Cable companies were overjoyed with the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision about Internet access because they received something near monopoly power. Customers of those companies and of other, smaller companies, however, will be harmed by this decision. There are ways to create a more equal marketplace to restore proper economic order.

Customers would rather have a smaller company provide their Internet access because smaller companies main competitive advantage is customer service. For customers and other small businesses, a small Internet service provider is like having a friend in the business because the smaller providers can and do provide the instruction and guidance that helps users get all they can out of the information highway. Furthermore, smaller companies can adjust more quickly and so take advantage of new technologies faster than can a large corporation. That makes a smaller provider a better value, as well as a better partner, particularly for other small businesses.

The Court's decision may have been precisely accurate given existing law, but it may still not be right for America. Because there are customers who would rather have options in their service providers, letting cable companies -- and eventually telephone companies -- exclude other providers will only interfere with a healthy economy. As an independent Internet service provider, and a small busines operator, I want to ask you to use your legislative and oversight powers to help recreate a fair environment for Internet access.

The Court's decision dealt with cable companies and saw them as different from telephone companies, but the two types of conglomerates are working toward identical business models. That's why the telephone companies are sure to request the same exclusivity the court granted cable, yet that would be even worse for our economy. Creating one near monopoly was unfortunate, but allowing an ever-shrinking number of companies to control all our Internet access would make that situation worse.

With cable's new freedom to exclude from its networks, it can not only restrict businesses like mine, it can decide which news and information flows to the people it serves. It can decide which products they can buy and which options they have. Because broadband is the main conduit for all information services, customers and companies will lose the local control that makes our country the robust republic it is. When telephone companies lobby for similar favors, consumers will no longer have the ability to choose, which will harm the vitality of our economy. Information wants to be free and the people want to be able to choose their sources and make up their own minds. The only way to do this is to let the many voices of independent providers share the public's attention with their larger corporate rivals. It's only fair.

Companies like mine are small, but we make up a significant part of the market. There are 7,000 IISPs like myself, serving 7 million customers and thousands of other small businesses. We operate all over America, even in the smallest places, and give jobs to 75,000 others. We and our employees not only pay taxes, we also contribute to our local economies in ways our corporate competitors do not, because they take wealth out of our communities. Small businesses like ours are the backbone of the economy, the greatest job creators, and the best partners for our communities, so it makes sense for us to continue to be allowed to play a role in the Internet.

Cable's newfound advantage flies in the face of history, particular the Bell breakup 20 years ago. There are reasons why information services should not be monopolized, even to a small extent, and the telephone companies that are watching cable and competing with it know this. But they will still seek an equal footing with cable. Rather than exacerbate the cable situation, though, you should work to make cable more like the phone companies, whose open access to dialup is what gave the Internet the quick spread it enjoyed (through IISPs like mine, I should add). Phone companies didn't suffer from that openness and made money from the use of their lines. There is every reason to repeat that successful scenario with cable so customers can have choice and broadband can spread as quickly as dialup did.

We all want broadband everywhere as soon as possible. President Bush has asked for national access by 2007, and we can accomplish that. But it will take more than a handful of conglomerates to do so, in part because large corporations will, as they always have, seek to maximize share value by skimming the profitable customer bases first, leaving those on the other side of the Digital Divide for another day. IISPs, however, are only too glad to reach out to even the smallest markets, as we've always done. To make that possible, though, we'll have to have access to the cable networks through a practical market-based relationship. Then, and only then, will the lower end of our economy, the remote and rural, the very heartland have the kind of broadband access we all need to be able to bootstrap our way to prosperity. If IISPs are shut out of cable, however, small businesses like mine will simply close, leading to other closures and a greater disconnect with your constituents than we have today.

It is possible to fill in the gaps with other options, like wireless technologies and municipal networks. These would need to be as open to other providers too in order to create competition that will benefit the consumer. The large companies are working hard to prevent wireless from getting market share and to stop municipalities from serving the people the large companies don't seem to care about. If we create an environment where networks of any flavor are open and available for anyone to rent, we will vastly increase broadband usage, which will boost our whole economy. Legislation to make that happen will have to start with you and your colleagues, however, because the encumbent providers would rather own all of a smaller pie than help us all make the pie larger.

Those large companies will tell you that they can provide better security for our nation's data infrastructure than can lots of small businesses. Government security experts, however, will tell you different and will show you with their willingness to partner with creative small businesses that are closer to the issues. A diversity of providers will be safer than a few large connections because companies like mine know our customers intimately and can spot inappropriate network traffic that would be lost in a large company. What're more, if my company is compromised, I'm the canary in the coalmine, showing the way for other providers, large and small. If a large company is corrupted, it's millions of customers won't know what hit them all at once. There is value in having many eyes on a problem, so the security issue is truly more in favor of many small providers.

We pride ourselves in this country on choice and competition. To give cable companies (and telephone companies soon thereafter) the ability to limit choices will upset our competitive balance in ways that can only disrupt our constantly reinventing economy and nation. There is room for large companies, but they must likewise make room for smaller ones that keep us all on our toes and bring tomorrow's services to our friends and neighbors. I know you'll agree and am eager to hear of your work to make sure that Internet access is a fair and open market, not the province of a few large corporations.

Contact information:

http://www.ii4a.org, email: isps@ii4a.org or phone 813-496-2122