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
|
