> I'm afraid I'm singularly unimpressed by www.savetheinternet.com. It certainly failed to convince me.

I'm with you on this one. I really don't understand what all the commotion is about; everybody seems to be doom-and-gloom slippery-sloping from "if providers of big heavy content pay us more money, we'll devote more network resources of some kind to them" to "EVERYBODY must pay us LOTS of money or get CUT OFF ENTIRELY."

What I mean is this. A few months ago, Yahoo and AOL adopted a new service whereby companies that sent out large amounts of bulk mail could pay a fee and have the two providers guarantee delivery to the end-user with no risk of being caught in a spam filter. Everybody raised holy hell - some people declared that the "e-mail tax" was going to mean that soon EVERY message would be spam-filtered unless the sender paid the surcharge, while others declared that this would mean an end to the usefulness of spam filtering, since spammers would be able to pay a fee and avoid them. Both were irrational doom prophecies based on poor understanding of the situation. This is the same impression I get from savetheinternet.com.