NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's an email that I just recieved from the CEO of Ebay. Please read this then tell me what you think and finally call / write your congressman.



Dear Kormanthor,

As you know, I almost never reach out to you personally with a request to get involved in a debate in the U.S. Congress. However, today I feel I must.

Right now, the telephone and cable companies in control of Internet access are trying to use their enormous political muscle to dramatically change the Internet. It might be hard to believe, but lawmakers in Washington are seriously debating whether consumers should be free to use the Internet as they want in the future.

Join me by clicking here -- http://www.ebaymainstreet.com/netneutrality -- to send a message to your representatives in Congress.

The phone and cable companies now control more than 95% of all Internet access. These large corporations are spending millions of dollars to promote legislation that would allow them to divide the Internet into a two-tiered system.

The top tier would be a "Pay-to-Play" high-speed toll-road restricted to only the largest companies that can afford to pay high fees for preferential access to the Net.

The bottom tier -- the slow lane -- would be what is left for everyone else. If the fast lane is the information "super-highway," the slow lane will operate more like a dirt road.

Today's Internet is an incredible open marketplace for goods, services, information and ideas. We can't give that up. A two-lane system will restrict innovation because start-ups and small companies -- the companies that can't afford the high fees -- will be unable to succeed, and we'll lose out on the jobs, creativity and inspiration that come with them.

The power belongs with Internet users, not the big phone and cable companies. Let's use that power to send as many messages as possible to our elected officials in Washington. Please join me by clicking here right now to send a message to your representatives in Congress before it is too late. You can make the difference.

Thank you for reading this note. I hope you'll make your voice heard today.

Sincerely,

Meg Whitman
President and CEO
eBay Inc.

P.S. If you have any questions about this issue, please contact us at government_relations@ebay.com.

iThe power belongs with Internet users, not the big phone and cable companies..
Pfft. LOL. ROFLCOPTER!!111!!! HAHAGHAGASGSGAHA!

The masses don't care about this. They're too stupid to be convinced that it matters, at least until it is too late.

I want a smart Internet that allocates traffic as efficiently as possible and which can accomodate the kind of services that I want. If you pass a net neutrality bill, the Internet infrastructure isn't going to keep up with the growth in traffic and it will greatly reduce its utility. Net neutrality creates a dumb network that will not be able to allocate bandwidth in the most efficient manner, which means there could be serious problems delivering on the promises of expanded services and improved infrastructure.

I'd rather pay more for more service (just like you do with your utility bills) than to sacrifice the quality and utility of my Internet connection just to boost the profit margins of Google, Amazon and Ebay.

Pfft. LOL. ROFLCOPTER!!111!!! HAHAGHAGASGSGAHA!

The masses don't care about this. They're too stupid to be convinced that it matters, at least until it is too late.

What abot you Neo, do you care? Why don't you do as I asked you to do instead of trying to start an arguement.

AOL is still a viable internet provided in the US. Americans know jack fucking shit about the internet.

I'd rather pay more for more service (just like you do with your utility bills) than to sacrifice the quality and utility of my Internet connection just to boost the profit margins of Google, Amazon and Ebay.
Point in question.

I want a smart Internet that allocates traffic as efficiently as possible and which can accomodate the kind of services that I want. If you pass a net neutrality bill, the Internet infrastructure isn't going to keep up with the growth in traffic and it will greatly reduce its utility. Net neutrality creates a dumb network that will not be able to allocate bandwidth in the most efficient manner, which means there could be serious problems delivering on the promises of expanded services and improved infrastructure.

I'd rather pay more for more service (just like you do with your utility bills) than to sacrifice the quality and utility of my Internet connection just to boost the profit margins of Google, Amazon and Ebay.


If this is to give internet users better service thats one thing. But if they mean to keep the little people off of the internet thats entirerly differant. Besides I am paying nearly $100.00 a month for my cable hook up now. How much more should I have to pay to get good service?

And again I ask, do other countries currently have the same legal restrictions on corporate internet behaviour that the US is considering repealing?

I don't think so, and the internet works pretty well outside the US.

With net neutrality, internet bandwidth risks becoming a current and classic example of the tradegy of the commons.

AOL is still a viable internet provided in the US. Americans know jack fucking shit about the internet.


Point in question.


I have a six gig, three computer conection to the internet and two cable TV connections. I know quite a bit about the internet, and I am an
American. Do not try to make this thread a racial agruement.

If this is to give internet users better service thats one thing. But if they mean to keep the little people off of the internet thats entirerly differant. Besides I am paying nearly $100.00 a month for my cable hook up now. How much more should I have to pay to get good service?

It would be up to the market, really. It could be more or less depending on the levels of service offered; given that telecommunications is an extremely competitive industry compared to 10 years ago, I'd say it will most likely be less rather than more. Even so, the telecom industry is one of the most heavily overseen in the country; it would be impossible to get away with anything anticompetitive due to the sheer level of oversight.

However, the alternative is lower quality service for the same price so it's hardly appealing compared to tiered service.

What abot you Neo, do you care?
I am not the masses. Most people are less inteligent than me.
And actually, no, I do not care.
AOL is still a viable internet provided in the US. Americans know jack fucking shit about the internet.
AOL's poor business practices and criminal consumer relations really have nothing to do with knowing anything about the internet.
Americans don't know jack shit about ethics. That's the problem.

I am an
American. Do not try to make this thread a racial agruement.

Oh yeah, that great race of U.S. citizens… :p

And again I ask, do other countries currently have the same legal restrictions on corporate internet behaviour that the US is considering repealing?
Stricter.

I don't think so, and the internet works pretty well outside the US.[/.quote]
In a socialistic (*GASP*) move, other countries worked with phone companies to create a powerful and encompassing infrastructure of lit-up lines going to places where people actually are increasing bandwidth, service, and decreasing the price paid for it. We pay more for cable than several European countries as well as Japan pay for speeds T1 or better.


The removal of net neutrality is a way for the telecom lobby to reinforce its stranglehold on all other bodies and punish players like Google, Amazon, and eBay for being successful, as well as fuck with European countries since the major hubs run through the US.

[quote]Do not try to make this thread a racial agruement.
a) I wasnt' aware America was a race.
b) Good job, you are one person. Argument dismissed.

And again I ask, do other countries currently have the same legal restrictions on corporate internet behaviour that the US is considering repealing?

I don't think so, and the internet works pretty well outside the US.

With net neutrality, internet bandwidth risks becoming a current and classic example of the tradegy of the commons.


What I am concerned about is keeping my current access to the internet. I am against government restriction of me being able to use the Internet as I want in the future.

Stricter.

[quote]I don't think so, and the internet works pretty well outside the US.[/.quote]
In a socialistic (*GASP*) move, other countries worked with phone companies to create a powerful and encompassing infrastructure of lit-up lines going to places where people actually are increasing bandwidth, service, and decreasing the price paid for it. We pay more for cable than several European countries as well as Japan pay for speeds T1 or better.


The removal of net neutrality is a way for the telecom lobby to reinforce its stranglehold on all other bodies and punish players like Google, Amazon, and eBay for being successful, as well as fuck with European countries since the major hubs run through the US.


a) I wasnt' aware America was a race.
b) Good job, you are one person. Argument dismissed.

Even so, the telecom industry is one of the most heavily overseen in the country; it would be impossible to get away with anything anticompetitive due to the sheer level of oversight.
You obviously don't understand that lobbies run American and these telecoms own half of fucking everything anyway. The telecom lobby has already prevented ventures from multiple entrepreneur sources that would have provided free wireless broadband internet to whole cities because that would create competition that they could not compete with.

However, the alternative is lower quality service for the same price so it's hardly appealing compared to tiered service.
The only way quality of service would reduce is if net neutrality is repealed at which point telecoms can reduce quality of service at will in order to hurt those who don't play along with their rules and bullshit. They want to stop competition, they have done it before and if we let this go through, you can expect to see prices go through the roof for the same level of service as currently provided.

I am against government restriction of me being able to use the Internet as I want in the future.
This thread is about telecoms telling you how you can use the internet in the future by removing further restrictions on anticompetitive practices. I thought you knew stuff because you have three computers and two tvs with cable.

Stricter.

[quote]I don't think so, and the internet works pretty well outside the US.[/.quote]
In a socialistic (*GASP*) move, other countries worked with phone companies to create a powerful and encompassing infrastructure of lit-up lines going to places where people actually are increasing bandwidth, service, and decreasing the price paid for it. We pay more for cable than several European countries as well as Japan pay for speeds T1 or better.


The removal of net neutrality is a way for the telecom lobby to reinforce its stranglehold on all other bodies and punish players like Google, Amazon, and eBay for being successful, as well as fuck with European countries since the major hubs run through the US.


a) I wasnt' aware America was a race.
b) Good job, you are one person. Argument dismissed.


The point was ... I don't want this thread to become a big arguement! I would like to gain information on this proposed bill and find people who can help us all in retaining our current level of access without a raise in the fees.

In a socialistic (*GASP*) move, other countries worked with phone companies to create a powerful and encompassing infrastructure of lit-up lines going to places where people actually are increasing bandwidth, service, and decreasing the price paid for it. We pay more for cable than several European countries as well as Japan pay for speeds T1 or better.
How is that socialist? The workers didn't take a vote, and the owners of the phone companies still profited tremendously. That's just the government doing it's job to build and maintain infrastructure to better improve capital exchange and investment. I love it.

The point was ... I don't want this thread to become a big arguement!
What the fuck? The topic is a fucknig question. Between that and the fact that there are two, maybe three, groups involved in this, creates argument. There are those who don't know shit about the internet, telecoms, or anything relating to net neutrality but support its removal. Those who oppose its removal because they know telecoms will fuck them in the ass. And those who support its removal because a) they are the telecoms or b) they are crazy Libertarians.

How is that socialist? The workers didn't take a vote, and the owners of the phone companies still profited tremendously. That's just the government doing it's job to build and maintain infrastructure to better improve capital exchange and investment. I love it.
The government subsidized it, its evil socialism. Welcome to American Opinion 101.

Google, Amazon and Ebay.
those companies wouldn't even be there without the openness and extreme competitiveness of the internet that has lead to so much technical innovation.
create barriers to entry for a market and you reduce customer choice, innovation, research & development, and reduce competitiveness.
that competitiveness is what has made the internet great. a two-tiered system would severely reduce innovation and new internet-startups, increase prices and reduce choice, putting the control of the internet into the hands of but a few. all that for some gains in efficiency that will be gotten anyway (necessity is the mother of invention), and could be ensured by some government funding or subsidies paid into the infrastructure of the net, rather than handing it over to a few multinationals...

(and on a political note, its not necessarily the cutthroat competitiveness of the internet that i respect so much, but the equality and relative meritocracy of the place)



interestingly i was reading about this some months ago in a computer magazine i get, and it was saying if the internet changes much as the result of this bill, many EU nations are considering putting their own version of the internet together and keeping it as-is.
i'm not sure if its fair for one country to dictate what happens to a communication tool used worldwide.

Let me also point out the fact that those people who use more bandwidth already have to pay for extra servers to handle the bandwidth. The telecom lobby is trying to hang on to life by throwing its age-based weight around in order to shut down competition to "legacy" systems like VoIP and free internet provided by corporations and entrepreneurs who derive the money for the internet from a source besides screwing over each individual user.

What the fuck? The topic is a fucknig question. Between that and the fact that there are two, maybe three, groups involved in this, creates argument. There are those who don't know shit about the internet, telecoms, or anything relating to net neutrality but support its removal. Those who oppose its removal because they know telecoms will fuck them in the ass. And those who support its removal because a) they are the telecoms or b) they are crazy Libertarians.


Ok, do you know what that bill number is? I will read it. If it is a good thing then thats fine. But I can't afford for the fees to go up much more
then I am paying now.

Those who oppose its removal because they know telecoms will fuck them in the ass. And those who support its removal because a) they are the telecoms or b) they are crazy Libertarians.
This is why I am not a libertarian. The telecoms are a bigger threat to capitalism and free trade than any net neutrality law possibly could be.
The government subsidized it, its evil socialism. Welcome to American Opinion 101.
Well, unless of course it's oil companies or arms manufacturers.

Well, unless of course it's oil companies or arms manufacturers.
Or farmers.

Or farmers.
Aye. Forgot about them.

If I want to put up a website, it should be seen by everyone that can access the internet. I shouldnt have to pay to give it special priority.

People who post sites are obviously users of the internet. They are already paying an ISP money. Why should they have to pay more?

You obviously don't understand that lobbies run American and these telecoms own half of fucking everything anyway. The telecom lobby has already prevented ventures from multiple entrepreneur sources that would have provided free wireless broadband internet to whole cities because that would create competition that they could not compete with.


The only way quality of service would reduce is if net neutrality is repealed at which point telecoms can reduce quality of service at will in order to hurt those who don't play along with their rules and bullshit. They want to stop competition, they have done it before and if we let this go through, you can expect to see prices go through the roof for the same level of service as currently provided.


This thread is about telecoms telling you how you can use the internet in the future by removing further restrictions on anticompetitive practices. I thought you knew stuff because you have three computers and two tvs with cable.


I don't need your attitude bub, I need facts. If you can give me facts fine, if you can't either stop cutting me down or get off of my thread!

I don't need your attitude bub, I need facts. If you can give me facts fine, if you can't either stop cutting me down or get off of my thread!
I don't know how things work up in the RP forums, but down here, nobody owns a thread.

It should be pretty easy to find anticompetitive moves by the telecoms to shut down VoIP and free wireless broadband in New York I believe it was.

I don't know how things work up in the RP forums, but down here, nobody owns a thread.

I started this thread ... that makes it mine. I am trying to gain information and help for an issue that I am concerned about, but all I am getting is a hard time.

It should be pretty easy to find anticompetitive moves by the telecoms to shut down VoIP and free wireless broadband in New York I believe it was.

Do you have a link?

Do you have a link?

I cant provide you with alot of information or links but I work for a VoIP company and I can tell you right now we have had ALOT of trouble getting our traffic allowed through some ISPs.

What I am concerned about is keeping my current access to the internet. I am against government restriction of me being able to use the Internet as I want in the future.
This would be the removal of a government restriction.

I will research this and post what I find

This would be the removal of a government restriction.

Yeah its the removal of a government restriction that restricts the telcos to put restrictions on the internet.

I prefer this one government restriction rather than the corporate restriction.

This what I found on the first link I visited;

House Internet Restriction Legislation Comes Under Opposition
Jul 26, 2006 By Gina M. Scott
The US House of Representatives could vote on HR 5319, referred to as the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA), as early as Wednesday. This bill would limit funds given all schools and libraries receiving e-rate funds where minors can access social networking and chat room Web sites, and would required the installation of technology solutions that would restrict minors' access. If passed, the legislation would deny access to any area of the Internet where users may post home pages or other information, including eBay, Yahoo!, MSN, AOL, and millions of other sites.

The bill has been met with criticism from various organizations. The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) said it opposes legislation that would withhold federal technology funds from schools and libraries.

"This bill is so broad, it denies a significant portion of the Internet to children, seniors and poor Americans who depend upon their local libraries for access to the Web ," said ITAA Vice President Mark Uncapher. "It's natural to want to protect our children, but there are much more precise instruments available to the Congress and state and local officials."

The American Library Association (ALA) also opposes the bill, saying that it "paints an unflattering and distorted view of the Internet as a whole." While testifying before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Beth Yoke, executive director of Young Adult Library Services Association, stated that "youth librarians believe, and more importantly know from experience, that education about Internet practices -- for both youth and parents -- is the best way to protect young people." Yoke also suggests that the types of broad, technological controls required under the DOPA can be ineffective, and "often inadvertently obstruct access to beneficial sites."





Gina M. Scott

I cant provide you with alot of information or links but I work for a VoIP company and I can tell you right now we have had ALOT of trouble getting our traffic allowed through some ISPs.
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/20_1/statelocal/25291-1.html
Telecoms are starting to develop their own VoIP services so they can get VoIP regulated and shut out cheaper, if not free, services.

http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/20_1/statelocal/25291-1.html
Telecoms are starting to develop their own VoIP services so they can get VoIP regulated and shut out cheaper, if not free, services.


" The idea of local governments giving wireless access free to citizens has drawn fire from high-speed, broadband service providers, which believe the move encroaches on their business. "


Most of the people that these services are targeted for can't afford to pay for internet services. So the internet provideres position that it would take business away from them is stupid. I read a story the other day that said it was feared by some that America wasn't producing enough scientist to keep it in the fore front on future innovations. Making the internet available to poor families would enable children of poor families to have a better chance to realize their true potential in life, whatever that is. So what we are talking about really is an investment in the future of our children, not lost profits in my opinion.

" The idea of local governments giving wireless access free to citizens has drawn fire from high-speed, broadband service providers, which believe the move encroaches on their business. "


Most of the people that these services are targeted for can't afford to pay for internet services. So the internet provideres position that it would take business away from them is stupid. I read a story the other day that said it was feared by some that America wasn't producing enough scientist to keep it in the fore front on future innovations. Making the internet avilable to poor families would enable children of poor families to have a better chance to realize their true potential in life, whatever that is. So what we are talking about really is an investment in the future of our children, not lost profits in my opinion.
My point was solely to prove that net neutrality is bullshit and is a power grab by the telecoms to save their asses.

Here's a link to the 2005 FCC Study on Telephone Trends. I think that this might be relavate because of the new types of telephone service offered over the internet.

http://www.tnstelecoms.com/downloads/fcc/trendsjune05.pdf

http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/20_1/statelocal/25291-1.html
Telecoms are starting to develop their own VoIP services so they can get VoIP regulated and shut out cheaper, if not free, services.

Which is perfectly fine, its competition. But the second you block another's VoIP...

I've also seen referances to the Amendment I on some the links I found so here is a copy of the First Amendment.

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Which is perfectly fine, its competition. But the second you block another's VoIP...

Could be construde as trying monopolize an industry

Could be construde as trying monopolize an industry

Exactly.

Monopolies are illegal, so why don't you hire an Attorney?

What I want is to make sure that my rights as a citizen isn't taken away from me. That is what I started this thread for, Althouigh I must say I don't agree with anyone who believe that they should be able to monopolize an industry.