Dear Ruby,

Thank you for joining Consumers Union's action network--a major organizing force for positive change in the marketplace and strong consumer rights! In the last few weeks, hundreds of thousands of?Internet users sent letters asking Congress to prevent big telephone and cable companies from blocking or slowing your access to Internet services offered by their competitors.?Consumers Union activists alone sent nearly 100,000 letters!

And yet, Congress has refused to include any provisions to save the Internet in the massive telecommunication bill--the COPE Act--it continues to push forward. This could be a disaster for the Internet as we know it.

"The companies hope, for instance, to charge Yahoo! so that its site loads faster than Google's, or to make rival Net-phone firms like Vonage pay to use their broadband pipes. The first idea is akin to a gas station charging a Chevy driver more than a Honda driver. The latter is like AT&T putting static on your line when a Verizon customer calls. Neither is exactly competitive." --The Peoria (Ill.) Journal Star (full article below)

We can't let that happen. Tell Congress, any bill that passes must protect the open Internet!

The COPE Act passed out of committee and will go to the full House of Representative for a final vote next week with nothing in it to protect the Internet from the tactics of telecommunications giants. Meanwhile, a recently introduced Senate bill likewise fails to protect your right to unfettered Internet access.

But there is?good news. An alternative bill that would keep the Internet open and free, the ?Network Neutrality Act of 2006,? was recently introduced in the House. Lawmakers need to know that you expect them to keep the Internet, neutral, open and free.

Send a letter right now to?tell Congress that you don?t want cable and telephone companies to put tollbooths and speed bumps on the Internet!

This will only take a few moments, and when you finish please forward this message to all your friends and acquaintances who use the Internet so that they can take action, too. The Internet is too precious to turn over to the telephone and cable companies.

Sincerely,
Morgan Jindrich

HearUsNow.org
A project of Consumers Union

1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 310

Washington, DC 20009-1039

Just visit?http://cu.convio.net/tollbooth?and sent a note to Congress.

Just visit?http://cu.convio.net/tollbooth?and sent a note to Congress.

-------------------------------------

May 8, 2006 Monday 12:21 PM EST

Editorial

HEADLINE: Telecom network a Web of confusion

The last major federal telecommunications act passed in 1996, back when Google was but a fledging research project. Suffice it to say, much has changed in online commerce and content. The Internet moves quickly. Congress, however, moves slowly - as in 30k dial-up modem slow. When the House finally does hunker down, it takes a powder on one of the Net's hottest debates. That would be "network neutrality," a vague term that belies a simple concept.

Proponents argue that Internet service providers (ISPs) shouldn't have a say in which Web sites surfers visit or how fast those sites load. Providers, such as SBC/AT&T, merely supply the network with which to access the Internet and must remain neutral over its speed and content. An amendment to the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act delineating such a standard recently died in a House committee. That's an unfortunate failure; the Senate shouldn't hesitate to take up the matter in its own telecom bill.

Bloggers have been buzzing about the need for neutrality since SBC and BellSouth executives floated the idea of a "tiered" Internet. The companies hope, for instance, to charge Yahoo! so that its site loads faster than Google's, or to make rival Net-phone firms like Vonage pay to use their broadband pipes.

The first idea is akin to a gas station charging a Chevy driver more than a Honda driver. The latter is like AT&T putting static on your line when a Verizon customer calls. Neither is exactly competitive.

Without neutrality, there are other foreseeable effects. An ISP that sells music could make iTunes slow to a crawl. A big-box retailer could muscle out small guys by paying to have its site more accessible. Firms that use one company for Net access but another for online conferencing could witness speed disintegrate. Most disturbing is the threat to free speech. While ISPs maintain that they won't tinker with content, it may be hard to resist. Time Warner recently purged a mass e-mail critical of AOL, and a major Canadian Internet company prevented customers from visiting the site of its employee union. That's like a paperboy ripping out pages of a newspaper.

As telecoms merge and concentrate power, fewer companies will control access to the Internet. They are certainly entitled to make money. However, they want to move beyond charging subscribers and start charging Web sites simply for being online. Absent a neutrality standard, a few big companies could skew Net access beyond recognition.

Some of this can be so complex, especially for those not born in the computer age, that it can be difficult to wade through. But we all understand that competition is good. If America is entering the era of Internet regulation, it would be advisable if Congress erred on the side of competition and passed "network neutrality." Go ahead and Google it.

Reprinted with permission, The Peoria (Ill.) Journal Star.