Legislation is being considered that will allow ISPs to charge web sites to have features work for that ISP's customers. In other words, if you have a small business with ecommerce, or flash on your graphic design portfolio, or home videos on your personal site, you have to pay not only for your domain name and hosting, you have to pay numerous ISPs in whatever regions you want your site seen to enable these features. It's exactly like the protection fees charged by criminals.

Net Neutrality is the basic assumption that if you've paid for hosting or a server and worked to make a usable site, that site should be viewable by anyone with Internet access. If you're an Internet user seeking information on a medication, for example, you should be able to view non-profit consumer support sites as well as big-money pharmaceutical sites. If the non-profit group warning of the dangers of medication X can't afford to pay your ISP the fee to use their site, you're not going to see it. Net Neutrality, the free speech inherent in the Internet at this time, prevents this kind of scenario from happening.

Ways to support keeping Net Neutrality:

• Enter Jeff Pulver's Save the Internet contest (there's a prize if you have the winning promo idea)


• Sign MoveOn's petition supporting keeping Net Neutrality.


• Blog; speak out online about your opinions. This helps!

Some of you may have seen the Russell Shaw ZDNet blog denigrating the MoveOn petition in favor of the Pulver campaign, arguing that because MoveOn generally disagrees with promoters of the end of Net Neutrality, those promoters will not care about the position. I disagreed, and posted this comment to him in response:

This reasoning promotes the problem it describes

It occurs to me that at a time when Republicans seem to be questioning traditional Republican beliefs (supporting the Bush administration, not caring for the environment), the feedback of thousands of people can't hurt. Do you think the diminishing support of the White House was not aided by years of groups and individuals, labelled liberals but simply speaking against a lack of integrity, gathering together in coalitions such as MoveOn? Of course it was!

By your reasoning, people who disagree with those pursuing or advocating a policy should try to find support for their opposition within the party of the person they oppose. If there were a Republican or conservative group fighting Net Neutrality, I'd sign up with them as well as with MoveOn, but I don't find that online.

Mr. Pulver's Save the Internet initiative is wonderful, but so is MoveOn's for people who aren't Flash or video designers. Give them a voice, give Mr. Pulver a voice, and you stand a much better chance of the overall zeitgeist changing.

Sadly, in this polarized (but perhaps slowly growing less so?) country, any opposition is going to be viewed as tied to the "other side," be that side Democratic or Republican. Your reasoning promotes the very polarity that you are saying damages MoveOn's petition, it does not solve the problem. The more people sign MoveOn's petition, the less fringe-liberal the movement seems.

Everyone should be blogging, signing any petition against this they can find, and if possible entering Mr. Pulver's contest and similar efforts, not critiquing two groups with the same goal.