Technologies and Politics of Control talk:Community Portal

I believe the court made the correct decision. On the internet a packet is a packet no matter the technology that is used to transmit and receive it. It's a little scary to think that certain data types could have additional charges to use what was intended to be an open and free environment. The could mean that research itself would cost students money by just clicking on a link, not that we are close to that yet, but if one type of data packet can be charged a fee others would not be far behind.

Recently Comcast went after Netflix for the amount of traffic being generated, something in the ballpark 30% of internet traffic in the US. Netflix moved away from Alkami, which was paying companies like Comcast to allow it's broadcasts and then billing back Netflix as a built in cost of business. Netflix moved to a model where Netflix was trying to avoid the charges from broadband providers indicates some business are not willing to support the internet on the whole even when they perhaps should be.

Turning back to the FCC issue of running out of funds due to POTS lines being disconnected, I've always found it a deterrent to look at DSL as a means to connect to the internet due to the need to subscribe to the "voice" aspect of the setup. I haven't had a telephone line since I moved away from DSL about 4 years ago. However, the mobile market seems to be expanding and is a potential revenue giant for the FCC. The mobile market, alone, probably will not be able to generate the amount of tariff required for the FCC.

I think there is a solution to keeping the FCC's operating budget stable, a tax on internet access is not out of the question and I would not oppose it as long as the FCC stands for the people and not big business. Keeping the internet open and not permitting Comcast and other ISP's to shape internet traffic according to what you pay, in the end the tax would be less then what the ISP's would take out of the users pocket for premium service. I believe most countries that have well developed internets do charge a tax, when I lived the the UK part of my bill did have a VAT charge.

On an additional front, we need to keep a close eye on our ISPs. The FCC needs to be able to operate as a watchdog to protect the exploitation of users by the ISPs. Recently I listed to a webcast that discussed the use of Phorm (more about Phorm: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7283333.stm) by a large internet provider in the states. The plan that was discussed would give the subscriber the ability to opt out, but would have to pay more money to the ISP to opt out. This is disconcerting, basically if I'm not willing to pay to give the ISP access to my unencrypted packet for advertising dollars I have to pay them more. I pay for access to a larger community that was, from it's foundations up, was intended to be free. Is our capitalistic greed going to cause greater barriers to access what is free information today? Can we trust the FCC to do the right thing and protect citizens or will big business run the FCC by dictating it policy via the FCC?