eBay CEO Meg Whitman sent me a Letter - WOW!

[on-ramp]

I suppose Ebay's business model is threatened....

-------------------------------------
Dear veryfinebooks-online,

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.

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 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.

[1967 R50/2]

Actually, I have read about this, and I am with Meg on this issue. The local phone companies and the cable companies are local MONOPOLIES.

They should not be given any more power than they currently have.

The only thing that can possibly result from this is that MORE PEOPLE WILL SURF AT WORK...which will cost their employer's money while making the cable monopolies rich.

[deathpunk dan]

she is 100% correct. NO good can come from a tiered 'net. I know the idiot bushists want to turn back the clock to a different era, but they seemed to have forgotten to stop at the imaginary father-knows-best 1950s, and have set the wayback machine for the 1890s.

[yellowline]

Originally posted by deathpunk dan
] they seemed to have forgotten to stop at the imaginary father-knows-best 1950s, and have set the wayback machine for the 1890s.

Agreed, but if the Democrats were against it, they'd complain as loud as they could in great Democrat fashion. Something tells me they're in on this...

Congress is going from "failure" to "infuriating" to "destructive" really quickly.

[Joeaksa]

Its all Bush's fault. He hates the internet.

[928ram]

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 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.

Who wrote this letter?????? Someone will have to pay, either she-who-will-profit, or you.

The phone and cable companies now control more than 95% of all Internet access.

This is the current option; option 2 would be that the govt. takes over and adds content control as well.

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.

Again, who wrote this letter? Any red flags going up??

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.

The "bottom tier" is the internet as it currently operates, the "(new) super-highway" will give ebay an avenue to increase profits; it's just that they want someone else to pay the increased overhead.

Like most things internet-based, you're only getting 1/2 (or less) of the story from Meggy and are expected to swallow it while wallowing in ignorance; maybe it should be turned over to the Govt.

[techweenie]

Anyone in his/her right mind is in agreement on this one: the co-inventor of the Internet, Tim Berners-Lee has spoken out in favor of Net Neutrality. The EFF has spoken in favor.

Net Neutrality is essential.

Who's against it? The telephone companies and their bought-and-paid-for congresspeople.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[Porsche-O-Phile]

She is speaking for the people she represents - shareholders of Ebay stock. Obviously ebay would take a big hit on this, they obviously wouldn't let their profits slip, so they'd jack up fees even more and market share would plummet.

On the upside, maybe there would be some good of increased fees on ebay - less bot-generated listings and automated "L@@K HERE DOOD!!!" crap. But maybe not. In any case, I don't think a tiered internet is the way to accomplish better, more above-board, less obnoxious ebay auctions. It's like killing a gnat with a flamethrower and burning your house down in the process.

The internet was originally arpanet - a government project designed to provide redundant communications in time of national peril. As such, the government does actually have a say in this. It's ultimately their network - not the telecommunication companies' network.

If tiered internet is such a good idea, then the telecom. companies can establish their own such tiered networks and then make the case for using it directly to the end users. Live by free market ideology, die by free market ideology.

[deathpunk dan]

tiered internet is awful...you can say goodbye to free blogs like blogger.com and things like that.

get it through your f#ckin head: It is NOT just the CEO's of e commerce giants who will suffer.

[928ram]

"net neutrality" = listening to Amos and Andy around the family radio

Internet is a business, and those who provide it must make a profit or it will stagnate. Improving technology cost money; do you want to pay for it, or do you want those who live rent-free while making billions to pay their fair share?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by 928ram
"net neutrality" = listening to Amos and Andy around the family radio

Internet is a business, and those who provide it must make a profit or it will stagnate. Improving technology cost money; do you want to pay for it, or do you want those who live rent-free while making billions to pay their fair share?

What a moronic statement.

youtube.com is paying over $1 million a month for bandwidth, by some accounts. That is their fair share.

The real reason for a 'tiered internet' is that phone companies are losing revenue to Vonage and other IP-based phone services. That is the 'free market.'

A 'tiered' Internet creates a legislated 'special class' for phone companies.

[928ram]

What a moronic statement.

No, what's moronic (an childish) is name call over the internet.

youtube.com is paying over $1 million a month for bandwidth, by some accounts. That is their fair share.

Based on what??? Do you have intimate knowledge of every dollar spent across the net and open book access to cost of every company who carries youtube's bandwidth?

The real reason for a 'tiered internet' is that phone companies are losing revenue to Vonage and other IP-based phone services. That is the 'free market.'

Any phone or cable company can start and run IP-based services; that's free market. I challenge Vonage to wire every home in the country for IP-based phone service; that too would be free market.

Doesn't matter where you send your bill, your "service provider" is the phone and cable infrastructure. This whole thing started because some of these guys proposed spending billions of dollars to upgrade the internet to be able to handle more content - above and beyond that natural move to broadband. Not to tier the current 'net; but to add a new tier. AFAIK, the idea of tiering the net has been no more than a proposal up to this point as a way to pay for it; met by panic and 1/2 info as always.

Surely you wouldn't pay premium price for regular gas, or penthouse rent for a 1 br apt? So are you going to ask Grandma dial-up who e-mails once a month to pay the same a John broadband who spanks his meat to porn 12 hrs a day?


Whatever; name-calling = invoking Hitler, I'm outta this one.

[legion]

If the Internet was split into two tiers, controlled by the telecoms, do you think they would:

1) Keep everything the same on the lower tier, but make the higher tier a fee-based fast lane?

OR

2) Let the lower tier deteriate in order to push people to the revenue-producing upper tier?

[widebody911]

Originally posted by 928ram
Doesn't matter where you send your bill, your "service provider" is the phone and cable infrastructure.

And I wonder how much government subsidy went into that.

[techweenie]

Sorry, anyone who dismisses the co-inventor of the Internet as (take your pick) Amos or Andy is making a moronic statement.

That is not name calling, by the way. If I were to call *you* a moron, that would be name calling.

I don't think you're a moron at all, or you'd be on my 'ignore' list.

Silicon Valley is a small, gossipy place, and things like "burn rate" and "overhead costs" do leak out. So when I hear insiders like Dvorak and La Porte say that youtube.com is spending a million a month on bandwidth, I give it some credibility.

I was consulting to the industry when I helped introduce the first VoIP devices, and I know there are a couple of generations of switches out there that are designed to support 'tiered' service. Originally, we were looking to create a "premium" delivery class for email.

This new tiered concept, however, puts too much power in the hands of the phone companies who might be tempted to artificially limit or degrade content delivery that is competing with their premium services.

[VaSteve]

Originally posted by legion
If the Internet was split into two tiers, controlled by the telecoms, do you think they would:

2) Let the lower tier deteriate in order to push people to the revenue-producing upper tier?

Yup.

[VINMAN]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Its all Bush's fault. He hates the internet.

Of cause he does, after all, Al Gore invented it!

[Jims5543]

If your going to use the words George Bush and Internet in the same sentance you have to call it the Internets.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Jim Cesiro
If your going to use the words George Bush and Internet in the same sentance you have to call it the Internets.

:-)

...and "the Internets" is exactly what we're fighting over.

If the big carriers have it their way, it will be 'our Internet ' and 'their Internet.'

[Rob Channell]

I'd be all for a top tier even with an extra charge if they could promise me no more SPAM. Trouble is, it wouldn't happen. My bandwidth to Pelican and other small sites that interest me would diminish while the SPAM kings with their deep pockets would pelt me with even more worthless trash.

But then again I am a little bit of an optimist. It might not turn out that good...........