I must say I am quite dissatisfied with your reply to my inquiry on your position regarding the current Net Neutrality debate. I am well aware of the history of Net Neutrality and would have much more appreciated a detailed explanation of your position and the reasoning behind it.

From what I was able to gather in your letter, I truly fear you have missed the point of this debate altogether. Your position seems to be solely based on the concept of “bandwidth” and never once did you mention “content” - which are two very distinct and separate issues that need to be addressed within the net neutrality debate.

I agree with you 100% that network providers should be charging by bandwidth - as they already are doing and have been for a long time. When I sign up for my cable internet service at home, I get to select the level of bandwidth that I am allowed to use, and my cable provider is completely within their rights (and obligation) to contain my internet usage within the bandwidth that I have purchased. The same goes for larger content providers such as YouTube and Hulu. As they consume bandwidth they pay for the amount they use.

Where Net Neutrality really comes to play here, is when we begin talking about content. Without a strong stance on Net Neutrality, these same network providers can, at will, limit the traffic based on its content, destination and size. This opens up the ability for network providers to openly deny network traffic from competing providers, or from services that compete with their own product offerings. This will create a segmented and disparate set of isolated networks with limited access to resources that are readily available to someone on a different network. It is akin to AT&T saying that you will not be allowed to receive phone calls from someone who has a Verizon telephone. We cannot allow this to happen to the Internet.

The network providers are already being paid for the amount of bandwidth their clients are using. The notion that they should be charging more or disallowing content is a farce. When it comes down to the nitty-gritty of it, a packet of data is a packet of data, regardless of what is contained in it. When you look at it in that manner, the only variable that needs to be addressed is the number of packets being sent. You send more packets, you pay more money.

Another way to look at this would be akin to the post office asking you what is in your letter before you mail it, and charging you more or less money based on the contents of your letters even if they weigh the same. Just as we do not allow the USPS to scrutinize our mail in this manner, we should not allow network providers to scrutinize our traffic, either.

Please take another look at this issue and the ramifications of allowing network providers to segment our traffic based on content and try to understand how catastrophic that practice would be if left unchecked.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Andrew Melichar