------=_Part_2159_17493168.1145991161023
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Someone check it on www.snopes.com
I can't access that website, because my school district has banned that site
as inappropriate...
On 4/25/06, 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 lawgiving a few corporationsthe power
> >> toend the free and openInternet as we know it.
> >>
> >> Tell Congress topreserve 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 behurt if
> >> Congresspasses a radical law thatgives giant corporations more
> >> control over the Internet.
> >>
> >> Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard
> >> togut Network Neutrality, theInternet's First Amendment.Net
> >> Neutrality prevents AT&T fromchoosing 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 providersor risks that online activism tools don't
> >> work for members. Amazon and Google either payprotection
> >> moneyorrisk that their websites process slowly on your computer.
> >> That why thesehigh-tech pioneersare joining the fight to protect
> >> Network Neutrality1 and you can do your part today.
> >>
> >> The free and open Internet isunder 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=3D7356-347076-
> >> an8SbRs70xz4702MtS41Ug&t=3D4
> >>
> >> Then, please forward this to3 friends. Protecting the free and open
> >> Internetis fundamental it affects everything. When you sign this
> >> petition, you'll be kept informed ofthe next stepswe can take
> >> tokeep the heat on Congress. Votes begin in a House committee next
> >> week.
> >>
> >> MoveOn hasalready seenwhat happens whenthe Internet's gatekeepers
> >> get too much control.Just last week, AOL blocked any email
> >> mentioninga coalition that MoveOn is a part of,which opposes AOL's
> >> proposed "email tax."2And last year,Canada's version of
> >> AT&T Telus blocked their Internet customers from visitinga website
> >> sympathetic toworkers with whom Telus was negotiating.3
> >>
> >> Politiciansdon'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 likeAT&T's CEO, whoopenly says,
> >> "The internet can't be free."4
> >>
> >> Together, we can let Congress know we are paying attention. We can
> >> make sure theylisten to our voices and the voices of people like
> >> Vint Cerf, a father of the Internet andGoogle'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=3D7356-347076-
> >> an8SbRs70xz4702MtS41Ug&t=3D5
> >>
> >> Please forward to 3 others who care about thisissue. 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 groupslike 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, ifnonprofitscan'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.
> >> Innovatorswith the "next big idea" Startups and
> entrepreneurs
> >> will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay
> >> Internet providers fordominant placingon 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
> >> guaranteetheir online salesprocessfaster than competitors
> >> withlower 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 Internetprovider, steering you to theirpreferred
> >> 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 signthe petition to
> >> Congress supporting "network neutrality," click here:
> >>> http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=3D7356-347076-
> >>> an8SbRs70xz4702MtS41Ug&t=3D6
> >> P.P.S. This excerpt fromthe 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=3D1653
> >>
> >> 2. "AOL Blocks Critics' E-Mails," Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2006
> >> http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3D1649
> >>
> >> 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=3D1650
> >>
> >> 4. "At SBC, It's All About 'Scale and Scope," BusinessWeek, November
> >> 7, 2002
> >> http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3D1648
> >>
> >> 5. "Net Losses," New Yorker, March 20, 2006
> >> http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3D1646
> >>
> >> 6. "Don't undercut Internet access," San Francisco Chronicle
> >> editorial, April 17, 2006
> >> http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3D1645
> >>
> >>
> >> 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=3D7356-347076-an8SbRs70xz4702MtS41Ug
> > David P. Morris, PhD
> > Senior Engineer, ElectroDynamic Applications, Inc.
> > morris Æ edapplications.com, (734)786-1434, fax: (734)786-3235
>
>
--
Fortune cookie gems:
"Creating is the greatest proof of being alive."
"Sometimes the best choice is to choose all options."
~ck~
------=_Part_2159_17493168.1145991161023
Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Someone check it on www.snopes.com
I can't access that website, because my school district has banned that site
as inappropriate...
On 4/25/06, Joshua J Estelle < jestelle Æ eecs.umich.edu >
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" >> < moveon-help Æ
list.moveon.org
> >> Date: April 20, 2006 5:57:58 PM EDT >> To: " ;Dave
Morris" < thecat Æ umich.edu > >> Subject: Congress is
selling out the Internet
>> >> Google, Amazon, MoveOn.All these entities are fighting back
as >> Congress tries to pass a lawgiving a few corporationsthe power
>> toend the free and openInternet as we know it.
>> >> Tell Congress topreserve the free and open Internet today .
>> >> <buttonxclickhere.gif> >> 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 behurt if
>> Congresspasses a radical law thatgives giant corporations more
>> control over the Internet. >> >> Internet providers like
AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard
>> togut Network Neutrality, theInternet's First Amendment.Net >>
Neutrality prevents AT&T fromchoosing 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
providersor risks that online activism tools don't
>> work for members. Amazon and Google either payprotection > ;>
moneyorrisk that their websites process slowly on your computer. >> That
why thesehigh-tech pioneersare joining the fight to protect
>> Network Neutrality1 and you can do your part today. >> ;
>> The free and open Internet isunder 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=3D7356-347076- >>
an8SbRs70xz4702MtS41Ug &t=3D4
>> >> Then, please forward this to3 friends. Protecting the free
and open >> Internetis fundamental it affects everything . When you sign
this >> petition, you'll be kept informed ofthe next stepswe can take
>> tokeep the heat on Congress. Votes begin in a House committee next
>> week. >> >> MoveOn hasalready seenwhat happens whenthe
Internet's gatekeepers >> get too much control.Just
last week, AOL blocked any email >> mentioninga coalition that MoveOn
is a part of,which opposes AOL's >> proposed "email tax. "2And last
year,Canada's version of >> AT&T Telus blocked their Internet
customers from visitinga website
>> sympathetic toworkers with whom Telus was negotiating.3 > ;>
>> Politiciansdon'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 likeAT&T's CEO, whoopenly
says, >> "The internet can't be free."4 >> >> Together, we
can let Congress know we are paying attention. We can
>> make sure theylisten to our voices and the voices of people like
>> Vint Cerf, a father of the Internet andGoogle'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=3D7356-347076- >>
an8SbRs70xz4702MtS41Ug &t=3D5
>> >> Please forward to 3 others who care about thisissue . 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
groupslike 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, ifnonprofitscan'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. >> ;
Innovatorswith the "next big idea" Startups and entrepreneurs >> will
be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay
>> Internet providers fordominant placingon 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 >> guaranteetheir online salesprocessfaster than competitors
>> withlower 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 Internetprovider, steering you to theirpreferred
>> 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 signthe petition to
>> Congress supporting "network neutrality," click here:
>>> http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=3D7356
-347076- >>> an8SbRs70xz4702MtS41Ug&t=3D6 >> P .P.S
. This excerpt fromthe 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=3D16 >> >> 2. "AOL Blocks Critics'
E-Mails ," Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2006 >>
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3D1649 >> >> 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=3D1650 >>
>> 4. "At SBC, It's All About 'Scale and Scope," BusinessWeek, November
>> 7, 2002
>> http://www.moveon .org/r?r=3D1648 >> >> 5. "Net
Losses," New Yorker , March 20, 2006 >> http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3D1646
>> >> 6. "Don't undercut Internet access," San Francisco
Chronicle >> editorial, April 17, 2006 >>
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3D16
>> >> >> 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=3D7356-347076-an8SbRs70xz4702MtS41Ug < ;
o.gif> > David P. Morris, PhD > Senior Engineer, ElectroDynamic
Applications, Inc. > morris Æ edapplications.com , (734)786-1434, fax:
(734)786-3235
-- Fortune cookie gems: "Creating is the greatest proof of being alive."
"Sometimes the best choice is to choose all options." ~ck~
------=_Part_2159_17493168.1145991161023--
|
