A lot of organizations on both sides of the aisle (MoveOn to the Gun Owners of
America) have come together to create http://www.savetheinternet.com/
Apparently the commerce committee may vote on the new telecommunications reform
bill as early as tomorrow.
Ali
On Tuesday 25 April 2006 14:38, Joshua J Estelle wrote:
> 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 56-347076-
> >> 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 56-347076-
> >> 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 56-347076-
> >>> 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 53
> >>
> >> 2. "AOL Blocks Critics' E-Mails," Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2006
> >> http://www.moveon.org/r?r 49
> >>
> >> 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 50
> >>
> >> 4. "At SBC, It's All About 'Scale and Scope," BusinessWeek, November
> >> 7, 2002
> >> http://www.moveon.org/r?r 48
> >>
> >> 5. "Net Losses," New Yorker, March 20, 2006
> >> http://www.moveon.org/r?r 46
> >>
> >> 6. "Don't undercut Internet access," San Francisco Chronicle
> >> editorial, April 17, 2006
> >> http://www.moveon.org/r?r 45
> >>
> >>
> >> 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 56-347076-an8SbRs70xz4702MtS41Ug
> > David P. Morris, PhD
> > Senior Engineer, ElectroDynamic Applications, Inc.
> > morris Æ edapplications.com, (734) 786-1434, fax: (734) 786-3235
>
>
|
