A Call to Action

I received an email from ebay that I would like to share here with my IDA family. Even if you do not buy or sell on ebay this is something that will affect everyone of us who use the internet and something we should all be very concerned about. Please get involved in and take action now, here is the email.

Net Neutrality and the eBay Community: A Call to Action

Dear Steve,

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 [email protected].

I did some checking on this and it appears there may be two versions of this email, one may be legitimate (which sounds like a bad eBay error) and one spoofed (from a bad guy).

After submitting the email to eBay, they replied:

Quote:

---

Hello,

Thank you for writing to eBay regarding the email you received.

Emails such as this, commonly referred to as “spoof” or “phished” messages, are sent in an attempt to collect sensitive personal or financial information from the recipients.

The email you reported was not sent by eBay. We have reported this email to the appropriate authorities.

In the future, be very cautious of any email that asks you to submit information such as your credit card numbers or passwords. If you are ever concerned about an email you receive from eBay, simply follow these steps:

1. Open a new Web browser and type http://www.ebay.com into your browser address field to go directly to the eBay site.

2. On eBay, sign into your account and click the “My eBay” button at the top of the page.

3. Check the My Messages section located at the top of the My eBay page. If an email affects your eBay account, it’s now in My Messages. Any email sent to your registered eBay email address from eBay or from another eBay member via eBay’s member-to-member communication system will now appear in My Messages.

Just remember, if you get an email to your registered eBay email address that looks like it’s from eBay about a problem with your account or requesting personal information, check My Messages first. If it’s not there, it’s a fake email.

If you still have any doubt about whether an email message is from eBay, please forward it immediately to [email protected]. Do not respond to it or click any of the links. Do not remove the original subject line or change the email in any way when you forward it to us.

If you have already entered sensitive personal information, financial information, or your password into a Web site based on a request from a spoofed email, you should take immediate action to protect your identity and all of your online accounts. We have developed an eBay Help page with valuable information regarding the steps you should take to
protect yourself.

http://pages.ebay.com/help/tp/isgw-account-theft-reporting.html

To review eBay’s new tutorial about Spoof Emails, please see the following Web page:

http://pages.ebay.com/education/spooftutorial/

To help you better protect yourself from fake eBay and PayPal Web sites, we have developed a feature for the eBay Toolbar called “Account Guard.” Account Guard includes an indicator of when you are on an eBay or PayPal Web site or a known spoof (or “phishing”) site, buttons to report fake eBay Web sites, and a password notification feature that warns you when you may be entering your eBay password on an unverified site.

To learn more about the eBay Toolbar with Account Guard go to http://www.ebay.com, click on “Downloads” at the bottom of the page, and then click on the “eBay Toolbar” link.

Once again, thank you for alerting us to the spoof email you received.

Your efforts help keep eBay a safe and fair place to trade.

Regards,

eBay SafeHarbor
Investigations Team

---

However, in a post allegedly from an eBay forum employee:

Quote:

---

Hi all,

I appreciate all of the threads that have been started regarding this issue.

I wanted to let you know that I have been in contact with our Government Relations team as well as the office of the CEO, and the email from Meg Whitman regarding network neutrality is indeed legitimate.

Depending on your geographic location, you may have already received (or may receive by week’s end) an email from Meg asking you to contact Congress in support of network neutrality. http://www.ebaymainstreet.com is a legitimate site and the issue is quite real. As you know, eBay respects your privacy and takes your security concerns seriously. I have read through the various threads and individual posts and have compiled the concerns that have been expressed. I will be sharing these concerns within the company.

Please understand that you are under no obligation to participate in this effort. However, we strongly encourage you to learn more about how the issue could affect you. There is a lot of information on-line about the “net neutrality” debate

http://www.itsournet.org is a good place to start.

eBay does not want to send you any email messages that you would prefer not to receive. You can change how eBay contacts you by visiting your ‘my eBay’ page to update your notification preferences. Additionally, if you have already joined us as a Main Street member by signing up at http://www.ebaymainstreet.com, you may opt-out of Main Street communications at any time.

We apologize for any confusion this message may have created for you and we appreciate your efforts to keep eBay a safe trading place.

Thanks for making a difference and voicing your concerns!

Sadie

---

So I don’t know what to think about the authenticity of this particular email. I do know that eBay states that “eBay will NEVER ask you for any sensitive information or direct you to a link asking you for sensitive information” and this email appears to have done that.

While I don’t know if the email is real or not, I guess my point is to be careful with any emails “from eBay” where they request username or password information.

All that eBay stuff aside, this IS a REAL issue. There are a few other sites out there like savetheinternet.com and itsournet.org that are extremely focused on insuring net neutrality. If you care about your internet, you should check these sites out… and neither are connected to eBay so there is some security there as well.

I received this e-mail pretty much verbatim. I think this one is legit since it was addressed to my e-bay username.

I weny through this a couple weeks ago, and I was on ebay one day just looking around then I clicked on a lowrance 111c an it was person trying to get personal info. The lowrance was buy it now for $500 I clicked and asked if I could use paypal and after no responce that night I checked it again the next day and someone had added about 50 item selling under my name.. Ebay caught it and suspended my account.. a third party got my password and that was that.

Now I have to spend about an hour typeing to some lady on ebay to get my account back, its no fun at all…

Quote:

---

I received this e-mail pretty much verbatim. I think this one is legit since it was addressed to my e-bay username.

---

Yup I checked this out very carefully before I posted it. I spend quite a bit of time on ebay and I get fake ebay emails almost daily, this one did not ask for any personal info something ebay will never do, after a while you can tell which ones are fake from the real deal, this one was also addressed to my ebay user name and I have never seen a fake ebay email do that.

One more thing to keep in mind, that may help ID real and fake EBAY messages is that, EBAY says that if they send you a message such as this that to confirm it is real, if you open your browers and type http://www.ebay.com and login, then go to your my ebay, and the same message should be in your ebay message inbox.

At least this is what I have been told in the past from EBAY. Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone worked for a living like we have to instead of stealing our IDs and getting stuff for free?????

E-bay has millions and millions of dollars. They can spend some of it fighting this cause. Far as I’m concerned they can kiss my

Quote:

---

EBAY says that if they send you a message such as this that to confirm it is real, if you open your browers and type http://www.ebay.com and login, then go to your my ebay, and the same message should be in your ebay message inbox.

---

Yup I should have mentioned that as well, this message was in my ebay message inbox also.

Remember this post? Well, the people just lost. Net Neutrality is no more.

suzuki wrote:

Remember this post? Well, the people just lost. Net Neutrality is no more.

It’s not quite over as Congress can overturn this via the Congressional Review Act. Please visit https://www.battleforthenet.com/ or simply use Google to find the info.

This is NOT a partisan/political issue folks. If you enjoy watching IDO on YouTube, for example, then you should be strongly opposed to the repeal of NN.

Definitely NOT partisan. Overwhelming percentage of citizens were against this. Maybe the President can be involved with overturning this for everyone?

pool2fool wrote:

If you enjoy watching IDO on YouTube, for example, then you should be strongly opposed to the repeal of NN.

You weren’t able to watch IDO on YouTube before the NN regs of 2015?? Seems to me this is *hopefully* a step in the right direction to ending the govt endorsed monopoly ISP’s currently have.

BigWerm wrote:

You weren’t able to watch IDO on YouTube before the NN regs of 2015?? Seems to me this is *hopefully* a step in the right direction to ending the govt endorsed monopoly ISP’s currently have.

Were ISPs not a govt endorsed monopoly prior to 2015?

Reef W wrote:

Were ISPs not a govt endorsed monopoly prior to 2015?

Yes to answer your Strawman, and I’m not saying it will happen, just that hopefully more people are aware and we can start an end to the monopoly.

P2F’s post implied we won’t be able to stream YouTube any longer, which is HIGHLY doubtful as we were able to prior to the new regulations being implemented and there is no evidence to support it changing now.

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Reef Whooligan wrote:</div>
Were ISPs not a govt endorsed monopoly prior to 2015?

Yes to answer your Strawman, and I’m not saying it will happen, just that hopefully more people are aware and we can start an end to the monopoly.

P2F’s post implied we won’t be able to stream YouTube any longer, which is HIGHLY doubtful as we were able to prior to the new regulations being implemented and there is no evidence to support it changing now.

I’ll rephrase: ISPs were a government endorsed monopoly before network neutrality rules were put in place. Why do you believe that ending network neutrality is a step towards ending that monopolization? If you think that network neutrality entrenched their monopoly status I would like to know how so.

Reef W wrote:

Why do you believe that ending network neutrality is a step towards ending that monopolization?

Mainly because people are looking at the issue much more, and the level of ISP awareness has increased drastically due to the NN debate. Hopefully we can parlay that awareness to a continued decrease in govt protections for the monopolies. NN was just another level of regulation that would have to be removed. I am not decidedly one way or another on NN, but have heard very few arguments for maintaining the 2015 regulations that resonated with me. I AM decidedly against hyperbole saying the sky is falling as a result of it now tho…

suzuki wrote:

Definitely NOT partisan. Overwhelming percentage of citizens were against this. Maybe the President can be involved with overturning this for everyone?

I think the president showed his view and involvement on net neutrality by appointing Ajit Pai as the new chairman of fcc. Just as Net Neutrality was a partisan vote this vote also was a partisan vote.

Congress will not touch this, It maybe up to the courts to decide this or the next election in under 4 yrs.

This is… actually,,, scary sh-T

BigWerm wrote:

P2F’s post implied we won’t be able to stream YouTube any longer, which is HIGHLY doubtful as we were able to prior to the new regulations being implemented and there is no evidence to support it changing now.

Nobody is saying that all ISP’s are definitely going to do X or Y, but it’s irrefutable that they now hold more power over their customers. Maybe they won’t do anything differently. Personally, I preferred having regulations in place that expressly prohibited it, as opposed to crossing my fingers and hoping they have my best interest in mind. My ISP has given me no reason to place that much trust in them.

If your ISP decides to charge more for access to __________ (insert service here, be it YouTube or Netflix, etc.), which they now have the authority to do, then your choices will be simple:

1. Pay more to access that content
2. Live without that content
3. Switch ISP’s and hope they don’t pull the same shenanigans on you (good luck if you live in an area with only 1 decent ISP)

If you cannot imagine any possible scenario in which XFINITY would want to push customers toward their own streaming content, and away from their competitors (YouTube, Netflix, etc.), then you need to exercise that imagination because it’s not working very well.

If NN is eliminated, here’s what is most likely to happen over time: Internet access to certain apps/sites will be favored over others at the ISP’s discretion unless the consumer and/or the content producer pays more money.

Real life scenarios using Comcast and Verizon, since they’re what I use personally –

Because Comcast owns NBC, it might take me 2 seconds to load the NBC News webpage but 5 minutes to load IDO because Comcast is metering speed for $$, so James and co would have to pay Comcast and all the other ISP’s (Charter, AT&T, Verizon, etc.) if they want their content to load at speeds we’re used to today.

We all watch IDO and other hunting/fishing videos on YouTube. Comcast or Verizon could force me to buy an add on subscription to my current service in order to watch YouTube on a decent connection or I’d get stuck with small limits and metered speeds/qualities.

Hunting and fishing are also on the “outskirts” of what some people find humane so this type of content could be blocked all together by the ISP’s whenever they want if they find the content objectionable, even if the activities in the content are fully law abiding.

It also needs to be said that Disney buying a ton of content and services from FOX on the same day NN is scrapped would potentially give Disney massive control over the content we see and how we receive it.

These are all affronts on free speech and personal liberty in order to make more money for a shrinking number of massive conglomerates and yeah, it’s all really bad for everyone.

BigWerm wrote:

Mainly because people are looking at the issue much more, and the level of ISP awareness has increased drastically due to the NN debate. Hopefully we can parlay that awareness to a continued decrease in govt protections for the monopolies.

Elimintating NN would allow the ISP’s and other corps to engage in MORE monopolistic practices and would actually encourage them to do so. It would allow the entrenched companies to drive out competition by charging fees so that new entrants would have a hard time competing on a level playing field.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/13/net-neutrality-corporate-power-monopolies-ajit-pai

zooks wrote:

If NN is eliminated, here’s what is most likely to happen over time: Internet access to certain apps/sites will be favored over others at the ISP’s discretion unless the consumer and/or the content producer pays more money.

Real life scenarios using Comcast and Verizon, since they’re what I use personally –

Because Comcast owns NBC, it might take me 2 seconds to load the NBC News webpage but 5 minutes to load IDO because Comcast is metering speed for $$, so James and co would have to pay Comcast and all the other ISP’s (Charter, AT&T, Verizon, etc.) if they want their content to load at speeds we’re used to today.

We all watch IDO and other hunting/fishing videos on YouTube. Comcast or Verizon could force me to buy an add on subscription to my current service in order to watch YouTube on a decent connection or I’d get stuck with small limits and metered speeds/qualities.

Hunting and fishing are also on the “outskirts” of what some people find humane so this type of content could be blocked all together by the ISP’s whenever they want if they find the content objectionable, even if the activities in the content are fully law abiding.

It also needs to be said that Disney buying a ton of content and services from FOX on the same day NN is scrapped would potentially give Disney massive control over the content we see and how we receive it.

These are all affronts on free speech and personal liberty in order to make more money for a shrinking number of massive conglomerates and yeah, it’s all really bad for everyone.

Sure that could happen. Or, markets will continue to offer the best products in hope of getting the most market share and competition will keep everything free. Like was stated earlier, if we did notice this stuff before July 2015, why would it be different now.

If govt passed a “snuggle with a cozy blanket law” and revoked said law, you can still snuggle with a cozy blanket if you choose. Don’t let the names of legislation scare you. How “Affordable” is your healthcare following the “Affordable Care Act”?

For those afraid of this I ask you how many streaming services we have now that would gladly stream cable TV that are competing against DirecTV, Dish, Comcast, etc?
Previously if you wanted certain packages you were forced to pay whatever the cable company wanted. Now, with Hulu, Roku, and countless other offerings you have choices you can make to get that content and its widely expanding every day.
Why wouldn’t this same thing happen with other content? I don’t see this any different in my eyes.

1hl&sinker wrote:

I think the president showed his view and involvement on net neutrality by appointing Ajit Pai as the new chairman of fcc. Just as Net Neutrality was a partisan vote this vote also was a partisan vote.

Congress will not touch this, It maybe up to the courts to decide this or the next election in under 4 yrs.

You may be right about Congress, I guess we’ll see.

As far as the partisan nature of this — again you’re right in terms of how the vote went, and this may appear to be a partisan issue on that level. What I meant is that for the typical consumer, your political affiliation should have nothing to do with how you view this issue.

Please people, don’t trust an email just because a website or business you are signed up with sends it with your username or real name. I can send you an email that will display [email protected], anyone can.

DaveB wrote:

Like was stated earlier, if we did notice this stuff before July 2015, why would it be different now.

Here is an article from 2014 demonstrating Verizon throttling Netflix. When using a VPN your traffic is encrypted and the ISP sees it as going to the VPN peer rather than the ultimate destination. When connecting directly to Netflix it was slower than when using a VPN. A VPN adds overhead so using a VPN should be slower. This is a clear indication of throttling traffic. https://lifehacker.com/use-a-vpn-to-bypass-your-isps-throttling-of-netflix-or-1608538080

Here is an article from July of this year about how Verizon did a “temporary test” of throttling Netflix and Youtube. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/verizon-wireless-apparently-throttles-streaming-video-to-10mbps/

mplspug wrote:

Please people, don’t trust an email just because a website or business you are signed up with sends it with your username or real name. I can send you an email that will display [email protected], anyone can.

Yeah, when I read those first few posts I cringed, but granted, they are from a number of years ago, so the familiarity with phishing schemes back then isn’t what it is now.
My company had us all go through 3 hours of electronic security training.
Get this, someone still clicked on a link in an email from someone in their contact list which ended up propagating ransomware (wannacry) through our corporate email address book like a wildfire.

pool2fool wrote:

As far as the partisan nature of this — again you’re right in terms of how the vote went, and this may appear to be a partisan issue on that level. What I meant is that for the typical consumer, your political affiliation should have nothing to do with how you view this issue.

I agree with the typical consumer idea. Though, this is deeper than just the appointment of fcc chairman to change policy. The lawsuit by a conservative congress to overturn the 2015 newly added rules shows how partisan this subject is. In that case a judge saw no merit in hearing that case.

Reef W wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>DaveB wrote:</div>
Like was stated earlier, if we did notice this stuff before July 2015, why would it be different now.

Here is an article from 2014 demonstrating Verizon throttling Netflix. When using a VPN your traffic is encrypted and the ISP sees it as going to the VPN peer rather than the ultimate destination. When connecting directly to Netflix it was slower than when using a VPN. A VPN adds overhead so using a VPN should be slower. This is a clear indication of throttling traffic. https://lifehacker.com/use-a-vpn-to-bypass-your-isps-throttling-of-netflix-or-1608538080

Here is an article from July of this year about how Verizon did a “temporary test” of throttling Netflix and Youtube. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/verizon-wireless-apparently-throttles-streaming-video-to-10mbps/

I feel like these two examples demonstrate how it is much ado about nothing. In the first case Netflix ponied up, so their content can reach the consumer as intended, and as they should since streaming takes up so much more bandwidth. At no additional cost to the customer. And in the second, Cellphone companies (As well as Google, FB etc) all already filter your content to their highest bidders or what you pay for, yet no one is protesting in the streets about that.

BigWerm wrote:

I feel like these two examples demonstrate how it is much ado about nothing.

I found two quick examples to demonstrate that throttling to show that throttling is not a myth. People are bringing up Netflix and Youtube because those are the big obvious examples but the same thing can play out on a smaller level in a lot of places.

BigWerm wrote:

In the first case Netflix ponied up, so their content can reach the consumer as intended, and as they should since streaming takes up so much more bandwidth.

But I pay for bandwidth. When I chose my internet connection I could pick between 12Mb/s, 40Mb/s, etc. If I am paying for a certain amount of bandwidth why does it matter how I use it? This is exactly what net neutrality is about. I pay for 40Mb/s but I can only use 10Mb/s for the content that I want unless the other side pays even more money to allow me to use the bandwidth I already paid for. Does that seem right to you?