As our country becomes ever more entwined in the Internet and dependent upon its convenience, our vulnerability grows, which is why a recent court decision allowing cable companies to restrict access to their networks actually increases our risk. For these and many other reasons of economic fairness and civic duty, I want to ask that you and your legislative colleagues work to restore an equitable atmosphere to the Internet marketplace.

The court's decision gives cable companies undue power in the market. They will use this power to grow their market share out of proportion to their quality of service, and telephone companies will surely seek the same privileges. The result would be a broadband access market of only a few corporate providers. Should one of these providers become compromised, instantly tens of millions of consumers and businesses will be infected and at grave risk.

If Internet access were kept more fair, however, and networks forced to let others rent capacity at market rates, there would be thousands more eyes on the security of the network. Indeed, because smaller independent Internet service providers (IISPs) like myself work very closely with our clients, we have a better ability to quickly spot unsafe activity and shut it down before it can spread. But such extra layers of protection are only available in an atmosphere of equity, one with which the court has interfered.

I don't mean to criticize the U.S. Supreme Court. Their decision is legally accurate, but it is economically unfortunate and civically counterproductive. The court's strict interpretation of the law necessarily leads to fewer providers of vital broadband Internet, and that lack of diversification has negative consequences for the nation as a whole.

Small Internet providers like myself are lithe and quick, able to test new technology and make fast adaptations. We are also hungry and eager, so we are the leaders in customer service. We teach and fix and share new knowledge in order to add value to our service and grow our market in competition with larger companies. We know our clients and we know the details of their businesses, supporting them in ways no one else would. What's more, we work and live and spend in our communities, so we enhance the cities and towns we serve and help grow their economies, instead of sending our profits to a corporate office.

A more open field of competition need not mean large companies have to suffer. Their networks cost money and their investors deserve a return. But that investment should not preclude choice for the communities they serve. There is no practical way to have multiple networks, so the only way to create a fair market is to let other providers rent access on the large corporations' networks. That way they make money from the backbone while they compete with people like me for other services. Telephone companies left their networks open for dialup when the Internet first went public and we can see how quickly, efficiently and productively that sharing arrangement grew. There is money to be made through sharing broadband as well, and much other benefit at the same time.

Businesses like mine may be small individually, but we are large enough collectively that wiping us out would have a significant effect. There are now about 7,000 IISPs like mine, and we have 75,000 employees taking great care of our 7 million customers. To throw any of these populations, let alone all of them, into turmoil is an unnecessary disruption, but to do so in the service of an unfair marketplace makes no sense at all. What's more, it would affect the tax base of our communities and would also harm the effectiveness of the many small businesses we serve. We all know that small business is the employment generator for the country, so this is a considerable factor.

Those thousands of businesses and millions of customers are not just numbers, they are the life blood of their communities. They rely not only on our good service but also a competitive marketplace. If their choices are reduced to one of a couple large conglomerates, they effectively have no choice at all. They will be fed what the corporations want, allowed to learn online only what the corporations deem appropriate, and otherwise left with considerably less control over their lives. We all know information wants to be free, so it is antagonistic to put that freedom at the whim of a corporation with effective monopoly control. For consumers lacking choice and citizens lacking information, this undermining of local control is contrary to the very fabric of our nation.

Choice and freedom and opportunity are enhanced by broadband access, which is why President Bush wants national broadband by 2007. Large corporations can build that, but they are more inclined to build first in those areas already well served because that's where household income -- and profit margins -- are already high. That means those on the wrong side of the Digital Divide will remain there, even though they are the ones who most need good, fast Internet access to better improve their lot in life. So, the poor, the rural, the very salt of the earth that national broadband most needs to address will be the last served by large corporations. Conversely, IISPs like me have always been eager and willing to go anywhere the market leads us and extend services to new markets. If we are allowed onto the corporations' networks, we will quickly make the President's wish a reality.

There are many reasons why the situation the court decision created needs to be corrected. From security to economics to civics, broadband access has much to offer our country, but only if it is fairly and widely available. The full range of opportunities can only exist if we have an open, honest playing field on which many providers can compete. I ask simply that you work to make sure we have the chance to succeed that is the American dream.

Contact information:

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