For net neutrality

Regarding “Congress shouldn’t undo net neutrality rules” [which argued against reinstating net neutrality] (Page A11, Tuesday), the snake oil that the author is selling is that by treating everyone equally on the internet the Federal Communications Commission will, a) not be protecting an open and free internet and, b) will be discriminating against rural Americans. The underlying argument is that placing the internet back under Title II rules would curb critical infrastructure investment. In truth, executives of telecoms are on the record saying that net neutrality and Title II will not affect their investments much if at all.

Common sense tells me that without net neutrality, start-ups will be at a distinct disadvantage if the big telecoms throttle users based only upon who they are. The providers will favor their own services and content and there will be no redress. Innovation will be stifled and prices will rise. In fact many attempts were made in the courts to enforce neutrality prior to 2015, and they were turned back time after time specifically because there was no Title II provision. Court after court said so. The FCC’s new rule provides no alternatives for authority under which it can enforce the rules — except for ones already tried, which were ineffective.

I know that we are in a post-truth era, but I still prefer truth and logic over snake oil. Doug Verret, Sugar Land