(quoting from the MoveOn original item):
It is curious Move-On cited the old style common carrier policy as a justification for their position.
Yes, in the old days it was equal access, equal rates for all, and common carrier. But MCI successfully sued to throw all of that out of the window along with the courts and Congress. MCI claimed the right to carry public customers at lower cost when and if it suited them. That claim created "tiered" service. Our telecom service has been operating that way, for better or worse, ever since.
Most telecom services today are deregulated. That means you pay for what you want in a competitive marketplace. If your provider rips you off, too bad, it's buyer beware.
I can't help but suspect Move-On is being a little selfish here. Their operation works on mass emails -- to their members to promote causes, from their members to push politicians. Cheap or free email is necessary to do that. Perhaps Move-On is afraid of having to pay for what it now gets for free.
Sorry, but just because they're a non-profit doesn't mean they get a free ride. Another poster correctly pointed out that someone has to pay for the Internet. I don't want to subsidize Move-On.
Indeed, perhaps someone like myself who is a prolific Usenet poster is getting a free ride. Admittedly I like that deal very much, but I must admit it's not very fair.
Another poster noted the problems of spam and abuse. I think there are stll some "purists" or "romantics" out there who still think of the Internet as a pure form of like-minded people when it served only a very select audience of researchers. Those days are very long gone.
BTW, there's a intermediate load of mail I call "semi-spam". It's mail from someone you know and converse with, but stuff you're not really interested in. For example, say one of your friends is religious and keeps sending you little Bible quotes and the like, things you didn't ask for and always delete. (Or it could be political messages). Organizations -- both profit and non-profit of course do it all the time. A lot of people do this because it's so easy and free. This represents a wasteful load on the network.
As to Move-On's fear that major ISP controllers will restrict access to sites, I question that. Undoubtedly favored sites will get top billing, but that does not mean other sites will be degraded in access. TV and cable networks don't do that to favor their own shows or channels. They can't because consumers would raise hell if they did.
Actually, as I consumer, I wonder if some sort of "bit tax" might be a good idea. My dial-up home is essentially worthless these days because sites have some much layered overhead bloat you gotta have DSL to do anything in a realistic amount of time. That bloat doesn't give one any more information, only more pizazz on the screen. On the rare event I find an old site my dial up works just fine and the text flows and small graphics through quickly. At the present rate plain DSL will be obsolete and will have to go to industrial strength DSL or FIOS at much higher cost to us consumers. It is worth it to see pop up ads blink on and off?