MoveOn.org launches Net Neutraility's call to action...

----- Forwarded Message ---- 
From: "Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org Civic Action" 
To: Rob Kelley 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:03:39 PM 
Subject: Congress is selling out the Internet 

Google, Amazon, MoveOn. All these entities are fighting back as Congress tries 
to pass a law giving a few corporations the power to end the free and open 
Internet as we know it. 
Tell Congress to preserve the free and open Internet today. 

Click Here 

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 Neutrality1—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=7355-2870923-p.EtH.bcK4rYn1g2cvJDrg&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=7355-2870923-p.EtH.bcK4rYn1g2cvJDrg&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=7355-2870923-p.EtH.bcK4rYn1g2cvJDrg&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 (Rob Kelley) from this list, 
please visit our subscription management page at: 
http://moveon.org/s?i=7355-2870923-p.EtH.bcK4rYn1g2cvJDrg
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Reply via email to