,
    You should not be "learning a key lesson from these entrepreneurs and businesses" who want to claim ownership of the internet and limit the access ordinary Americans have to what ought to be considered a 'commons'. The internet should belong to everyone, and no administrative arm of the U.S. government has any right to side with the corporations over the American people. Under the Bush Administration, the FCC chair Michael Powell called the corporations -- who paid multiple millions of dollars to lobbyists to intervene between the will of the public and the American government -- "our clients." He thus revealed quite brazenly that he considered the FCC to be the servant of private corporations who have literally seized control of what is merely an open highway for communication, not a 'product' we ought to pay them to provide to us. At the time, it seemed like another example of the Bush agenda, which was for 8 years utterly pro-corporate and anti-democracy. But I don't understand how you are any different from Michael Powell. The fact that you have co-opted the language of 'net neutrality' is the most cynical and shocking part of this.

  160. Doug W says:

    Do not sell us out AGAIN ! Some American People expect more from a Democrat Administration than a snow job that favors big business. NO TO FAKE NN!

  161. Guest says:

    net neutrality is bureaucrat speak for "give me more power over your life"

    the internet is doing just fine without your regulations, WE DON'T NEED YOU.

    Hands off the internet; YOU are the biggest threat to internet freedom, not Comcast or any private company (who at least has to answer to the market for their screwups)

  162. Guest says:

    Enforce real Net Neutrality sir. The flow of information that is a stalwart in our culture nowadays will take a halt as the roadblock put up the the companies who want more and more in these times of already obscene profits. Please take a stance, you're a Public Servant not a Corporate Lapdog.

  163. Walt Daniels says:

    The medium and the message must be divorced from each other.

  164. James Roeder says:

    Mr. Chairman

    You yourself seem to be keenly aware of the roll free market plays in our economy. Yet the inclusion of paid-prioritization in your pans for regulation seems to send a very different message. Surely you can see how granting this preferential treatment could easily result in stifling new competition to larger more established businesses. I believe this to be fundamentally different to the ideas of freedom, and in the end users case, choice. I urge you to please consider your plan again.

  165. Guest says:

    What you are proposing, Mr. Chairman, is not a "Neutrality" that would be neutral. The proposal would unfairly profit large companies that already have a foothold in the internet business and would prevent startup companies from succeeding. If companies like Netflix, Amazon or Ebay were charged toll fees for the amount of data they used they wouldn't be what they are today.

    Whether companies have to pay a toll to the provider or customers have to pay per usage, it will prevent companies with innovative services from prospering. Why would I pay extra fees to my ISP to go to a startup website if I've never heard of them before. In a situation like that most people never will.

    Aside from it being a horrible plan that only profits large companies, it does nothing to speed up our networks or get highspeed to areas of the country that are without. How is it possible we fall behind all other "modern" countries in this area.

    We already have Comcast charging Level 3 fees for putting Netflix videos through. The ISP's say they don't want a pay per usage plan but charging tolls already just proves otherwise.

    As it has been said "it's like paying per word in a book"


    What he said!

  166. Guest says:

    Dear Mr. Chairman,
    I am disappointed at the euphemistic approach you are putting forward regarding "Net Neutrality". True net neutrality protects the level playing field by not allowing a tiered system for how fast websites load. This is totally unnatural and there is no reason for a tiered system of how fast pages load. Nothing about it is natural. Its just a profit scheme at the expense of small businesses and the innovations that these small businesses have brought to the internet, the USA and the world. Most of the big advances started small and would never have happened if they had required the vast capital that will be needed to pay off Comcast and other providers so that their site will load quickly.

    We all know that in reality your website DOES NOT EXIST if it loads slowly because no one, not even people who support you, will wait that long for a website to load. So it just doesn't exist if it loads slow.

    Why are you even calling your plan "Net Neutrality" when it so terribly diverges from what the term has come to mean and from plain logic and etymology of the english language? This seems clearly an attempt to cynically substitute a watered down version that does not protect freedom, small business or anything. Its all a ruse. Is the joke on you too? How can you not understand what I and others like Free Press are saying and yet hold the position of Chairman of the FCC? This is a major sell out and a major setback to an open internet, and to democracy and fair economics.

    I do not intend to insult you, but I call it like I see it. You are too smart to not know what you are doing by offering this watered down version of net neutrality. We will have to come up with a new terminology for what you are advocating as policy in order to preserve sanity in the english language. How about "Net Banality"? That is what will happen if the oligarchs like Comcast are allowed to dictate what content can succeed on the internet, which is what your proposed policy will do precisely.

    Please reconsider and be a hero for democracy. If not, your name will live in infamy as being the guy who put the last nail in the coffin for a free and open society. That is how important the internet is in society now. If its openness is lost, democracy will be lost largely and the internet and much of increasingly virtual life will be one big lie of omission (the omission of content from the grassroots and small businesses).

  167. jaciem says:

    How exactly will the "small businesses and startups" provide all this wonderful job growth and innovation if they cannot afford to pay the ISPs as much as eBay, Amazon, and others to "prioritze" their traffic?

    Your pretty words say "net neutrality", but your ugly actions say "Who cares about the consumers? Give me that big bucks lobbying/telecom/cable company job once I'm outta here!"

  168. Sandy Sanders says:

    Mr. Obama promised a free and open internet. Just as in the comments here the public comments to the FCC over the last 10 years have consistently rejected Republican and now Obama appointed capitalization of the internet which would bring control and profits to the corporate few.

    Mr. Genachowski you don't fool us. And I would venture you haven't fooled your two highly competent Democratic board members who have consistently fought for a real open and free internet.

    I am a fine and graphic artist who has had a website on the net since 2001. I do not have the funds to pay for better access and would suffer if this plan goes through.

    The internet like our highways should not be privatized. They should open and free public property maintained by our government as a part of the public commons. Privatization of roads, water, and energy has always proven to be a terrible experiment where prices go up and services go down as the corporation running the show has to beef up their profit statements to Wall Street. Profit is an anathema to public benefit.

    Please scub this destructive plan and fulfill Obama's promise of net neutrality.

  169. Guest says:

    You need to keep net neutrality. It is an important aspect in millions of peoples lives. Changing it would be an utter disaster. People like how the internet is. Giving a few at the top more control to make more money and keep many down is beyond wrong. This is the United States not Russia or North Korea or some Banana Republic. THe internet how it is now is one of the last sources of a free press in this country. The media is supposed to be for all people not just a few of the new 'robber barrons' at the top. THe few at the top I'm sure want to keep the public ignorant and make sure they can't start up a new business or in the least make it much more difficult to start up a new business which is deplorable. Changing net neutrality would hurt this whole country.

  170. marie-elena says:

    .

    Real Net Neutrality must include a ban on paid prioritization, extending protections to wireless networks so mobile broadband providers cannot act as gatekeepers on the mobile Web; no loopholes in key language that would allow providers to exempt themselves from rules; and clear rules for “specialized services” that would prevent a pay-for-play platform that could stifle innovation and threaten the Internet’s level playing field.

  171. Guest says:

    Please back off from the project to destroy the internet. Imagine if this sort of treatment was handed out to the original telephone companies. We would not have progressed at all.

  172. Maggie W says:

    Mr Chairman,

    We feel for you. We really do. We know the pressure from corporations is intense and terrifying. But do you really want to go down in history as the man who opened the doors to privatizing the internet? The internet is the single most important platform for innovation and public action. Allowing it to fall into the hands of those who already have lots of money will be a disaster for everyone else. If you value the freedom and ingenuity of the American people, then you must pass REAL and STRONG net neutrality rules. Please- we are counting on you.

  173. Guest says:

    We need Net Nutrality for everyone, not just those who want "paid priviledge" of anything. This is about freedom of speech.

  174. George Greene says:

    You have before you an opportunity to decide something that will alter the curse of human communication from this point forward.

    You can choose to keep the Internet in the hands of the people, ensuring the blossoming of America's entrepreneurs, thinkers, non profits, entertainers and an others, or you can choose to protect profit for a few already too powerful companies and, in the process, choke off the very thing that made the Internet what it is today.

    Your proposal gives Comcast and large telecoms control over what is rightfully ours. Why is their profit more important than the citizens' right to free expression?

  175. Guest says:

    The internet has been started as a PUBLIC UTILITY.
    To block its usage to the least among us... is UNCONSCIONABLE!
    FOR INSTANCE: When Bernie Sanders FILIBUSTERED congress... NONE OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLETS BROADCAST IT! I WAS ONLY ALLOWED TO LOG ON AND WATCH IT ON CSPAN2~!!

    THE "LIBERAL MEDIA" did not report on it!

    Which only goes to SHOW YOU THAT CORPRATE MASTERS only BOW to CAPITALISM... It is not NEWS!

    Gobbling up the last FREE ENTERPRISE would mean that we would be a population controlled by REGULATED MEDIA based on the bottom dollar.

    THIS IS NOT AMERICA!
    KEEP THE INTERNET NEUTRAL!
    IT IS FOR EVERYONE!!!

    Sincerely,
    Rochelle Ann Lane

  176. Jim K says:

    You are selling out the ideals that earned my vote for Obama. And he is nowhere to be seen. I know you are intelligent enough to understand this. If you succeed I will no longer be a democrat and will dedicate my efforts to making sure this is a one-term administration. This is the most important long term issue facing this administration and they are abandoning the correct path that they initially championed. Why???? I'm baffled at how you could completely cave, and fail to uphold the ideals you were going to support. It will be interesting to see if you end up working with the companies you are caving in to.

    What are you afraid of? Why do you cave in to the companies that pose such perilous threat to the freedom of the internet? Do you not care? It is truly a mystery.

  177. Clark Newhall MD JD says:

    Mr. Genachowski,
    Your apparent cave-in on net neutrality, allowing cable and mobile companies to charge higher rates to their customers, is one more step toward making it impossible for entrepreneurs to thrive in America. Why in the world should the telecom providers, who are using the public's spectrum for their services, be able to charge a price differential when they use that spectrum to its fullest potential.
    You are acting like your constituents are the telecom and cable companies who use our airwaves to provide crappy service and poor coverage, while reaping huge profits and without paying a fair price for the spectrum they get.
    You are charged to act in the public interest, not int he interest of profit-making public utilities.
    Clark Newhall MD JD

  178. Liz McLellan says:

    A large percentage of us ONLY access the net via wireless devices. A large percentage of people of color ONLY access the net via smart phones.

    If you accept the telecom corporations deal you are literally condemning the people that most need real equal access to being controlled and limited by big medial.

    It is a non starter.

    We accept no less than TRUE net neutrality and will not be fooled by this dog poo in Christmas paper!

  179. Guest says:

    One more for genuine net neutrality. We will not go away and will see through your deceit.

  180. Guest says:

    Support true Net Neutrality.

    Support equal access to all web sites on the internet. No tiered price plans.

    Gary

  181. Larry E Creel says:

    Mr. Chairman, You seem to be approaching "net neutrality" on your back. Very sad for the future of communications. If you don't find some courage, you will secure a place in American history like that of Linda Tripp.

  182. YAN says:

    we demand net neutrality. no paying to get priority. internet is a free space. the communication companies are just the vehicle.
    Corporations cannot be allowed to control; or even own the internet. A free and open internet, both wired and wireless, is too important to our economy and our democracy to allow anyone to throttle it.

    we the people demand that no rules will be set to protect and benefit communication companies in this matter.

  183. Julie Herrick says:

    Chairman Genachowski,
    I urge you to reject this current watered-down-net-neutrality proposal and fight forward for real net neutrality
    Real net neutrality must meet these criteria:

    *Extend full Net Neutrality protections to both wired and wireless Internet users.
    *Include stronger language to prohibit “paid prioritization” schemes, which give phone and cable companies the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet.
    *Close massive loopholes for “specialized services” that allow industry to discriminate unfairly online.
    *Ensure that Net Neutrality rests on a secure legal foundation that can withstand a court challenge.

    Sincerely,
    Julie Herrick

  184. Lynn B says:

    REALNet Neutrality:
    One Internet with one set of rules, whether you get online at home or using a mobile phone; it means no special toll roads or fast lanes reserved for a few powerful corporations; it means no giant loopholes that would undermine the Internet's level playing field.

    Shame, shame, shame on you Julius Genachowsk, for selling out the American People!!!!

  185. Lisa D says:

    I agree with John H and repeat his sentient commentary:

    "The proposed rule offers weak protections against "paid prioritization." That is, it could allow ISPs to create tolls on the open Internet that would favor the traffic of a select few who could pay by slowing down the traffic of everyone else. Worse yet, it opens a loophole for "specialized services" that could lead to the creation of a new "private Internet" for a few giant media companies. The proposed rule fails to restore the FCC's authority over Internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast Verizon and AT&T. " (John H says: December 14 2010 at 4:54 PM)

  186. Kathryn White says:

    "It’s my responsibility to fight to uphold the free and open principles that have brought us to where we are -- and I am committed to this goal."

    I sincerely hope so.

  187. bill lewis says:

    Mr. Chairman, have you heard the story of the "fox in the henhouse"? Whose side are you on anyway? I thought you were a "public servant", not a "public dictator". Don't patronize us, most of the people writing on this blog have superior intellect and an enlightened sense of what's right and what's not. Am I rambling, yes! It boggles my mind to think that anyone in your position would think that coming to the rescue of corporations is part of your job. It's not, yourar job is to protect the public from the overreach of these greedy bastards.

  188. Guest says:

    Paid prioritization? That's NOT net neutrality. It is an Internet that's been sold out to the highest bidders. It is the DEATH of net neutrality. Please sir, we beg you--do not ring that death-bell you hold in your hands. Tens of millions of people are counting on you to hold on to your integrity here--for our sakes, if not your own.

  189. tony geballe says:

    it is imperative to maintain true, untiered, unqualified net neutrality. the internet has become a major channel of public discourse, information flow and communication, and must not be subjected to the constraints of those who wish to view it purely as a generator of capital and transmitter of only commercialized, paid for, and approved information.

  190. Daniel says:

    Does writing this make you feel better about selling out the internet? You know exactly what the issue is here, don't act like this is up for debate. If you aren't for net neutrality then don't pretend you are.

  191. alex says:

    Adding my voice here as well. I object to the proposed changes.

    That said, my voice and the voice of everyone who has commented on this blog amounts to nothing as our objections will change nothing. We have no power. We have no effect. We are completely disillusioned by our government and by our representatives.

  192. Brian E says:

    Please don't let this be the date that a great freedom is lost. Like a tsunami, it will happen silently, but the ripple effect will wash over generations. You are overseeing a great power...please do not be the one to throw it away.

  193. henk says:

    this is unacceptable

  194. Maurice Jordan says:

    There is no half way on this sir.

    We need real safeguards against the exploitation of the internet by those who would use it for their own profit at the expense of.... well anything. They have shown that in the past and even if we get a real declaration, they will do their best to overturn it and find every crack in the declaration.

    It's the reason the rules have to be air tight cause they will try and try and try.

    Please, don't sell the future of the internet short, too much of that going around these days.

    The internet is one of the last hopes we have for a future we all have a part in.

  195. Amy Dolego says:

    We want true Net Neutrality, not a fake compromise with phone and cable companies - that will kill free speech and innovation

    Whenever the FCC takes comments from the public about important issues, it's never publicized. Most of the citizenry has no idea that you are going to vote on this issue. If so, you would be flooded with comments against this net neutrality compromise.

  196. Sue D says:

    Mr. Genachowski, I for one will always remember how you are one of the many who is selling out the American People. Net neutrality should be just that, not some watered down version. You have lobbyists who are swaying your better judgement for the mightly dollar. Greed is why you are selling out. This is yet another example of corporations looting the people so they can pay their executives ridiculous bonuses and they will quietly slip some in your pocket.

  197. Lisa Stewart says:

    In the last ten years ,when I've really researched the Internet, I feel that I have become a much more informed citizen, much readier to spot the lie and support the truth in government(s). What I've learned is beyond years of history courses, plus an awareness of my current world. And I'm just beginning. An open, free Internet is so essential to the freedom of people in the entire world. Blocking or partially blocking its access would set us back into the 50's when no one knew diddly squat about what was really going on. That of course it what the shutter downers are hoping for.

    The fact is that openness and truth will win out - one way or another. The sheer power of truth does that. So let the sun shine on the Internet and keep it open!

  198. Beverly says:

    * First, the rules need to extend full Net Neutrality protections to both wired and wireless Internet users.
    * Second, they must have stronger language to prohibit "paid prioritization" schemes, which give phone and cable companies the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet.
    * Third, they must close massive loopholes for "specialized services" that allow industry to discriminate unfairly online.
    * Finally, they must ensure that Net Neutrality rests on a secure legal foundation that can withstand a court challenge.

  199. Raoul P says:

    Why are you so susceptible to lobbying from the big ISPs?

    First, the rules need to extend full Net Neutrality protections to both wired and wireless Internet users.

    Second, they must have stronger language to prohibit "paid prioritization" schemes, which give phone and cable companies the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet.

    Third, they must close massive loopholes for "specialized services" that allow industry to discriminate unfairly online.

    Finally, they must ensure that Net Neutrality rests on a secure legal foundation that can withstand a court challenge.

  200. Troy S says:

    Ready access to a neutral internet is a material prerequisite for democratic citizenship today. The proposal you endorse would seriously limit free speech, and is thus an assault on our democratic rights. Privilege to those who pay is not democracy. It is oligarchy and plutocracy. Don't do this!

  201. Carol Johnston says:

    Please,please,please leave the internet the way it is. Many small businesses would suffer as a result. Don't give into corporate greed.

  202. Guest says:

    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Internet in the USA must remain unfettered by special interests. To give special value to those corporations who have unlimited wealth to better quality Broadband over individuals is not in the interest of everyone.
    Additionally if anything needs doing it is to force Internet providers to provide the highest quality Broadband possible, something which they have avoiding doing. The USA essentially invented the Internet yet today it has possibly the lowest Broadband rate, and one of the highest access costs in the world. Providers made promises but didn't produce. We still rely upon wire while the rest of the world is using light cables.
    Brian Fahey, Hunt, NY

  203. Guest says:

    NET NEUTRALITY CAN NOT BE ELIMINATED OR DEGRADED!

    Please, do not get rid of practically the only place that I can go to be educated fairly! In the crises we are facing today, we need NEUTRAL internet so that we can hope to educate ourselves and others on how to act.

    This cannot be taken from those who care.

  204. suzanne h says:

    The public will not settle for almost Net Neutrality, half Net Neutrality or fake Net Neutrality.

  205. Keath North says:

    As it did in 1996, when it repossessed Dan Garner's 110W position and auctioned it off to the highest bidder, the FCC has sold out to corporate interests. That decision, to deny a routine extension of time, ultimately killed my friend Dan. The silent victims in that earlier sad scenario, however, were America's students. As a result of losing the delivery system for free education, our students now lag far behind those in many other countries. Who knows how many will suffer, and in what ways, from the regrettable order handed down today. It's clear that the majority has been swayed once again by the promise of lucre.

  206. Asad says:

    http://google.com

Leave a Reply