This letter was submitted to [The Observer](https://mdf730.github.io/ethicsblog/Observer.png) in December 2017.

In 2015, the FCC created a series of regulations under the title of net neutrality. Net neutrality attempts to keep the Internet an open playing field by stopping internet service providers (ISPs), such as Comcast and AT&T, from throttling, blocking, or fast-tracking certain content providers. These regulations stem from the idea that ISPs should not be able to control how easy or hard it is to access content.

On November 21, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai revealed his plans to repeal most of these regulations, which would please many conservatives and ISPs. But these changes have received a lot of backlash from the public. We are adding our voices to the backlash with this letter.

Net neutrality is necessary in order to protect consumers from ISPs. Many consumers have at most two options for their ISP, and 33% of the time there is only one option. It is hard for new ISPs to be successful because it is expensive to put in the fibers necessary to connect homes and businesses to the internet. These initial costs are very high and discourage new ISPs from forming. This means that many ISPs have a natural monopoly over providing internet. Until we can fix this problem, the government needs to protect consumers from ISPs that will increase prices while providing the same (or worse) internet service.

Furthermore, we need to protect the internet as a public good. A public good is defined as both nonrivalrous and nonexcludable, insofar as one person’s use of the internet does not hinder another’s use and that everyone has equal access to the internet. If Pai’s repeals allow ISPs to block, throttle, and fast-track certain content based on money and/or political motivations, then ISPs will be allowed to favor certain content providers. This will make the internet unequal for consumers, which we believe is wrong.

Consider this. A CEO needs to replace the elevators in their company’s headquarters. As he or she investigate their options, they find that there is only one elevator installation company in town. While reading through their website, the CEO finds some disturbing information. The elevators that the company installs deliver people to their requested floor, but make no guarantees on how long it will take to get there. Each user swipes in when accessing the elevator, and they have the option of paying a small fraction of their salary to get priority queuing. This means a non-paying employee might go from floor 1 to 16, down to 4, back up to 7, before finally getting to their destination at floor 5. Additionally, the elevator company reserves the right to block access to certain floors or certain employees at their discretion. They may refuse service to higher floors unless a fee is paid. They have the ability to speed up or slow down the elevator in the chute depending on who is using it. The list goes on.

This scenario seems absurd, and yet it is precisely what the FCC is proposing to do with our access to the internet. If #ElevatorNeutrality is an unspoken rule in our society, it shouldn’t even be a consideration for the internet to be any different. Both elevators and ISPs act as a means of transportation. The elevator transports a person between floors, and an ISP transports data between people. To discriminate based on the content of that data is and should continue to be unlawful.

Sincerely,

Matthew Fabian Monica Fallon