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: [email protected] > 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/
