A move-on.org summary of new legislation coming soon to your
computer.
mike
>
> 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
> Neutrality [1]--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=7356-1678646-aiNT9M7MKze.Ct319A0G1g&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=7356-1678646-aiNT9M7MKze.Ct319A0G1g&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=7356-1678646-aiNT9M7MKze.Ct319A0G1g&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 (Sheila Cole) from this list,
> please visit our subscription management page at:
>
http://moveon.org/s?i=7356-1678646-aiNT9M7MKze.Ct319A0G1g
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 01 2006 - 01:00:12 PDT