From: ThndrShk2k <thndrshk2k@gmail.com>
To: <DNSTransition@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2006 2:59 AM
Subject: The Future of the Internet

Dear Sir or Ma'am,

The future of the Internet is at stake, due to the constant fighting between two groups of Internet users, who don't have a third option to widely publicize. This is an issue due to the major groups rallying them over to them quickly as possible.

The Internet itself should not be regulated by the government on how it runs and how it does what it does to run, nor should the ISPs and Network Relay Stations regulate how fast it runs and how it does what it does. These are two issues that are almost parallel of each other due to without govt. regulation of some kind, the ISPs can legally implicate policies to charge companies and websites more for constant good bandwidth, in which leaves the sites paying less or none at all with the low-priority bandwidth.

Govt. regulation may seem like a good idea, like NN(Net Neutrality), but it in itself can doom the future of the Internet if policies in NN has the govt regulating what the ISP uses, and what programs it offers for bandwidth. It will make the US itself one of the nations on the low end of high speed Internet, which in ANY business is not good. Paying high prices for 'high speeds' that quiver and fall apart in the face of the mega-megabit connection more technologically advanced nations have.

Not having at least a little Govt. regulation will allow the ISPs themselves to set their own policy to charge content providers and hosts on the Internet money for better bandwidth, in which will shunt sites that barely get by with low-priority bandwidth. These small sites, mostly personal and small business, won't be able to get as many customers, or have issues with the sites loading sometimes. The only good thing about no govt regulations is that the ISPs can take the profits to increase the bandwidth of all connection and keep it at the same price. But there is also a chance they will keep the profits inside the company and not work on public service, but internal service, where it isn't needed.

All we need is just a promise, or a small non invasive regulation, that the Internet companies themselves can't charge too much depending on the constant and average bandwidth of the home user that connects to the Internet, not raise prices of cable, DSL, and other Internet connection methods too high *$45 a month is a bit steep, but common.
Anything above $50 a month is just unfair.* for Home Users. Then they take all profit from companies that pay for slightly faster connection speed (10% faster or so. Those companies will be popular with any ISP and will cause a lot of bandwidth usage, too much faster and normal bandwidth sites will be de-prioritized and load slower than they do at this point in time) and use it to build faster networks for the Home Users and Businesses alike. a 2Mbit connection for $45 right now is actually quite expensive compared to other nations and their higher and cheaper bandwidth networks.

Currently 10% bandwidth increase itself is not that much and maybe even not worth it. But once the networks upgrade to 5-10 Mbit, or even greater *200mbit?*. A premium payment for 10% bandwidth increase (as long as it doesn't de-prioritize non-premium sites) of a company's site would be immense, and attract a lot more attention to the site.
Customers will get better reaction time, and service. But since the bandwidth at this time in America is mostly low-speed, companies don't want to pay a lot for something so little, and ISPs don't want to charge too little.

I do apologize if I keep stating points over and over again, it's just that each point itself is interconnected to the other points. I do thank you for your time and hope that you look at both sides of the issue. Most people themselves just want the Internet to be free speech, no ISP should tell us which sites load faster IF there are other sites loading slower BECAUSE the premium sites pay the ISP. De-prioritizing bandwidth for websites to may way for websites with a bit wallet is not fair for the Internet, and limits how free it is. Most people also want the govt. itself not to heavily, or at all, regulate the Internet. The Internet is a public network, and access does not need to be privatized in the US to simply keep ISPs from charging content providers too much for bandwidth place holding, de-prioritizing non-paying sites.

Thank you for your time

Sincerely,
Robert Boyorak