President Bush has said that he wants national broadband access by 2007. The recent court decision that allowed cable companies to exclude other Internet providers from using their networks will prevent this worthy goal from becoming reality. As an independent Internet service provider, I urge you to take action to make networks open and create a competitive environment so small businesses like mine can help achieve the President's goal.

We all know that large, publicly owned companies like cable providers seek to satisfy their shareholders. High-margin markets are a good source of profits that boost share price. When cable companies (and the telephone companies that are seeking similar advantage) look for new customers, they will not be looking at the far-flung consumers on the wrong side of the digital divide. Companies like mine, however, have always gone after every market, no matter how small, and would gladly do so again. But closed networks like cable now enjoys will serve to drive companies like mine out of business and make it impossible for us to have national broadband in any reasonable time.

The court's decision is correct, but counterproductive. The court interprets law, but you and your colleagues write it and oversee the agencies that apply it. To achieve national broadband access and the many economic and political benefits that go along with it, you will have to act to restore equal footing to the most important marketplace in our country today. There are ways to do so that will profit all, not just those benefitting from a narrow judicial decision.

The court essentially gave cable companies something like monopoly rights, yet we know from the Bell breakup that this is not productive. It will be much more fair and economically productive to require broadband networks be open to other Internet providers who would rent their use. The network owners can provide access themselves while they rent capacity so they would not lose by becoming open, except that they would lose an inappropriate monopoly power. Of course, I have my own interests, but it so happens that my interests are aligned with those of the larger economy. I just want my fair chance to compete for customers.

The court somehow sees cable companies as different from telephone companies, who have had open dialup networks for years, much to the benefit of consumers, the spread of the Internet, and the growth of the economy generally. Because cable and telephone companies are both deploying networks to provide data, video and voice, they are identical providers. We should recognize the parallel between the benefits of open dialup networks and those of potentially open broadband networks, no matter their owners.

I may be one small company, but I am one of 7,000 IISPs that employ 75,000 people and serve 7 million customers nationwide. Exclusing us from cable -- and eventually telephone -- networks will kill these business, remove these jobs from the economy, and take the salaries that supported local businesses and give them to distant corporations. Small businesses are the heartbeat of America, so we know that removing such a large number will do not good for our economy. Nor will it help our communities.

If large corporations can decide what flows through the broadband networks that bring most of our communities information, those communities become subject to the influence of the corporations instead of their own educated judgment. Consumers could be steered toward specific products rather than letting market power decide winners. Corporate-sponsored media outlets would gain a greater mindshare than they deserve simply because they would exclude opposing views. The very dear concept of local control of government would be put in jeopardy because of direct corporate influence. This is not what our free-market system is all about.

I don't mean to suggest that large companies are always bad actors. There is room for them and for me. But there are some very good reasons to keep smaller providers like myself in the game. Companies like mine are often able to change much more quickly than are larger companies, making us innovators and early adopters of revolutionary technologies. More importantly, in my business I need to work very closely with my clients, providing them guidance and support and even training. Because of that, I often cater to other small businesses (the best job creators) and multiply my own local economic effect through my clients. If I disappear, those other businesses will likewise struggle, creating an economic contraction that harms even large companies. There is room for all sizes, but I'll need your help in creating equal opportunity to help others while I help myself.

Smaller companies like mine also provide some unique security benefits. Because I work close to my clients and know their activity, I am quicker to spot unusual or corrupted data. I can correct this situation faster than can a large company, but even if I fail in that, fewer people are at risk before a problem becomes known. The more eyes there are on our security, the safer it is for all of us. In addition, many of my colleague companies take advantage of their intimate customer knowledge to devise effective security products, effective enough to attract the attention of government security experts. This safety for our vital data services is another reason why the market needs smaller companies as much or more than larger ones.

A diversified portfolio is effective investment and a diversified Internet environment is equally beneficial for our cities and towns and for our economy generally. I am not looking for a favor, merely a return to equality so my efforts and energy can benefit my clients in reasonable competition with other companies, regardless of their size. I'm happy to work hard to make my country and community great, but I need the opportunity to be able to make that happen. I am hopeful I can count on you to help us return to that fair, free market.

Contact information:

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