Question
Today we got a letter from Meg Whitman about the future of internet access and how cable companies and phone companies are out to hurt me.
Meg included a link that I could click on and lobby congress on ebay's behalf.
Has anyone looked into this deeper? Meg's letter was all about how this would hurt me if the phone companies and cable companies succeeded.
Something tells me, especially knowing that every time Ebay speaks it's a lie, that ebay would be the one hurt. Not me.
In light of ebay's misconduct over the past two years I personally wouldn't care who hurt them.
Anybody that knows anything about this please shed some light.
Answer
sounds like a phishing email from a scammer
Answer
That email was out a month ago. Recyled news from Meg. She must be desperate...
Answer
Not a scam, I got it too on both of my accounts.....could care less though, "Meg" is the LAST person I want to help right now and frankly she can kiss my &#*.
Answer
Is this the net neutrality thing johnny was talking about?
Answer
>>
-Jim
Answer
Originally Posted by fountainhouse
Is this the net neutrality thing johnny was talking about?
No. I was talking about eBay writing a letter to congress in support of the bill that would force our banks to monitor where our money goes and block and report suspiscious transactions while also forcing our ISPs to censor out links to places that the government doesn't want you to go. Why would eBay support it? Because it takes money away from their overseas competition. Turned me into a freakng Libertarian.
eBay is on the right side of the issue this thread addresses, from what I know. Anyway - got the email today and also about a month ago. I'm tempted to write back "I'll write in support of this if you stop screwing us on the other bill." Funny, you don't see any letters from Meg asking you to write congress to support a bill that's going to screw you over but help out Paypal. Really, I am surprised. Wouldn't put it past them to try.
Answer
Jim's link says the email is from Meg Ryan, not eBay's Meg.
Answer
Originally Posted by johnny
Turned me into a freakng Libertarian.
Did you know ebay has a Government Relations section? I didn't. No mention in there of the bank monitoring thing. No surprises there.
Answer
By TIMOTHY B. LEE
Published: August 3, 2006
St. Louis
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge this Image
Harry Campbell
AFTER a decade of explosive growth, a revolutionary new technology transforms the American economy. It allows people to communicate and do business across great distances faster than ever before. Critics, however, contend that access is controlled by a few large corporations eager to abuse monopoly power in order to gouge consumers and crush competition. Congress responds by enacting anti-monopoly rules and authorizing regulators to enforce them.
That might sound like a happy ending for the current debate on network neutrality, in which Congress is being encouraged to restrain the appetites of the biggest Internet service providers. But it actually describes a similar drama from 1887, when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroads, the high-tech industry of the day.
Unfortunately, the story is a cautionary tale. After President Grover Cleveland appointed Thomas M. Cooley, a railroad ally, as its first chairman, the commission quickly fell under the control of the railroads, gradually transforming the American transportation industry into a cartel. By 1935, when it was given oversight of the trucking industry, the commission was restricting competition and enabling price increases throughout virtually the entire surface transportation industry. Decades later, in 1970, a report released by a Ralph Nader group described the commission as a forum at which transportation interests divide up the national transportation market.
Its tempting to believe that government regulation of the Internet would be more consumer-friendly; history and economics suggest otherwise. The reason is simple: a regulated industry has a far larger stake in regulatory decisions than any other group in society. As a result, regulated companies spend lavishly on lobbyists and lawyers and, over time, turn the regulatory process to their advantage.
Economists have dubbed this process regulatory capture, and they can point to plenty of examples. The airline industry was a cozy cartel before being deregulated in the 1970s. Today, government regulation of cable television is the primary obstacle to competition.
Of course, incumbent broadband providers do have some limited monopoly powers, and there is cause for concern that they might abuse them. Last fall, the chief executive of AT&T, Ed Whitacre, argued that Internet giants like Google and Microsoft should begin paying for access to his pipes never mind that consumers already pay AT&T for the bandwidth they use to gain access to these services. If broadband providers like AT&T were to begin blocking or degrading the content and services of companies that didnt pay up, both consumers and the Internet would suffer.
But enforcing such a pay to play scheme might be more challenging than Mr. Whitacre suspects. As every music-downloading student knows, there are myriad ways to evade Internet filtering software. Moreover, an Internet service provider that denies customers access to content risks a serious consumer revolt. Unlike a one-railroad Western town, most broadband customers can choose between cable and D.S.L., and a growing number have access to wireless options as well.
With several promising new technologies on the drawing board, the market for broadband will grow only more competitive. Congress should let the marketplace develop rather than constrain it with regulation. Lawmakers should certainly be mindful of unintended consequences. The Interstate Commerce Commissions regulations on transportation lingered for decades after their usefulness expired. Any neutrality regulations passed by Congress this year are likely to have a similarly dismal future. Choice and competition will do a better job of protecting Internet consumers than government bureaucrats ever have.
Timothy B. Lee is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, a nonpartisan research organization.