DarkSyde wrote a diary today "Louder Than Words" that suggested we should pursue an active engagement in the progressive movement. One of my first contribution was to write to my Congressional Representative.
I did this because he was a Democrat who voted on the wrong side of the net neutrality issue. I never expected even a form letter back but I did receive an email from him or one of his staff who signed as him.
I'll paraphrase his response. He said that he didn't necessarily disagree that the Internet should remain open and asked if I had an existing example of an ISP "blocking" or "tiering" a content provider.
Here was my response:
Since 1990 I have been employed in the high tech industry here in the area commonly referred to as the 'Silicon Forest'. I've worked at Microsoft but I prefer to work at smaller companies. I have always been working with the emerging technologies, on the 'bleeding edge'. The Internet is a priceless tool that allows me to increase my knowledge and provide value to my employers. It would be a shame to have the ubiquitousness of this resource compromised in any way. That is what prompted me to initially contact you. It allows me to maintain my competitive advantage over all of the world's programmers. The fact that I can get equal access to any source whether it is a giant like Microsoft or some programmer who is maintaining a blog is paramount to my occupation.
The broadband providers will say that they can't continue to build out the infrastructure unless they are given the flexibility to recover the money they have invested. This is coming from an industry that pays the CEO's of Verizon, AT&T, Qwest, Sprint and Bell South over $10,000,000 a year. The fact that other areas of the world can afford to build out their infrastructure shows that it can be done.
You asked about any examples of my being discriminated against. I live only about 19 miles from the Microsoft campus and I don't even have Internet access from either the cable or the telecommunication companies. My ISP is the satellite company called Starband. I bought and maintain my own equipment at a cost to date of about $2500. I pay a monthly fee of $75 for Internet access. The fact that cities like Philadelphia and San Francisco want to provide broadband service at low costs should demonstrate that the costs are not prohibitive. These cities initiatives are fought tooth and nail by the telecommunication and cable companies. This shows that they are not going to be nondiscriminatory if they are given the opportunity to decide whom the content providers are.
It is my opinion that the providers of access to the Internet should not be allowed to discriminate against any lawful content or even some entrepreneurial rival service. If some day I decide to provide home movie via streaming video of the grandkids to the rest of the family I don't
want my content to be slowed down because I'm not on some network provider's 'preferred' list.
If you want to help me maintain my competitive advantage and provide an environment here in 'Silicon Forest' that will drive innovative ideas then you should do all in your power to ensure net neutrality. The Internet providers should not be allowed to become the gatekeepers. They should not be allowed to decide that certain Internet traffic is given faster or more efficient access at the expense of others.
The very next day I got this in response:
I agree with your points and will factor them into my future votes.
You can make a difference. Take DarkSyde's encouragement and participate.