Online only letters to the editor

Net neutrality

Editor, The Times:

"Network neutrality" is a concept most Americans don't know about. It's essentially the First Amendment for the Internet — allowing Web users to go where they want and do what they please online. This democratic standard is why the Internet has become a revolutionary force for economic innovation and new ideas.

Large cable and telephone companies are planning to do away with net neutrality ["Plan for two-tiered Internet puts higher price on speed," Times, Business & Technology, June 22]. They're asking Congress to pass legislation that allows them to control which Web sites get priority over everything else and which ones are left behind.

In the last two weeks, Americans of every political stripe have banded together to stop companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from seizing control of the Internet and limiting online choice to the companies that pay them the most money. More than 500,000 Americans have written their representatives in Washington asking them to require all Web sites be treated equally.

From its beginnings, the Internet has leveled the playing field for everyone. Every day, people can have their voices heard by millions of people. SavetheInternet.com Coalition is working to ensure Congress passes no telecommunications legislation without enforceable Net neutrality protections.

In the Senate, Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) need support for a strong net neutrality bill that would prohibit broadband providers from fencing off the Internet for those who can pay the most.

All Americans need to urge our members of Congress to support net neutrality. Any one who cares about preserving Internet freedom should fight for it today.

— Bill Mead, Ellensburg

The issues of Internet neutrality and cable franchising now before Congress are some of the most important issues at hand. If free enterprise, free speech, education and innovation are to flourish, then we must have a future where there's financial separation between those who move data bits, and those who use those bits to produce and provide content and services.

If you look at network speeds, they are increasing by a factor of ten every three or four years. It's only been a few years since copper-based networks ran at 10 megabits per second. They are now poised to carry 1000 times more. With a little help from Congress, fiber owners will be able to develop, maintain and strengthen their monopoly over all information flow, because there's no viable technology to compete.

The telecom providers are pressuring Congress now because they want laws created while it appears there's competition from cable. However, in the long run, satellite, broadcast, cable, and emerging wireless technologies cannot compete with fiber. There's simply not enough bi-directional data-carrying capacity to deal with tomorrow's applications.

As a nation, we need to encourage innovation and competition, not protect the interests of a few big businesses that use their wealth to influence Congress. Our strength as a society depends on the innovation and hard work of the many, not the greedy, monopolistic behaviors of the few. In this information age this is especially important for the U.S. as it directly influences our ability to compete in world markets.

The Internet shouldn't be regulated. It's been the greatest technology ever for promoting competition, innovation, education and democracy. However, as information, services and products will eventually be delivered through monopolistic fiber networks; the network operators must be regulated, and should not be allowed to compete on content and services, except on a level playing field.

Fiber network companies can make money delivering bits, and charging by the amount of data traffic. However, in a democracy, all bits must be treated equally.

— Bob Cutler, Everett

If big telecommunications companies succeed in eradicating network neutrality, it will be as if the clock turned back to the 1980s — a decade of closed, proprietary computer networks — no World Wide Web, no Amazon.com, no Real Networks, and the huge growth of Microsoft during the '90s may not have happened.

Can you imagine what Seattle would have been like without those companies bringing in jobs?

The Internet should be open to everyone who pays a reasonable fee. If we sit and do nothing, this won't last.

SavetheInternet.com Coalition is working to ensure Congress passes no telecommunications legislation without enforceable net neutrality protections.

I urge your readers to consider writing and phoning their senators and representatives to defend network neutrality and protect the future of the Internet.

— Pace Arko, Seattle

Reichert's ways

It seems many have fallen under the spell of Auburn Republican Rep. Dave Reichert as "Prince Charming" ["Freshman GOP congressman has fans on both sides of aisle," News, June 26]. A real prince, indeed.

When Reichert "stood up to the GOP" on the Terry Schiavo vote, it was a farce. GOP leaders knew they didn't need his vote and could afford to allow their lapdog to "standup to the administration."

It would be good to remember that Prince Charming voted to cut the budget of the Veteran's Administration despite increased health costs from the war. He voted to cut the local Homeland Security funding for first responders. He's done nothing to protect us against the obscenely massive subsidies for the oil companies while we pay the price at the pumps.

Reichert has admitted to succumbing to the GOP pressure on votes. Actually, Reichert has voted with the Bush administration more than 90 percent of the time.

Hardly independent. Hardly charming.

— Richard Goe, Bellevue

Web of terror?

"Web of terror" [guest editorial, June 25] is unfortunately all too typical of the paranoia in public discourse on Islamist terrorism. Can we have a little perspective, please?

People have been induced to bite their nails over the specter of dirty bombs, suitcase nukes, anthrax sprayed from crop dusters, and other supposed weapons of mass destruction, even though these have never been anything but hypothetical. Internet use by terrorists and wannabes is darkly described as a satanic force that could destroy us all, when the effective reality of it may be just a few degrees more dangerous than online war games — a fantasy trip indulged in by alienated post-adolescents.

The fact is, even the worst terrorist attack can only have a temporary and mostly local effect, and many countries far weaker than ours have suffered such attacks without their governments and social systems crumbling into the dust.

The far greater danger is the kind of power grab we're seeing by the Bush administration: Using terrorism as an excuse for long-standing right-wing projects like invading Iraq and eliminating civil liberties. That, indeed, is a danger to our democracy and way of life.

— Chris Nielsen, Shoreline

G8 issues

Energy is one of the most important issues to be discussed at the G8 Summit in Russia. Last year's G8 statements regarding debt of poor countries and global warming have not been addressed and are likely to take a back seat to the push for increased oil investment in developing countries. Increased oil investment has been proven not to benefit developing countries — on the contrary it increases poverty and debt among the people of these countries. Developing countries continue to pay more for oil imports than they receive in debt relief. The threat of global warming makes the future for poverty stricken peoples even more dire. Climate change will cause the death of 182 million people in sub-Saharan Africa alone due to increased disease by the end of the 21st century. This devastation will not be confined to sub-Saharan Africa with climate-induced floods, famine, drought and conflict being the natural outcomes of our insistence on oil-production and consumption instead of alternative energy sources. The fight against global poverty and the effort to find comprehensive sustainable, renewable energy sources can go hand-in-hand. World leaders can "lead" and inspire healthy changes in policies or they can continue to put the interests of a few wealthy corporations and individuals above the health of the planet and the future of all humankind. We must let our leaders know that we insist they no longer put off the necessary move from oil dependence to energy sustainability and that they eliminate crushing debts of the poor countries in a cycle of poverty, starvation and desperation.

— Kathy Lillie, Seattle