this is so, so important

I've had friends tell me my site was blocked from a particular computer they were using, whether at work or elsewhere, for content. We take it for granted that just because we're uploaded we're accessible, but that's not the case now and it could definitely get worse. Please sign this, call your congressperson, do whatever you can. We are so far from "free," whatever that means, in this country it's not even a joke. This country is based on "paydom," not freedom.

Congress is on the verge of pushing through 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 principle that preserves the free and open Internet. These Internet providers would then be allowed to use their gatekeeper role to favor websites that pay what amounts to protection money—steering Internet users and online consumers in that direction.

Those who couldn't pay would have their web content marginalized—diminishing the voice and choice that everyday Americans have online. This strikes at the heart of what MoveOn believes in: The Internet is a revolutionary force for democratic participation, economic innovation, and free speech specifically because it has leveled the playing field for the little guy. That is now at risk.

We need to act now. Can you sign this petition to your member of Congress asking him or her not to ruin the Internet? Click here:

http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7336-170057-B4HwE.JJgqmDv.nYZrp14g&t=4

Then, please forward this to a friend. As detailed below, protecting Network Neutrality affects nearly everyone—online activists, Google users, Ipod listeners, work-at-home parents, small businesses, economic innovators, and others.

Those who sign this petition will be kept informed of how we can keep the heat on Congress—and which members of Congress are voting the wrong way.

We've already seen what happens when companies who serve as gatekeepers to the Internet abuse their power. Just last week, AOL blocked any email that mentioned a coalition of 600 organizations that MoveOn is a part of, formed to oppose AOL's proposed "email tax."¹ Last year, Canada's version of AT&T—Telus—blocked their Internet customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the local union during a contentious labor dispute.²

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."³

The time to act is now—can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know the public supports preserving the free and open Internet? Click here:

http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7336-170057-B4HwE.JJgqmDv.nYZrp14g&t=5

Please forward to 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
Wednesday, April 19th, 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=7336-170057-B4HwE.JJgqmDv.nYZrp14g&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. "AOL Blocks Critics' E-Mails," Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1649

2. "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

3. "At SBC, It's All About 'Scale and Scope," BusinessWeek, November 7, 2002
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1648

4. "Net Losses," New Yorker, March 20, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1646

5. "Don't undercut Internet access," San Francisco Chronicle editorial, April 17, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1645