Since 2005, Washington lobbyists representing a number of Internet providers, such as AT&T and Verizon, have been pushing lawmakers in Congress to set rules that would allow the telecommunication companies to control their transmission rates, so preferential treatment can be given to paid subscribers.

Internet providers said this concept emerged from examining high-traffic sites like Google that use providers' networks for free to conduct business, according to a February report from IDG news service.

Verizon Vice President John Thorne said site's like Google are getting a "free lunch" that should be going to the facilities providers, the report stated.

AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre had similar comments about sites like Google and Vonage, a voice-over-Internet IP provider, according to an article published in November's issue of BusinessWeek.

"Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that, because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it," Whitacre said in the article.

However, if the new bill is passed, it would allow providers to discriminate against other Web sites and applications.

Basically, the providers would have the power to significantly slow down the loading processes of certain sites, or even block them completely unless site owners pay the providers to allow their sites to be accessed and viewed.

Though the Internet providers have said they will not exercise this power to its fullest extent, others are skeptical because of the potential control the Internet companies could yield on the Internet.

Erica Haferkamp, a Cleburne resident and co-owner and operator of Sagentic Web Design, said she feels very strongly on the subject of providers giving preferential treatment to certain sites.

She said as a customer, she believes providers should only be able to charge for the speed of their connection, and she already pays to have an ultra-fast connection.

"The broadband providers' business is charging the amount of Internet," she said. "The providers are already powerful enough, but to turn around and charge Internet companies premium treatment is unfair to smaller Internet companies. I as a customer want to access any site I want."

Haferkamp said the situation could cause business deals that would allow two partners, such as SBC and Yahoo, to join and slow down or shut out sites like Google entirely. The move could also sink smaller businesses that rely solely on the Internet for commerce.

"It could force people out of business," Haferkamp said. "I believe it's an unfair game of monopoly."

Haferkamp said if the bill is passed, many business owners simply would not be able to support a Web site. If the providers begin charging the search engines a premium for service, that cost would be kicked-back to the businesses, who would have to pay to be listed in searches. Many businesses just use good programming to be listed near the top of searches, she said.

"If this were to be allowed then it would make it so exorbitantly expensive, because to have a site, I would have to pay the search engines, then pay the telecom companies," Haferkamp said.

"It would actually make having a Web site for a business owner so expensive that only the rich and privileged could afford it, and it would make it impossible for the smaller business owners, who are presently able to use the Internet as a very successful form of advertising."

By Philip Navarrette/Staff Writer - Cleburne Times-Review

Philip Navarrette can be reached at 817-645-2441, ext. 2337, or moc.elcrt@retroper.