Homestead mailing list

["Lisa K. V. Perry" <lkvp AT floydva.net>]

This is what I received yesterday from MoveOn.org:

> 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 prioritizing which websites open most easily for 
> you based on which site pays AT&T more. Amazon.com 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=7351-1322514-j5uAO8NSgUX4qmLorvGl.Q&t=4 
> <http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7351-1322514-j5uAO8NSgUX4qmLorvGl.Q&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=7351-1322514-j5uAO8NSgUX4qmLorvGl.Q&t=5 
> <http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7351-1322514-j5uAO8NSgUX4qmLorvGl.Q&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=7351-1322514-j5uAO8NSgUX4qmLorvGl.Q&t=6
>     
> <http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7351-1322514-j5uAO8NSgUX4qmLorvGl.Q&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