My letter to the FCC re pending decision on internet classification:
For simply the reason of using broadband internet for our national security and the emergency broadcast system—it is imperative that it be termed a telecommunications under Title II or some other adequate provision.
Are you going to spend money and time patching the ship, or building lifeboats?
My vote is to patch the ship and move forward … make the changes necessary to be sure the United States has the best it can … IS the best it can … for generations down the road. Not just what will fill a few pockets now.
I currently have ONE choice for broadband service: Comcast cable. The phone lines in my apartment building do not support DSL. Have tried using Verizon 3G, and the 5 gig bandwidth limit is outrageous.
The reasoning is the service will be faster with people using it less. So you pay for a service you don’t get to use, and they monitor bandwidth usage and levy extravagant fees if you go over the 5 gig limit.
And I don’t see how they can be allowed to do this …. While at the same time websites are depositing cookies onto user machines and taking bandwidth to send information via the user’s internet signal. I don’t see how they can do this, when there are worms out there that latch onto user email … using the internet signal to distribute malware.
Unless at the same time, providing a security package guaranteeing no unauthorized use of an internet bandwidth signal … I do not see how they can legally be able to charge according to use—basing that upon an increment that is not and cannot be stable. But they do. So we have a problem.
Add to that, the argument that applying an incremental charge according to bandwidth is, in effect, declaring copyright on those materials and websites that DO NOT BELONG TO THE INTERNET PROVIDER. For they are then receiving revenue according to content.
So IF I am investing in a website server, so that visitors to my website can view a video – then that EXPENDATURE of mine as a website owner, creates a greater PROFIT for the internet company.
The extra use of flash on a page (mostly advertisements)…… creates a greater profit for internet providers who charge according to bandwidth.
This is all new territory … but if you don’t hold true to some basic standards – will see a backlash on other industry models.
Let’s hope they see light and decide on reclassification to gain enough authority over Internet providers. Otherwise, I can see the whole thing take a dive …. Crash and burn. Too many forget the internet is a combination of page providers … like stores in a mall. They can decide to leave at any time, and you’ll have a big empty building on your hands.
The “internet” is NOT a service of Comcast or Verizon …. Those pages are made available to you by other businesses, on either their own server or a hired one. The provider is the “delivery device.” Not the maker of the product. If anything… the internet needs to be treated as package delivery, and under those same forms and terms.