Just as the commission has always held it was the responsibility and duty of all users of a particular part of the spectrum from intentionally or unintentionally interfering with any other legitimate users, the commission should make rulings that require that providers of Internet service (ISPs) shall not intentionally or unintentionally interfere with any legitimate use of the network bandwidth between the end user and the service provider communicating with that end user. Such policies of equal access for all legitimate uses has been a bedrock of FCC policy since the commission was established.
For people trying to fill out the form, use 17-108 as the proceeding you are commenting on.
Keep in mind, what you post to FCC is public with your contact info. Posting it here verbatim creates a linkage between your persona here and IRL. You may not mind, but it's something to consider.
Yeah, that train left the station a long long time ago. But it is good advice for people who haven't been on the net long enough. Another fun fact, get your HAM license and "whoops" they use your address as the station address.
It is completely inappropriate for Internet Service Providers to apply different traffic policies to legitimate use cases. All legitimate use cases of the service by the end user shall be given equal access rights. Restore the Title II designation for ISPs, or face the risk of a cunning and dedicated demographic working toward the destruction of the institutions that give you your power.
> the commission should make rulings that require that providers of Internet service (ISPs) shall not intentionally or unintentionally interfere with any legitimate use of the network bandwidth between the end user and the service provider communicating with that end user.
You forgot the most important part of the comment that the FCC really wants to hear from the public : why?
This is certainly a valid observation, I don't necessarily agree that "why" would be ranked as most important. And why I don't agree with that could use some elaboration.
I see governance as having two primary missions, preventing harms and preserving rights. That said, rulemaking is a policy action, it creates rules much like a programmer does, that are provided input and act based on that input.
An example of the latter that many readers here are familiar with would be sanitizing user input prior to displaying it on a web page. The programmer creates a rule like "always change the '<' and '>' characters to < and >." That is a rule and the 'why' is implicit. Without making that change, a user might type in their input an arbitrary piece of javascript which when displayed becomes part of the page. So the 'rule' prevents the 'harm' while preserving the 'right' for users to put < and > in their input, like we do here in comments all the time.
The other aspect of policies (or rules) is that making them consistent allows users or clients to not be surprised when something they think should be allowed, isn't. This is sometimes shortened to the principle of least surprise.
In this case the FCC is rule making in what is, relative to there original mission around RF spectrum, a new communication medium, the Internet.
To someone at the FCC, within the context of their past policy/rule making and their understanding of the Internet as a communication mechanism, they have the tools to understand that ruling against interference to other legitimate users of the spectrum is a core principle of their rule making in the RF world. This is particularly true in the portions of the spectrum that are unlicensed, like the 2.4GHz ISM bands.
My comment was written for a commissioner to read and to tie the 'old' with the 'new' and to perhaps dent a little bit the argument that ISPs use of "my wires, my house." Such a commissioner will already have heard hundreds, if not thousands, or arguments which stress the harm that is caused when one entity using spectrum and interfere with another using the same spectrum.
Using our WiFi examples it would be trivial for Cisco access points to recognize Ubiquity access points nearby and jam their channels. That would give Cisco users a "good" experience, and Ubiquity users a "bad" experience. And no doubt there have been examples of access points that had this sort of behavior, intentionally or not, and have been brought before the commission and adjudicated as being interferers and causing harm.
My hope is that one or more commissioners will have that context and read my comment and think, "Hmm, he has a point, it is just like spectrum and we treat people who interfere there as the 'bad guys', why should it be ok here?" And with that thought will come many, many, "Why equal access is the correct policy choice" examples from their work in the management of RF spectrum.
Just as the commission has always held it was the responsibility and duty of all users of a particular part of the spectrum from intentionally or unintentionally interfering with any other legitimate users, the commission should make rulings that require that providers of Internet service (ISPs) shall not intentionally or unintentionally interfere with any legitimate use of the network bandwidth between the end user and the service provider communicating with that end user. Such policies of equal access for all legitimate uses has been a bedrock of FCC policy since the commission was established.
For people trying to fill out the form, use 17-108 as the proceeding you are commenting on.