Thanks, Mindy, for reminding us of this important legislation. I haven't paid enough attention to it yet, and took a moment to read about it this morning. Great coverage can be found in Scott Fulton's article that hit BetaNews on Friday afternoon. The big telcos have deep pockets, and are no doubt lobbying pretty seriously for this one as it would enable them to get additional revenue from those with a large and busy Internet presence like YouTube. It would also squeeze out the little start-ups that breathe so much life into the Internet.
Very convenient that one of my Senators is the guy that presided over the hearing for 'net neutrality back in May of this year. Very inconvenient that he doesn't support it! Before this "lame duck" session of congress is out, it's possible the matter will hit the floor for a vote. So it's time to bend the ear of our legislators. Below is an open letter I just sent to Senator McCain.
Dear John McCain:
I'm concerned that you oppose 'net neutrality. Putting an additional price tag on Internet bandwidth allows service providers to hike up the rates, giving preference to whoever is the highest bidder. Or even worse, as with the case recently of AOL blocking access for their subscribers to see sites that oppose AOL, those using the 'net end up with a distorted viewpoint, akin to the kind of filters currently used in communist states such as China. This model would greatly hinder the open innovation that has so far been the hallmark of the Internet.
Among the reasons you proposed in your opening statements on May 25th, 2006 as given before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I disagree specifically with three main points: (1) Revenue for the communication providers. I believe they are already enjoying adequate revenue, and have priced their services appropriately. (2) Emergency services not having adequate bandwidth in a time of need. There is already a "Quality of Service" option in place so that important traffic gets the bandwidth it requires. In the next revision of the IP protocol, IPv6, more enhancements are prepared that guarantee this. It is already in place. We need no extra legislation to fulfil these goals. (3) An effort to limit unsolicited email ("spam"), or the effect of "spyware". In terms of Internet traffic, 'net neutrality legislation would have little impact on "spam" and "spyware" as the purveyors of such junk would be able to operate via a range of Internet addresses as they do today, largely circumventing any protection that anti-'net neutrality legislation could afford. Recent technological advances have brought about more effective means to filter out junk email, and better protection against spyware, so this risk is already in check and can be kept at a minimum.
In short, enacting legislation against 'net neutrality would limit free speech, and hinder the ability for Americans to compete in an economy that is increasingly driven by information. I thus urge you to reconsider your stance on 'net neutrality, and lend your support for this important cause.
Sincerely,
Lorin Thwaits
Hopefully it will have some impact. By the way, if you live in the States then have you written your Senators yet?