Internet Neutrality

[Esq.]

I got this email from ebay the other day. I just got around to reading it.

Thoughts?

Net Neutrality and the eBay Community: A Call to Action


Dear XXXX,

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.

[MLA]

I think that if the legislation goes through, it will change things dramatically -- in a bad way. I'm very much opposed to the pay to play idea here. It would have a very negative impact on small companies that couldn't pay for the larger band-width -- not to mention the effect it would have on consumers trying to find information. This would benefit only one group -- big corporations. I'm all for capitalism, but in this case, I think it does business and the public a disservice.

[ThreeYell]

The blogs I read have been harping on net neutrality for months. Frankly, I found it boring and confusing. I could see arguments on both sides and didn't really care what happened one way or another. Then NPR did a pro/con opinion piece. Pro legislation was a guy from a telecom industry group. Anti legislation was Craig of Craig's List. That told me all I need to know and I'll side with Craig (and ebay) over the telcoms any day.

[wendalah]

Oh crap! Does this mean we won't be able to snipe bids anymore?!

[greenbunny]

This is a big issue, true, but I don't trust eBay to have any interest in it other than self-serving--especially considering their recent selfish behavior regarding their communities.

[artist]

This is a big issue, true, but I don't trust eBay to have any interest in it other than self-serving--especially considering their recent selfish behavior regarding their communities.

:confused:

Can you elaborate more on this? (I don't know what you're talking about, but it sounds interesting.)

[greenbunny]

I'm going to quote right from the comm I heard this on, so I don't misinterpret anything. This is from a pet rescue group:

I am a regular on the Animal Board on ebay.

I do hope I'm allowed to post this here.

Many of the AB'ers are either heavily or at least lightly involved in rescue, transport, foster, or assisting in placement of animals.

I have seen many animals pulled on their last day. I've seen sickly animals vetted, loved, and transported from maine to california for the perfect forever home.

I've seen lots of funds given to assist in surgeries, pull fees, etc. from members of the board, and they have together saved many a life.

Today, ebay posted a new set of rules that this will no longer be allowed on their animal board forum.

It's a sad day. Not for me, but for the animals in the future that could have used these people's help. Lets not forget, these are the same people who were wanting to implement LIVE ANIMAL SALES not too long ago, until the outpour of negative comments changed their minds......

Tell ebay what you think........

http://forums.ebay.com/db1/thread.jspa?messageID=2002845320&#2002845320


I was already disgusted with them for considering live animal sales, now this on top of it.

[thedoorchick]

This is a big issue, true, but I don't trust eBay to have any interest in it other than self-serving--especially considering their recent selfish behavior regarding their communities.

ITA. If eBay is promoting something, you can bet that it's 100% self-serving. This is something that I want to research more, but the fact that eBay is so against it makes me suspicious. I'd like to see some actual sources or articles on the subject, not just eBay's "call to action."

[ThreeYell]

Oh, I'm not arguing at all that eBay's interests aren't self-serving, just that I think the general public's interests align more with eBay than with AT&T. I admit I'm not a big eBay user but I am a big fan of Craig's List and that was the initial commentary I heard against the legislation.

Basically, from what I've read, this is an issue of top-down versus bottom-up internet; internet as community versus internet as commercial vehicle. For me, there's also an element of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Of course the ISPs want more power(money) and they have the lobby in place to fight for it. But giving them what they want is just that - giving the internet away to them. I'm utopian enough to think that the internet belongs to all of us and I don't want to see that change.

[wendalah]

I think the general public's interests align more with eBay than with AT&T.

While I adore eBay, it's just as much of a self-interested business as AT&T. It costs a fair amount of money to make money on eBay. You pay insertion fees, fees for various listing features, and a percentage of your final selling price right over to Meg. They are making money hand over fist. Craigslist is more of a public-interest model IMO.

[ThreeYell]

I'm not being clear enough. I expect eBay and any other for-profit business to act in their own self-interests. It would be silly not to. I'm just saying that in this case, eBay's interests and my interests are both served by maintaining net neutrality. Like I said, I don't eBay much - just to buy things like replacement earbuds for my iPod when that's where Apple told me to go. I was thinking of its beginnings as a new kind of internet merchant where anyone could sell anything to anyone. A very people-powered kind of thing. Now they make lots of money. Great for them. Money or not, I think they're on the right side of this debate.

Craig's List is a totally different model since it's all free. Does anyone make money off it? It's crazy but as much as I use it, I've never noticed if there are ads or not.

[wendalah]

Like I said, I don't eBay much - just to buy things like replacement earbuds for my iPod when that's where Apple told me to go.

If Apple told you to go to eBay, that should tell ya something right there.

I do understand what you are saying, though. I work for a digital provider, one of the biggies (and a competitor of the Fruit) so this whole topic is of interest to me.

[thedoorchick]

There is a charge to place job ads on Craigslist.

[ignutzz]

This issue extends so far beyond the interests of ebay, it's probably better to look at it from a more neutral (haha) position outside of any given corporation. It's also been talked about much earlier than ebay's email (I posted info to my LJ back in May and I know it's been discussed much longer than that).

NYT Editorial
Keeping a Democratic Web

"Net neutrality" is a concept that is still unfamiliar to most Americans, but it keeps the Internet democratic. Cable and telephone companies that provide Internet service are talking about creating a two-tiered Internet, in which Web sites that pay them large fees would get priority over everything else. Opponents of these plans are supporting Net-neutrality legislation, which would require all Web sites to be treated equally. Net neutrality recently suffered a setback in the House, but there is growing hope that the Senate will take up the cause. ...
Continue reading editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/opinion/02tue3.html?ex=1154836800&en=64d0eb37b08c2a31&ei=5070) (NYT editorial, will need account)

I found out about this from reading Wil Wheaton dot Net (http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2006/05/why_network_neu.html). Stop by his site to find more info and additional links.

If you'd like to read more, or help promote attention visit:
Save the Internet (http://www.savetheinternet.com)


to sign the petition click on the button:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/images/sti_button.gif (http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet)

[jnettie]

So, basicly if you can't pay the fee for your website, or aren't part of certain groups your website could load slower than others?

Or, if you are a customer of AT&T, those sites that pay a fee to AT&T load faster than those that don't?

Um, how exactly can they do that? I always kind of though of the internet as just kind of existing. You have to pay to access it, but once you're in, you're in.

[ignutzz]

jnettie Best uneducated,-but-I-used-to-work-for-a-IP-company-and-I-think-this-might-make-sense guess, they're routing certain data over the IP backbones with higher priorty depending on the information content. ETA: meaning whoever has paid the biggest bribe will get to disseminate their information the most/fastest.

Any industry person have a better/correct explanation?

ETA, A: Wikipedia entry on NN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Examples_of_discriminatory_access_b y_ISPs)