Dana, Not so! From the original messagage: "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:"
On Thu Apr 20 20:00:59 PDT 2006, Dana Spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This MoveOn campaign, as all (or just about all) campaigns for > common carriage and net neutrality isn't about free, but about > unfettered access. Just like you can pull out of your driveway > and go to the local store, or even across the country to a store > in California, without being restricted and cut off from that > means of transportation (via car, bus, bike, feet, etc.). This > is, right now, how the internet currently works, so there's > plenty of evidence that such a scheme leads to tremendous > economic growth. > > As usual, Jim, you are purposely putting misrepresentative words > in our collective mouths. > > Dana Spiegel > Executive Director > NYCwireless > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.NYCwireless.net > +1 917 402 0422 > > Read the Wireless Community blog: > http://www.wirelesscommunity.info > > > On Apr 20, 2006, at 10:29 PM, Jim Henry wrote: > >> I don't know. If the Internet should be free, then why not food >> and water? >> It's certainly more of a necessity! ;-) >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>> Of Dana Spiegel >>> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:08 PM >>> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net >>> Subject: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet >>> >>> >>> 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.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=7355-3566631- >>> h60jchVLX1e9.A7zdEdFew&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=7355-3566631- >>> h60jchVLX1e9.A7zdEdFew&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=7355-3566631- >>> h60jchVLX1e9.A7zdEdFew&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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dana Spiegel >>> Executive Director >>> NYCwireless >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> www.NYCwireless.net >>> +1 917 402 0422 >>> >>> Read the Wireless Community blog: >>> http://www.wirelesscommunity.info >>> >>> >>> -- >>> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ >>> Un/Subscribe: >>> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ >>> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.4.4/320 - Release >>> Date: 4/20/2006 >>> >>> >> > >
-- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
