Clad R.

Tlomas
Aiioiney ai Law
P.O. Box i: Wiiglisiown, WI (iSo-oi:
Tel.: (q:o) (o-o((( Fax: ((i() (-qiyq
E-mail: cladiilomasggmail.com

July 14, 2014 ELECTRONICALLY SUBMITTED

Thomas Wheeler, Chairman
Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner
Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner
Ajit Pai, Commissioner
Michael ORielly, Commissioner
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554

Re: In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, FCC GN Docket No. 14-28
Public Comment

Dear Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners:

I write to provide comments on the proposed rulemaking in the above-entitled matter.

I urge the Commission to classify broadband internet as a common carrier under Title II of the
Telecommunications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 201 et seq. So-called fast-lanes should be
prohibited in all circumstances. Such rules are strongly in the public interest because the internet
has become so engrained in everyday life, much like the telephone in decades past, there is a lack
of meaningful competition on broadband internet access, and allowing even a rebuttable
presumption that prioritized access is unlawful opens the door to providers attempts to
discourage the use of disruptive services such as VoIP and streaming video, harming the
consumer and stifling innovation.

In the early years of the internet, it was largely the domain of academics and technology
enthusiasts. Today, access to the internet is essential in many vital aspects of life. For example,
people are often referred to a businesss website when inquiring about job applications.
Schoolteachers and university professors often give assignments requiring the reading of
documents found on the internet. The internet is often the simplest way to access ones financial
accounts and file and pay state and federal taxes.

In my business as a self-employed attorney with a home office, internet access is vital.
1
I use
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) for my telephone, and I use an internet fax provider. I
communicate with colleagues, other parties, court staff, and clients via email. I review

1
I also urge the Commission to extend open internet principles to wireless internet access.
Similarly to the argument later in this comment, wireless internet providers have incentive to
discourage the use of disruptive technologies. For example, my VoIP service allows me to
review my office voicemails on my mobile phone and forward calls to my mobile for when I
choose to do so.
2
developments in the law and access legal databases. I order office supplies using the internet. I
am even required to file certain court documents electronically; indeed, I risk compromising my
clients cases and incurring sanctions and professional discipline if I fail to electronically file as
required. I also make quarterly federal tax payments over the internet with the Department of the
Treasurys Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS).

Not to mention, the internet provides entertainment and information to numerous individuals
through streaming audio and video services, gaming, news and information websites, and social
networking.

Two or three decades ago, it was common to access ones financial accounts by phone. A small
business like mine needed several lines on the public switched telephone network (PSTN) at
least one for voice, one of fax, and one for dial-up data services. Voice calls have decreased in
favor of email and social networking. Faxes and postal mail have likewise decreased in favor of
email. Paper shopping catalogs have become rare. Dial-up bulletin board services are deprecated.
Westlaw has discontinued its dial-up service. Large video rental chains such as Blockbuster
Video have gone out of business due, in large part, to streaming video.

Given the broad and important uses of the internet, it is imperative that it be classified as a
common carrier. It is clear that many of the former uses of the telephone the quintessential
common carrier have migrated to the internet. Allowing any sort of prioritized communication
is contrary to the public interest.

In many locations, there is no meaningful competition in broadband providers. Where I currently
live, an exurban community in the Green Bay, Wisconsin, area, there are two broadband internet
providers, Time-Warner Cable and AT&T. Time-Warner Cables Standard broadband service
offers downstream speeds of up to fifteen megabits per second, and their Ultimate service
offers downstream speeds of up to one hundred megabits per second. In contrast, the fastest
downstream speed available from AT&T is just six megabits per second. Where I previously
resided, in a suburb of Saint Paul, Minnesota, Comcast offered internet access in excess of
twenty-five megabits per second; CenturyLink, the only other provider, offered three megabits
per second. Netflix recommends a minimum connection speed of five megabits per second for
high definition video streaming.

Time-Warner Cable and Comcast are, in addition to broadband providers, cable television
providers.
2
AT&T is also a television provider in some areas. Similarly, AT&T and Centurylink
are also telephone providers. These providers have a business interest in discouraging uses of the
internet that disrupt their businesses. The cable companies, and AT&T in some areas, have a
strong financial interest in discouraging the use of streaming video services like Netflix in order
to encourage people to buy their television services. Similarly, the telephone companies have

2
Comcast is a large content producer, in addition to be a large content distributor and a large
broadband provider. Allowing prioritized communications would allow Comcast to have an
unfair bargaining advantage over streaming provides such as Netflix, and a potentially
insurmountable bargaining advantage over startups.
3
strong financial interest in discouraging the use of VoIP and internet fax services in order to
encourage people to subscribe to PSTN lines or the providers own VoIP service.

A rebuttable presumption that paid priority access agreements are unlawful is simply against the
public interest. It would likely raise prices for internet-based services, given the fees to be paid
broadband providers. It would be entirely unrealistic to expect broadband providers to lower
their rates for consumers in exchange for the services paying for bandwidth. Even with strict
enforcement and oversight, such a presumption would allow behemoths like Comcast,
3
with their
considerable influence and teams of attorneys, to heavily litigate their rebuttal. Smaller
businesses and startups would be at a disadvantage. The public interest does not have teams of
litigators, and such litigation would only cost taxpayer money. Paid priority access would
provide no benefit to the public, drive up prices for consumers, and stifle innovation.

In addition to the argument above, I urge the Commission to consider the following news story:
Author: When It Comes To High-Speed Internet, U.S. 'Falling Way Behind,' NPR (Feb. 6, 2014),
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/02/06/272480919/when-it-comes-to-high-
speed-internet-u-s-falling-way-behind.

In sum, the internet is engrained in life in the United States and the world. Internet access is
essential for being a productive citizen, and there is a lack of meaningful competition in
broadband internet access. Broadband providers have a financial interest in protecting their own
other businesses by discouraging the use of disruptive technologies like streaming video and
VoIP. Thank you for your consideration of this comment.

Very truly yours,



Chad R. Thomas, Esq.
Wis. State Bar No. 1086887
Minn. Atty. Lic. No. 0392701

c: Senator Tammy Baldwin
Senator Ron Johnson
Representative Reid Ribble

3
I should note that Comcast has announced intent to acquire Time Warner Cable, and this
acquisition is currently being reviewed by the Commission and the Department of Justice. Thus,
there is a real possibility that it will become even larger.