Well said! That's been my point all along. ISPs have every right to manage their own networks. They also have the right to make bad business decisions. Jim
On Thu Apr 20 21:41:18 PDT 2006, "Kevin M. Agard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The internet generally isn't free. You and I pay for it in the > monthly fees we pay our ISPs. This is simply an attempt by these > larger ISPs to have the money flow from the taps at BOTH ends of > the pipe. > > Right now I have Verizon and I'm happy with the speed and service > but you can bet that if the day comes when I start having trouble > reaching a site like Google, which I tend to use at least a few > dozen times a day, because Verizon is screwing with the pipe to > them trying milk the cash cow, that will be the day I switch to > another provider. And I'm sure there will be those providers out > there smart enough to find and cater to the market not willing to > put up that kind of BS and make a killing on it. > > > > > 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: [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/ >> >> > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > >
-- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
