Nacy Pelosi has a petition on her website
http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/issues/net_neutrality_/index.cfm
Anyone who agrees with what it says should sign it. They have already got
250,000 signatures.
-----------------
We, the undersigned, oppose the lack of Network Neutrality protections in the
the COPE Act, sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton  (R-TX).  We strongly urge passage
of the Network Neutrality amendment sponsored by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), along
with Representatives Rick Boucher (D-VA), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), and Jay Inslee
(D-WA).

Whereas, the free and open nature of the Internet has fostered unprecedented
innovation and economic growth;

Whereas, a fundamental part of the Internet’s nature is the fact that no one
owns it and it is open to all comers;

Whereas, the Barton Bill would block the FCC from restoring meaningful
protections for Internet consumers and entrepreneurs, and from prohibiting the
imposition of bottleneck taxes and other discriminatory actions on the part of
broadband network operators, such as AT&T and Verizon;

Whereas, the imposition of additional fees for Internet content providers would
unduly burden web-based small businesses, start-ups, as well as communications
for non-commercial users, religious speech, civic involvement, and exercising
our First Amendment freedoms;

Whereas, the Markey amendment will effectively thwart attempts by broadband
behemoths to block, impair, or degrade a consumer’s ability to access any
lawful Internet content, application, or service; will protect my right to
attach any device for use with a broadband connection,; will ensure that phone
and cable companies cannot favor themselves or affiliated parties to the
detriment of other broadband competitors, innovators, and independent
entrepreneurs; and it will prohibit the broadband Internet providers from
charging extra fees and warping the web in a multi-tiered network of bandwidth
haves and have-nots.

Therefore, I join as a citizen co-sponsor of the Markey Amendment to save the
Internet as we know it. 

On Wednesday 26 April 2006 11:10, Erica O'Connor wrote:
> The attachment is the more interesting bit.  Sounds
> like Dingell is solidly against the bill.
> -Erica
> 
> April 26, 2006
> 
> 
> Erica O'Connor
> 408 North Hamilton St.
> Apt. 2
> Ypsilanti, Michigan  48197
> 
> Dear Erica:
> 
>	Thank you for your recent comments concerning
> efforts to 
> reform our nation's telecommunications laws.	I
> appreciate hearing 
> from you.
>	
>	As you know, the Congress has begun work to
> update the 
> telecommunications laws to encourage competitors to
> enter the 
> cable television market.  Studies have found that
> cable television 
> prices are lower in markets where there are competing
> cable 
> providers. 
>	
>	I believe that statutory changes may be
> necessary to spur 
> competition.	Any changes, however, must not weaken
> the ability 
> of local governments to manage the public
> rights-of-way or result 
> in a decrease in franchise fee revenue for local
> communities.	It is 
> also important to ensure that control over Internet
> content is not 
> left to the sole discretion of network providers.  I
> have enclosed 
> my opening statement from the recent
> Telecommunications and 
> Internet Subcommittee hearing on proposed legislation.
>  
>	
>	Again, thank you for being in touch.  For news
> on current 
> federal legislative issues, please visit my website at
> 
> www.house.gov/dingell; you can also sign up there to
> receive my 
> e-newsletter.  In the meantime, please do not hesitate
> to contact me 
> again if I may be of assistance with this or any other
> matter of 
> concern.
>	
>	With every good wish,
> 
>						 
> Sincerely yours,
> 
>							
>  
>						  John
> D. Dingell
>						  Member
> of Congress
> 
> **Please do not respond to this message.  This mailbox
> is unattended.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com