From: "Benjamin Scannell" <bscannell@rim.com>
To: <DNSTransition@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2006 2:27 PM
Subject: Keep the Internet Public and Open

Over the past few weeks it has been reported that non-other than Google
has been buying Dark Fiber, otherwise known as already laid fiber-optic
cable that's not in use.

AT&T and other internet service providers (ISP's) have been advocating
the idea that they can govern themselves and that Net Neutrality is a
bad idea.

Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and other major software companies are on the
other side of the fence, saying that Net Neutrality is a must.

Sorry to bore you if, I'm sure, you are well aware of these facts. My
opinion is that each company should serve its purpose to the best of its
ability without hindering any other functions. As far as ISP's go,
their purpose is to provide access to whatever website or online
material I see fit to access. I abhor censorship in any way because it
prevents everyone from knowing what's really going on. ISP's claim that
they NEED to create "faster lanes" for video, heavy traffic websites
and other content so as not to clog the internet.

Here's an article that puts that all in perspective pretty well:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/22/net_neut_a_killer/

As far as my opinion, the ISP's should be striving to provide internet
to anyone and everyone equally, independent on what they are accessing.
The ISP's would like to force large internet competitors, such as google
and yahoo, amazon and newegg, to pay more for the ability to have faster
access. However, since everyone is carried on the same fiber-optic
cable, this is really either extortion of these companies, making them
pay more for nothing, or it is conflicting with the ability to access
whatever content I want equally. Either way, this is bad, since the
ISP's already have the bandwidth, they just want more money. My fear is
the slippery-slope that if this starts, what's to say that John Doe with
a great idea for a new online resource won't have his dreams shot down
because he can't afford to pay for the "fast lanes" which have become
the standard for big business. Because waiting for a website not on the
fast lane is too long to wait. Privatization of this resource is a bad
idea simply because greed is already threatening the lively-hood of
smaller websites, and the pockets of the prosperous ones. I believe it
is in the best interests of all who advocate the free-flow of knowledge
and information that the Internet in general not be privatized.

Thanks,

Ben Scannell