More info can be found at: http://saveaccess.org

Also – competition between two media monopolies is hardly competition. And while the sponsors of this Bill tout lower consumer prices, the reality and trade-offs are far more costly. In Texas where a State Franchise Bill passed, there has been slight drops in cable prices, but telco rates went up. In addition, local Public, Educational and Governmental access channels are already under attack and have an uncertain future.

On the other hand some ISPs have blocked large attachments over certain sizes from going through their email systems. Or the ISPs have turned off customers or blocked certain IP addresses or IP blocks where there are Denial of Service attacks or spam mail being generated. There has been no law on this issue.

The real problem is lack of competition for the “last mile” access. In other words, there is currently a duolopoly – cable and the old Bell telephone companies (now called Verizon, BellSouth, and AT&T). These Bell companies have worked in a systematic way to close down other competing ISPs using the Bell network and wires to deliver internet. It is natural to want to stop competition especially when the competitors are allowed by law to use the monopoly’s wires.

It is not because MCI and the old-AT&T voluntarily wanted to get away from offering their “family” and unlimited calling telephone plans in 2004. These companies were forced out of the business by the FCC. The Bells “lobbied” hard with Congress and the FCC to bring competition to a stop, threatening not to deliver fiber to the home if competition continued. The result was that MCI and the old AT&T businesses suffered. MCI and the old AT&T were sold to their competitors at rock bottom prices. Verizon snatched up MCI and SBC took AT&T. This is really good business if you are the winner. The AT&T brand name is amazingly powerful, almost equalling the authority and power of a government agency which AT&T what is was, in effect, from 1934 to 1984.

Less competition means less choice. Why use Verizon DSL if you have a choice? If there was choice competition would force network neutrality. If there is one, or two sources, of internet in your town, then these companies control the bottleneck, the “gateway” it is called in anti-trust law. Controlling the gateway allows the “competitor” to charge what they want to users on both sides. Thus, the old Bell companies will be able to charge the DSL home user and the web site sought out by the home user.

No competition is the issue. There is no IPS competition because the FCC has given the Bells duopoloy control of the wires outside your homes.

Change this and network neutrality will not be an issue. Customers who do not get to Google because of their Bell ISP can go to another ISP.

Competition will prevent the Bell’s from blocking.