Independent Internet Service Providers For America

If writing to Senators:                                If writing to House Representatives:
The Honorable (full name)                            The Honorable (full name)
(Room #) (name) Senate Office Building        —OR—    (Room #) (name) House Office Building
Washington, DC 20510    Washington, DC 20515

Date

Your name
Your company’s name
Your address line 1
Your address line 2
City, State, Zip

Dear Senator (last name):    —OR—     Dear Representative (last name):

I am writing to you because I am very concerned about the proposed changes to the telecommunications industry. These include the proposed mergers of AT&T/SBC and MCI/Verizon, TV franchise legislation, the Telecom Act re-write proposals, and the anti-municipal broadband bills. I do not think any of these proposals are going to be good for anyone but the largest corporations, and I want to tell you why.

These proposals will be bad for local economies and the economy as a whole

State TV franchise agreements and anti-municipality broadband bills will mean the end of many jobs and take tax revenue away from communities. If regional Bell operating companies (RBOCs) are given state franchise rights, municipalities and counties will lose franchise fees and communications taxes. If anti-municipality broadband bills like HR 2726 are passed, cities and towns will not be allowed to deploy their own broadband infrastructure. When phone and cable companies don’t either, communities will not have the Internet access necessary to compete in the global workplace.

Additionally, the RBOCs fiber deployment is redlining—in essence, promoting digital discrimination. For example, Verizon is only putting FiOS in affluent neighborhoods that already have DSL service. This type of behavior is not good for America and the economy as a whole.

An additional blow to the economy will be lost jobs. RBOCs have downsized almost 100,000 employees in the last two years, and will get rid of another 35,000 if these mergers are approved. Add to these job losses the jobs that will be lost as result of the IISPs closing and local, state and the national government will lose significant amounts of tax revenue and the individual purchasing that keeps the economy afloat.

These proposals will not encourage competition

If these mergers are approved one of the worst effects will be the resulting loss of competition in the telecommunications industry. They will reduce the number of companies in the industry, which will result in little or no healthy competition. This will in turn result in higher prices, as aggressive pricing only happens in competitive markets where the players are forced to keep prices low so they don’t lose business to the competition.

These proposals will also result in reduced innovation, because only when firms have to compete for business do they. Competition is why we have the variety of technology solutions we have and why Internet access was so quick to take hold in America; without the 7,000 ISPs that made the Internet accessible we might still have limited access nationwide.

These proposals will be the end of IISPs

Also please consider the fact that these mergers will drive IISPs out of business. If the FCC gives DSL equal treatment as cable modem IISPs will not be able to negotiate a favorable commercial agreement with the RBOCs for DSL circuits and will be forced to close. Because DSL service is regulated RBOCs charge the same prices to end users and IISPs. Remove these regulations and RBOCs will abandon IISP sales in favor of selling only to end users. Thousands of IISP jobs will be lost and over 7 million subscribers will be forced to switch to the TeleCable companies for Internet service, losing their freedom of choice.

These proposals will have negative effects on consumers, business, and non-profits

IISPs are the technology experts for their markets—the front-line of Internet security and network management and the experts people turn to for tech help. They provide critical instruction and value-added services in addition to Internet access. AT&T and MCI are not be able to provide this same local, hands-on assistance and will leave Internet users less educated at a time when they need to be more educated to fight the worms, virus problems, and identity theft that continue to increase.

Without this support of IISPs, emerging technologies like wi-fi, VOIP, broadband, and home networking will find it harder to penetrate the market. Consumers have difficulty adapting to new technologies and need the help of IISPs to understand them. What people don’t understand they don’t buy, so if IISPs are forced out of business people will be without a bridge to new technology. Consumers and technology producers will suffer as a result.

Another very important group that will suffer if the mergers are approved is non-profits. Many get free Internet access and technical support from IISPs and they simply cannot afford to pay retail prices. Without the help of IISPs they will not have Internet access, and both they and the people who depend on them will suffer.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my position. As you can see, the proposed changes to the telecommunications industry are not in the best interest of consumers or businesses except the very largest telecommunications firms. Small businesses are the lifeblood of the economy, and they cannot compete with corporate giants if the giants are given more leeway and considerations. I don’t want to see the end of IISPs or the loss of thousands of jobs.

Sincerely,

Your name