I was disturbed and puzzled by The Week That Was item (Aug. 17) about the FTC's action against the cold remedy product Airborne. As far as I am concerned it is the only effective product on the market for stopping a cold in its tracks. And since it is not a drug, it has no side effects.

I have used it for more than three years; and it works! I have not had a single cold in all that time. Prior to that I got two to three colds a year.

Is this country so drug happy that if its not a drug it can't be good? How did the FTC come to [its] conclusion, by running lab tests? Why don't they ask users?

E. VINCENT BELLINI,
Robinson

In his "Congress May Be Forced to Address Net Neutrality" column (Aug. 17), TechMan ignores the devastating effects government regulation would have on the Internet.

High-speed Internet networks provide enormous benefits to consumers. Broadband is connecting patients to specialty care hundreds of miles away and reducing costs at the same time. It connects students with the best education resources regardless of where they live. It is saving consumers at the gas pump while also allowing them to stay productive at home through telecommuting.

We need robust networks to support these applications, not to mention sites like YouTube and NBCOlympics.com.

America's broadband providers are stepping up to make sure we do. This year alone nearly 1,400 broadband providers will invest $60 billion to enhance our nation's communications infrastructure so it can continue to meet our growing broadband demands.

Government simply cannot afford that large of an investment.

As for the misleading term "Net neutrality," the Federal Communications Commission already has in place guiding principles to ensure consumers have a positive experience on the Internet.

New regulations would only hinder innovation and, even worse, the investment that is bringing the promise of the Internet to more and more Americans.

REGINA HOPPER,
Executive Vice President US Telecom -- the Broadband Association