X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.0-r372567 Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k3PIchXO009300 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:38:43 -0400 Received: from galaxyquest.mr.itd.umich.edu (galaxyquest.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.93.145]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.2/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k3PIcdXZ019064; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:38:39 -0400 Received: FROM out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) BY galaxyquest.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 444E6CAB.E668E.509 ; 25 Apr 2006 14:38:36 -0400 Received: from frontend2.internal (frontend2.internal [10.202.2.151]) by frontend1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D93D4C35E; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:38:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend3.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.152]) by frontend2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:37:51 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: 54aIWV5bbez4udm6y9YpvLP4WPwbfiCOmEUpQ1fx8D4h 1145990254 Received: from [64.6.200.86] (unknown [64.6.200.86]) by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1303B6F; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:37:34 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <1eb39e23b94096b873c4cdb59d43d8f5 Æ eecs.umich.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.623) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r372567 (2006-01-26) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boston.eecs.umich.edu id k3PIchXO009300 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:38:12 -0400 To: Dave Morris Cc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Joshua J Estelle Subject: Re: Congress is selling out the Internet Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 438 I believe this is a fairly serious issue and I'm glad MoveOn is letting people know about it. Vint Cerf (of Google) spoke out on the issue back in November when there was a hearing with congress on the topic, check Google's blog post about it here: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/vint-cerf-speaks-out-on-net- neutrality.html There's lots more about this out in the world and I encourage you to read more if you're interested. Josh On Apr 25, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Dave Morris wrote: > Has anyone heard about this? Anyone know if it's serious or not? > > Dave > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org Civic Action" >> >> Date: April 20, 2006 5:57:58 PM EDT >> To: "Dave Morris" >> Subject: Congress is selling out the Internet >> >> Google, Amazon, MoveOn. All these entities are fighting back as >> Congress tries to pass a law giving a few corporations the power >> to end the free and open Internet as we know it. >> >> Tell Congress to preserve the free and open Internet today. >> >>   >> Click Here >> >> Dear MoveOn member, >> >> Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an Ipod? These >> activities, plus MoveOn's online organizing ability, will be hurt if >> Congress passes a radical law that gives giant corporations more >> control over the Internet. >> >> Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard >> to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net >> Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most >> easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. Amazon doesn't >> have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to work more properly on >> your computer. >> >> If Net Neutrality is gutted, MoveOn either pays protection money to >> dominant Internet providers or risks that online activism tools don't >> work for members. Amazon and Google either pay protection >> money or risk that their websites process slowly on your computer. >> That why these high-tech pioneers are joining the fight to protect >> Network Neutrality1—and you can do your part today.  >> >> The free and open Internet is under seige—can you sign this petition >> letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network >> Neutrality? Click here: >> >> http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7356-347076- >> an8SbRs70xz4702MtS41Ug&t=4 >> >> Then, please forward this to 3 friends. Protecting the free and open >> Internet is fundamental—it affects everything. When you sign this >> petition, you'll be kept informed of the next steps we can take >> to keep the heat on Congress. Votes begin in a House committee next >> week. >> >> MoveOn has already seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers >> get too much control. Just last week, AOL blocked any email >> mentioning a coalition that MoveOn is a part of, which opposes AOL's >> proposed "email tax."2 And last year, Canada's version of >> AT&T—Telus—blocked their Internet customers from visiting a website >> sympathetic to workers with whom Telus was negotiating.3 >> >> Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this issue. Many >> of them take campaign checks from big telecom companies and are on >> the verge of selling out to people like AT&T's CEO, who openly says, >> "The internet can't be free."4 >> >> Together, we can let Congress know we are paying attention. We can >> make sure they listen to our voices and the voices of people like >> Vint Cerf, a father of the Internet and Google's "Chief Internet >> Evangelist," who recently wrote this to Congress in support of >> preserving Network Neutrality: >>>> My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the >>>> Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits >>>> network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of >>>> services and to potentially interfere with others would place >>>> broadband operators in control of online activity...Telephone >>>> companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network >>>> operators should not dictate what people can do online.4  >> The essence of the Internet is at risk—can you sign this petition >> letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network >> Neutrality? Click here: >> >> http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7356-347076- >> an8SbRs70xz4702MtS41Ug&t=5 >> >> Please forward to 3 others who care about this issue. Thanks for all >> you do. >> >> –Eli Pariser, Adam Green, Noah T. Winer, and the MoveOn.org Civic >> Action team  >>   Thursday, April 20th, 2006 >> P.S.  If Congress abandons Network Neutrality, who will be affected? >> • Advocacy groups like MoveOn—Political organizing could be slowed >> by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups >> to pay "protection money" for their websites and online features to >> work correctly. >> • Nonprofits—A charity's website could open at snail-speed, and >> online contributions could grind to a halt, if nonprofits can't pay >> dominant Internet providers for access to "the fast lane" of Internet >> service. >> • Google users—Another search engine could pay dominant Internet >> providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search engine opens >> faster than Google on your computer.  >> • Innovators with the "next big idea"—Startups and entrepreneurs >> will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay >> Internet providers for dominant placing on the Web. The little guy >> will be left in the "slow lane" with inferior Internet service, >> unable to compete. >> • Ipod listeners—A company like Comcast could slow access to >> iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that it owned.  >> • Online purchasers—Companies could pay Internet providers to >> guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors >> with lower prices—distorting your choice as a consumer. >> • Small businesses and tele-commuters—When Internet companies like >> AT&T favor their own services, you won't be able to choose more >> affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet >> phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your >> office. >> • Parents and retirees—Your choices as a consumer could be >> controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred >> services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, >> planning vacations, etc. >> • Bloggers—Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio >> clips—silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the >> hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.To sign the petition to >> Congress supporting "network neutrality," click here: >>> http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7356-347076- >>> an8SbRs70xz4702MtS41Ug&t=6 >> P.P.S. This excerpt from the New Yorker really sums up this issue >> well. >>>> In the first decades of the twentieth century, as a national >>>> telephone network spread across the United States, A.T. & T. >>>> adopted a policy of "tiered access" for businesses. Companies that >>>> paid an extra fee got better service: their customers' calls went >>>> through immediately, were rarely disconnected, and sounded >>>> crystal-clear. Those who didn't pony up had a harder time making >>>> calls out, and people calling them sometimes got an "all circuits >>>> busy" response. Over time, customers gravitated toward the >>>> higher-tier companies and away from the ones that were more >>>> difficult to reach. In effect, A.T. & T.'s policy turned it into a >>>> corporate kingmaker. >>>> >>>> If you've never heard about this bit of business history, there's a >>>> good reason: it never happened. Instead, A.T. & T. had to abide by >>>> a "common carriage" rule: it provided the same quality of service >>>> to all, and could not favor one customer over another. But, while >>>> "tiered access" never influenced the spread of the telephone >>>> network, it is becoming a major issue in the evolution of the >>>> Internet. >>>> >>>> Until recently, companies that provided Internet access followed a >>>> de-facto commoncarriage rule, usually called "network neutrality," >>>> which meant that all Web sites got equal treatment. Network >>>> neutrality was considered so fundamental to the success of the Net >>>> that Michael Powell, when he was chairman of the F.C.C., described >>>> it as one of the basic rules of "Internet freedom." In the past few >>>> months, though, companies like A.T. & T. and BellSouth have been >>>> trying to scuttle it. In the future, Web sites that pay extra to >>>> providers could receive what BellSouth recently called "special >>>> treatment," and those that don't could end up in the slow lane. One >>>> day, BellSouth customers may find that, say, NBC.com loads a lot >>>> faster than YouTube.com, and that the sites BellSouth favors just >>>> seem to run more smoothly. Tiered access will turn the providers >>>> into Internet gatekeepers.4 >> Sources: >> >> 1. "Telecommunication Policy Proposed by Congress Must Recognize >> Internet Neutrality," Letter to Senate leaders, March 23, 2006 >> http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1653 >> >> 2. "AOL Blocks Critics' E-Mails," Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2006 >> http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1649 >> >> 3. "B.C. Civil Liberties Association Denounces Blocking of Website by >> Telus," British Columbia Civil Liberties Association Statement, July >> 27, 2005 >> http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1650 >> >> 4. "At SBC, It's All About 'Scale and Scope," BusinessWeek, November >> 7, 2002 >> http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1648 >> >> 5. "Net Losses," New Yorker, March 20, 2006 >> http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1646 >> >> 6. "Don't undercut Internet access," San Francisco Chronicle >> editorial, April 17, 2006 >> http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1645 >> >> >> Subscription Management: >> This is a message from MoveOn.org Civic Action. To change your email >> address, update your contact info, or remove yourself (Dave Morris) >> from this list, please visit our subscription management page at: >> http://moveon.org/s?i=7356-347076-an8SbRs70xz4702MtS41Ug > David P. Morris, PhD > Senior Engineer, ElectroDynamic Applications, Inc. > morris Æ edapplications.com, (734) 786-1434, fax: (734) 786-3235