On 4/25/06, = Joshua J Estelle <jestell= e Æ eecs.umich.edu> wrote:

I believe this is a fairly serio= us issue and I'm glad MoveOn is letting
people know about it.

Vin= t 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-cer= f-speaks-out-on-net-
neutrality.html

There's lots more about this out in the worl= d and I encourage you to
read more if you're interested.

Josh
=

On Apr 25, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Dave Morris wrote:

> Has any= one heard about this? Anyone know if it's serious or not?
>
> Dave
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
&= gt;> From: "Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org Civic Action"
>> = <moveon-help Æ list.moveon.= org >
>> Date: April 20, 2006 5:57:58 PM EDT
>> To: &q= uot;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 corporationst= he power
>> toend the free and openInternet as we know it.
>>
>> Tell Congress topreserve the free and open Internet to= day.
>>
>> <buttonxclickhere.gif>
>> Click= Here
>>
>> Dear MoveOn member,
>>
>>&n= bsp; Do you buy books online,use Google, or download to an Ipod?These
>> activities, plus MoveOn's online organizing ability, will behu= rt if
>> Congresspasses a radical law thatgives giant corporations= more
>> control over the Internet.
>>
>> Intern= et 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 mos= t
>> 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 p= roperly on
>> your computer.
>>
>> If Net Neutra= lity 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
&g= t;> moneyorrisk that their websites process slowly on your computer.
= >> That why thesehigh-tech pioneersare joining the fight to protect
>> Network Neutrality1=97and you can do your part today.
>&= gt;
>> The free and open Internet isunder seige=97can you sign thi= s petition
>> letting your member of Congress know you support pre= serving Network
>> Neutrality? Click here:
>>
>> http://www.c= ivic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=3D7356-347076-
>> an8SbR= s70xz4702MtS41Ug&t=3D4
>>
>> Then, please forward this to3 friends. Protecting = the free and open
>> Internetis fundamental=97it affects everythin= g. When you sign this
>> petition, you'll be kept informed ofthe n= ext stepswe can take
>> tokeep the heat on Congress. Votes begin in a House committee = next
>> week.
>>
>> MoveOn hasalready seenwhat h= appens whenthe Internet's gatekeepers
>> get too much control.Just last week, AOL blocked any email
>> mentioninga coalition that Mo= veOn is a part of,which opposes AOL's
>> proposed "email tax.= "2And last year,Canada's version of
>> AT&T=97Telus=97blo= cked 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 tele= com companies and are on
>> the verge of selling out to people likeAT&T's CEO, whoopen= ly says,
>> "The internet can't be free."4
>>>> Together, we can let Congress know we are paying attention. We c= an
>> make sure theylisten to our voices and the voices of people li= ke
>> 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 woul= d place
>>>> broadband operators in control of online activi= ty...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=97can you sign this p= etition
>> letting your member of Congress know you support preser= ving Network
>> Neutrality? Click here:
>>
>> http://www.c= ivic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=3D7356-347076-
>> an8SbR= s70xz4702MtS41Ug&t=3D5
>>
>> Please forward to 3 others who care about thisissu= e. Thanks for all
>> you do.
>>
>> =96Eli Parise= r, Adam Green, Noah T. Winer,and the MoveOn.org Civic
>> Action te= am
>>  Thursday, April 20th, 2006
>>  P= .S. If Congress abandons Network Neutrality,who will be affected?
>&g= t;      =95     &nbs= p; Advocacy groupslike MoveOn=97Political organizing could be slowed
>= ;> by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups
>> to pay "protection money"for their websites and onli= ne features to
>> work correctly.
>>   &nb= sp;  =95       Nonprofits=97A chari= ty's website could open at snail-speed, and
>> online contribution= s could grind to a halt, ifnonprofitscan't pay
>> dominant Internet providers for access to "the fast lane&= quot; of Internet
>> service.
>>    &= nbsp; =95       Google users=97Another s= earch engine could pay dominant Internet
>> providers like AT&= T to guarantee the competing search engine opens
>> faster than Google on your computer.
>>  &n= bsp;   =95       Innovatorswit= h the "next big idea"=97Startups and entrepreneurs
>> wi= ll be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay
>> Internet providers fordominant placingon the Web. The little g= uy
>> will be left in the "slow lane" with inferior Inte= rnet service,
>> unable to compete.
>>   &= nbsp;  =95       Ipod listeners=97A= company like Comcast could slow access to
>> iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that it = owned.
>>      =95   =     Online purchasers=97Companies could pay Internet provide= rs to
>> guaranteetheir online salesprocessfaster than competitors
>> withlower prices=97distorting your choice as a consumer.
&g= t;>      =95     = Small businesses and tele-commuters=97When Internet companies like>> AT&T favor their own services, you won't be able to choose m= ore
>> affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing,Intern= et
>> phone calls, and software that connects your home computer t= o your
>> office.
>>      = =95       Parents and retirees=97Your choices= as a consumer could be
>> controlled by your Internetprovider, steering you to theirpref= erred
>> services for online banking, health care information, sen= ding photos,
>> planning vacations, etc.
>>  &n= bsp;   =95       Bloggers=97Co= sts will skyrocket to post and share video and audio
>> clips=97silencing citizen journalists and putting more power i= n the
>> hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.To signthe p= etition 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
>> wel= l.
>>>> In the first decades of the twentieth century, as a = national
>>>> telephone network spread across the United Sta= tes,=20 A.T. & T.
>>>> adopted a policy of "tiered access&q= uot; for businesses. Companies that
>>>> paid an extra fee g= ot better service: their customers' calls went
>>>> through = immediately, were rarely disconnected, and sounded
>>>> crystal-clear. Those who didn't pony up had a harder t= ime making
>>>> calls out, and people calling them sometimes= got an "all circuits
>>>> busy" response. Over ti= me, customers gravitated toward the
>>>> higher-tier companies and away from the ones that were= more
>>>> difficult to reach. In effect, A.T. & T.'s po= licy turned it into a
>>>> corporate kingmaker.
>>&= gt;>
>>>> If you've never heard about this bit of business histo= ry, there's a
>>>> good reason: it never happened. Instead, = A.T. & T. had to abide by
>>>> a "common carriage&q= uot; 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 m= ajor issue in the evolution of the
>>>> Internet.
>>>>
>>>> Unti= l recently, companies that provided Internet access followed a
>>&= gt;> de-facto commoncarriage rule, usually called "network neutrali= ty,"
>>>> which meant that all Web sites got equal treatment. Ne= twork
>>>> neutrality was considered so fundamental to the s= uccess of the Net
>>>> that Michael Powell, when he was chai= rman of the=20 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 co= uld end up in the slow lane. One
>>>> day, BellSouth custome= rs may find that, say,=20 NBC.com loads a lot
>>>> faster than YouTube.com, and that t= he sites BellSouth favors just
>>>> seem to run more smoothl= y. Tiered access will turn the providers
>>>> into Internet= =20 gatekeepers.4
>> Sources:
>>
>> 1. "Telecom= munication Policy Proposed by Congress Must Recognize
>> Internet = Neutrality," Letter to Senate leaders, March 23, 2006
>>=20 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3D16= 53
>>
>>  2. "AOL Blocks Critics' E-Ma= ils," Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2006
>> http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3D1649
>>
>> 3. "B.C. = Civil Liberties Association Denounces Blocking of Website by
>> Te= lus," 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= 45
>>
>>
>> Subscription Management:
>&g= t;  This is a message from MoveOn.org Civic Action. To change you= r 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&= lt; o.gif>
> David P. Morris, PhD
> Senior Engineer, ElectroDyna= mic Applications, Inc.
> morris Æ edapplications.com, (734)786-1434, fax: (734)786-3235