Living in the Unites States and having access to a lot of great technology has given us some great freedoms and the internet is an example of this freedom. We are able to freely communicate, consume large amounts of information that we could not do 15 years ago. The internet has matured into a medium that is filled with all kinds of information and the ability to buy just about any kind of product or service, communicate with friends or family around the world or experience different cultures without leaving your home. The internet is truly a great technology, but there are those who want to control how you use it.

Cable TV and telephone companies are the primary providers for the internet (a.k.a ISP’s) in this country and have been offering unlimited internet access for some time now. However these companies are starting to toy with the idea of a tiered internet access and bandwidth capping. Their idea’s are to offer limited internet access for a low monthly fee or limit the amount of data you can consume in monthly allotments. Bottom line is they would tell you what websites you can visit or how much music or movies your allowed to download. They are considering these options because they claim that they need to manage bandwidth. It seems they have sold more internet subscriptions then they can handle. Instead of investing in expanding their networks or emerging technologies they would rather limit and control your access.

This issue does not just end with traditional ISP’s, but even more controlling are the Mobile Internet Providers such as AT&T Wireless or Verizon. AT&T which is well known for being the provider of Apple’s hugely successful iPhone, has been well known for limiting the abilities of the iPhone for the sake of controlling bandwidth. They have blocked applications from being available to consumers that they feel would burden their networks. Verizon advertised unlimited internet access via it’s wireless data solutions but than began to start charging users huge fees when they exceeded certain bandwidth amounts. The internet only works when it is an open and free from restriction.

Now the truth is most of us enjoy unlimited access to the internet with no censorship and no restrictions. But restricted access is nothing new we have been exposed to it for many years. We have had tiered access with the telephone company, for example you could call your friend around the corner for free, but if your friend lived in another part of the country you would have to pay for that access. How about cable tv, you get the local channels for free, but if you want some of those cable channels you have pay a fee. If you want to watch the new movies you have to pay even more. So now imagine what it would be like if you could access your email for free but you will have to pay to use Google or iTunes. Not so much fun any more is it. In some cases you may not even be given a choice, some ISP’s may eschew Google services for their own services and would charge a premium to use it.

Many of us have mobile phones now and many us enjoy the freedom of calling anywhere in the country without paying additional fees. Would you want to go back to a tiered pricing plan for your calls? I know I don’t and I certainly don’t want to pay extra to visit a particular site on the internet. I also don’t want to have to monitor exactly how often I use the internet for fear of a large bill. I do agree however that there are those that use the internet in disproportionate amounts than casual users however when your paying for unlimited access you should be able to use it as much as you want. As I mentioned earlier the real problem stems from ISP’s running out of bandwidth on networks still being built on old technology. Telephone and cable TV lines were never designed to carry large amounts of data at high speeds, nor were the cellular networks. Yet instead of looking to new technology to create more bandwidth at a reduced cost the decision has been overshadowed by greed.

Thankfully the new White House Administration has brought new leadership to the FCC, the government agency appointed with the responsibility to oversee the fair and just use of communications. The FCC has also noticed the restriction of internet usage is a direct threat towards true freedom on a global scale and seems to favor a neutral network for all users. Maybe they understand that this is an industry that does not have lots of competition and therefore unfair business practices are quite common. We as consumers have been rather quiet on this front and have not done enough to demand more corporate responsibility. But maybe when you are charged an extra $10.00 a month to type google.com you will feel different. In the mean time I encourage all of you to educate yourselves about Net Neutrality and make your voice heard.

This video is from the Free Press website. I believe we have to hold President Obama to his word by letting him know how important these issues are to us. The Comcast-NBC merger, a vertical integration move of incredible scale and magnitude, threatens the openness of the internet and our ability to use it as a two-way communications medium.

As stated on the Free Press “The phone and cable industries that control Internet access for 97 percent of Americans are spending tens of millions of dollars on nearly 500 Washington lobbyists. Their mission is to consolidate industry control over the Internet and kill Network Neutrality, before the public…. gets a seat at the table.”

Let your voice be heard. Write to the Federal Communications Commission, your city council and congress people, the Federal Trade Commission, your local newspaper, and your president. The airwaves, and grounds through which telecommunications companies build their networks are owned by the American People. We grant them access. We have a right to be heard just as much as any lobbyist or billion dollar corporation. They made their fortunes on our blood, sweat and tears. Without us they would be nothing. But we have to speak as one giant voice if we want to be included in the conversation. Let’s break our collective silence now. —- Nadine Patterson

This seems to be a hot topic these days. Under rules established in 1997 by the FCC, toll-free service providers cannot reserve a toll-free number without having an actual toll-free subscriber for whom the number is being reserved. By law, available numbers must be doled out on a first-come, first served basis off the main database maintained by the 800 Service Management System (SMS/800). Hoarding numbers is likewise illegal. A subscriber may not acquire more toll-free numbers than they intend to use. By FCC definition, “hoarding” also includes “brokering” which is the illegal lease or sale of toll-free numbers for a fee.

Consolidation: Comcast buying NBC Universal

TOP 4

America’s regression by Glenn Greenwald

Liberal Dems take aim at war funding

‘The war is in Pakistan right now‘ says Jeremy Scahill

Editors reporting to sales managers at Dallas newspaper

AMERICA’S BIGGEST CABLE CO. WANTS MORE POWER

Why the FCC should stop Comcast NBC from PC World

Commissioner Copps on merger: ‘They face a steep climb with me‘

Congress to scrutinize Comcast NBC deal from The Hill

Comcast’s hollow ‘public interest’ claims from Free Press

MORE NEWS HEADLINES

Grist explains Copenhagen climate summit to comedian Eugene Mirman

Rachel Maddow rips Sen. McConnell war stimulus ‘nonsense’

Sen. Bernie Sanders offers Medicare-for-all amendment

Fourth senator joins move to block Fed Chairman Bernanke

No. 2 Justice Dept official, David Ogden resigning

Mobile broadband consumption creating problems by Tricia Duryee

Ted Haggard 2.0 by Wendy Norris

VIEWPOINTS

7 ways Battle of Seattle changed the world by Fran Korten

Matt Taibbi: Obama sold out to Wall St

10 progressive reactions to Obama’s Afghan plan from Alternet

We need a clean vote on Afghanistan policy from Common Dreams

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sent a letter to Verizon demanding answers about why it increased early termination fees for smart phone users as well as whether customers are charged for inadvertently accessing Verizon’s Internet services.

At dispute is that Verizon doubled early termination fees (ETF) for new customers that signed up to its wireless services with a smartphone. The company also charged a $2 fee of a number of customers who accessed its mobile Web by inadvertently loading their browsers.

A Verizon spokesperson responded to the inquiry, telling Gigaom, “Nobody is required to pay an ETF. You always have the choice of buying a mobile phone at full price with no ETF. Or you can buy a device at a discount with a 1- or 2-year contract. If you stay with your contract, you don’t pay a fee at all. We’ve heard from very few customers who accidentally accessed their web browsers, and we immediately credited them $1.99 per month for the problem.”

Of course, that response dodged the question about ETFs doubling for smart phone customers. This is just my guess, but it might have something to do with the recent availability of the Droid.

However, Verizon will have to respond to the FCC, which has increased its role as a consumer watchdog. If this is how the FCC is going to act going forward, I’m pleased – so long as the industry’s position is respected as well.

Matt Hamblen at Computerworld writes a good article expressing some opinions on SmartPhones future (full article at http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141761/7_smartphone_predictions_for_2010?source=rss_news).

Here is my comment:

1. Smartphones will grab an even bigger share of the overall mobile phone market

It’s true, due to the fact that cost is similar and people that can use the advanced functions are growing. I have two concerns: more smart phones mean more investments needed in networks supporting the increasing demand of services (and the fear is would the investment and infrastructure trend grow at same pace); the other concern is the one linked to usability, because smartphones don’t rhyme always with smart interfaces

2. AT&T will lose its exclusive rights to sell the iPhone

Again true, but Apple has build a solid network of exclusives. Economically talking is not the best accellerator, but at same time is the most direct way to being “exclusive”

3. The Android mobile operating system will take off.

This is very personal: True, because, in terms of usability, ther’s only one player (IPhone), with windows mobile being a no altrenative. Android is growing on this point and this is an accellerator in gaining market share at a faster pace

4. Mobile application stores will continue to balloon.

I agree, but what will make the (real) difference will be two things: quality of software provided and easiness of access (due to increasing number of apps released)

5. Location based services will get their due on smartphones

I’m not quite sure of this and of possible implications (mainly due to network traffic), though on the other side, enhanced reality apps are taking more space. Success will depend on how smart will be the access to this functions.

6. The FCC will compromise with wireless carriers on Net neutrality

Since I’m not US resident I don’t feel confident to express an opinion on this

7. More types of devices, like e-readers, will emerge

It’s true, but their diffusion will be limited by two factors: network support and the eternal dilemma: many specialized devices doing things at their best vs one “generalistic” device doing things with less depth.

This post as a comment also at http://www.computerworld.com/comments/comment/reply/9141761 and at http://www.computerworld.com/comments/comment/reply/9141761#comment-

Updated with Verizon’s response: The Federal Communications Commission wants to know why Verizon (s vz) decided to double its early termination fee (ETF) for new customers who sign on to the wireless service using advanced devices…longhand for smartphones. The FCC today sent a letter to Verizon Wireless seeking answers.

The FCC correctly questions Verizon Wireless about its policies and when the answers come back, I bet they’ll remove a thick fog of obtuseness in which Verizon and its brethren cloak their service. The whole ETF is a mess worse than European soccer these days. The FCC, in a roundabout way, is asking Verizon to clean up its act around ETF. (Full questionnaire in PDF form is on the FCC web site.)

The FCC also wants to know if Verizon charges $1.99 “for inadvertently accessing Verizon Wireless’s Mobile Web” and if so, why. The commission wants to know if there’s a “a minimum data amount or level of access that triggers charges, and if so, what is that amount or level?” And it wants to know if some of Verizon’s phones have keys that are pre-programmed for one-click access to the mobile web.

These issues were brought up in the press and many Verizon customers have been complaining about such clearly murky tactics. No wonder people have no love for their phone companies.

Being a Verizon customer, I have an unlimited plan for everything and so far, I haven’t been overcharged. However, others don’t have that luxury. Either way, I think the FCC is right to push for answers. If the new FCC makes these service providers more transparent in how they charge consumers for services, I would say it is job well done.

Update Verizon Wireless spokesperson emailed us the company response:

We fight day-in, day-out to meet and exceed our customers’ expectations. We do that by constantly improving how we do business.

Our declining early termination fee, or ETF, makes it possible for a broad array of Americans who might not otherwise be able to afford broadband connections to be active participants in the online world. Too many people still can’t afford to buy a PC for Internet access, and a subsidized handset option can be a great option.

Nobody is required to pay an ETF.  You always have the choice of buying a mobile phone at full price with no ETF. Or you can buy a device at a discount with a 1- or 2-year contract.  If you stay with your contract, you don’t pay a fee at all.

We’ve heard from very few customers who accidentally accessed their web browsers, and we immediately credited them $1.99 per month for the problem. A few months ago we modified our service plans so when somebody accidentally turns on a data service they don’t want, and they quickly turn that service off, there’s no charge.  Even if this happens a few times a month, there shouldn’t be a charge on the bills.

The two big guys of the internet, Google and Facebook, have indicated that they are working on software to limit who see’s your online content…..The House is talking, and working on Internet privacy standards  for this country, and the Federal Trade Comission is discussing the issue on this Monday….Finally, the Fedral Communications Comission is still talking about broadband availablity……

All of this effort is to keep up with the fast moving medium that is still the ‘Wild West’, where anything goes…..

Stay tuned..there will be more……

FRom Eonline.com:

ABC: The Adam-Banning Channel?
Just over a week after Adam Lambert’s sexually expressive American Music Awards performance got him booted from Good Morning America, the Disney-owned network—out of hypocrisy, fear of the FCC or general old fogeyness, it’s not yet clear—has widened its ban on the singer.

Lambert is now persona non grata at the Alphabet net’s annual New Year’s Rockin’ Eve countdown and, rather surprisingly, on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, where he was due to appear on Dec. 17.

Apparently, harboring the sentiment that you want to f–k Matt Damon is only acceptable if you don’t really mean it.

“Yes, sadly friends, ABC has cancelled my appearances on Kimmel and NYE. don’t blame them,” hetweeted yesterday. “It’s the FCC heat.”

The thing is, it’s not.

Vigilant as it is at sussing out daytime indiscretions, the ever-watchful FCC doesn’t monitor programming after 10 p.m, calling the time between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. a “safe harbor” for broadcasters.

“During this time period, a station may air indecent and/or profane material,” according to the commission’s own website.

Last we checked, Kimmel, the ball-dropping and Lambert’s AMA performance—potentially profane, all—all take or took place well within the secure period, but ABC would apparently rather be safe than sorry.

Not so, NBC!

“I am doing Leno though,” Lambert tweeted. “And lookin into something for NYE.”

Glambert is also encouraging his fans—of whom there are plenty, as his strong third-place debut on the charts this week proves—not to hold a grudge against the Alphabet net.

“It’ll all blow over. Let’s focus on being positive! “

Besides, can a guy who takes his sartorial cues from Howie Mandel really be all that controversial?

Sweden’s telecoms regulator recently issued a report detailing how openness in broadband infrastructure affects competition, and I thought it would be good to highlight since the FCC is embarking on a similar effort focused on the wireless industry. Sweden is a leader in broadband penetration, has some of the lowest average monthly high-speed Internet costs, and is boosting its fiber penetration, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Most of the 134-page report is in Swedish, but the English abstract provided a good framework for thinking about competition in broadband.

From the report:

This report takes the market stakeholders as its starting point and is structured around a value chain for the production of broadband-based Internet access and services. The value chain is divided into five levels — natural resources (use of and access to land, ducts and spectrum), infrastructure (passive cables and masts), transmission (equipment for transportation of bit-streams), IP/Internet (equipment for traffic direction and IP addressing) and content and services (content, services and end user equipment). The report identifies — on each level of the value chain — challenges to openness.

Access to dark fiber is a key roadblock to openness and thus, innovation, the report found, and suggests that the government take a complementary role in promoting a fiber infrastructure. It also suggests that the lock-in periods and high fees for terminating a broadband contract slow innovation because unhappy consumers can’t “vote with their feet.” The final roadblock is a lack of spectrum for mobile broadband access. These issues are all important today in the U.S., so if anyone on Julius Genachowski’s team reads Swedish, it’s probably worth picking it up.

Image courtesy of Panoramas on Flickr

It appears Adam Lambert will suffer yet another blow (pun not intended, ok well sort of) due to ABC canceling his Dec. 17 appearance on “Jimmy Kimmel Live”. Lambert delivered the news to fans via his Twitter page and added not to blame ABC but rather “It’s the FCC heat.”

The caveat to all this is the FCC doesn’t monitor programming after 10 p.m. If you visit the FCC website you will find the following:

“The FCC has determined, with the approval of the courts, that there is a reasonable risk that children will be in the audience from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., local time. Therefore, the FCC prohibits station licensees from broadcasting indecent material during that period.
“Material is indecent if, in context, it depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium…The ’safe harbor’ refers to the time period between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., local time. During this time period, a station may air indecent and/or profane material.”

In a statement issued to The LA Times, an ABC spokeswoman would only explain the network’s decision to cancel Lambert’s appearance on “Kimmel” as follows, “We decided not to move forward with the booking at this time.”

So the question remains, how long is ABC going to continue their punishment of Lambert for behavior that was no less offensive than any other of today’s pop musicians?

Hello, dear representative of ABC!

I would like to file a complaint about your discriminative policy towards performer Adam Lambert. The said performer has been denied screen time on your network, and I believe that is the consequence of his open declaration of his homosexual orientation.

As your customer I am outraged at this fact and feel that I have to add a European voice to the choir of inside US protest.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Regards,

Maria

Kyiv, Ukraine

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A top Democratic lawmaker predicted on Wednesday that the government will be involved in shaping the future for struggling U.S. media organizations.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, saying quality journalism was essential to U.S. democracy, said eventually government would have to help resolve the problems caused by a failing business model.

Waxman, other U.S. lawmakers and regulators are looking into various options to help a newspaper industry hurt by the shift in advertising revenues to online platforms.

Tweaks to the tax code to allow newspapers to spread losses over a greater number of years, providing a nonprofit structure to allow for public and foundation funding, and changes to antitrust laws are being considered by lawmakers and policymakers.

“Eventually government is going to have to be responsible to help and resolve these issues,” Waxman told a conference hosted by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on the future of journalism.

Free Press, a public interest group, said the search for solutions to the crisis in journalism should be premised on the idea that news-gathering is a public service, not a commodity.

Waxman’s “indication that government has a role to play is both bold and soberly sensible,” said Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott on the sidelines of the FTC conference.

At the Federal Communications Commission, officials are embarking on a quadrennial review of the state of U.S. media. The study, which is mandated by Congress, seeks to determine whether current rules should be changed to allow for a more vibrant media industry serving a diverse audience.

via reuters.com

Netzians can easily be drawn into a heated argument regarding Net Neutrality, so what is it and do we want it?

Definition

An underlying principle of Net Neutrality is that as a consumer we will not have our internet access hindered based on where we go, what equipment we attach to the internet or what type of internet services we use. (Here’s a definition). Sounds like a good idea? Or is it?

Legislate or not?

To ensure Net Neutrality legally would require legislation and regulation of the internet providers and websites. Do we really need the government telling us what we can and cannot do on the internet? Legislation can be made to sound good, such as the Internet Freedom Act, who would vote against that? Censorship isn’t freedom.

So why not just leave it alone, isn’t it already neutral? In some cases no it is not neutral, ISP’s are increasingly using ‘Deep Packet inspection’ to examine the traffic coming from and towards your home. If they see something they don’t like they could potentially stop it or degrade it. Examples of this are Comcast blocking of  Bittorrent, or Shaw Cable degrading Vonage phone calls (unless their customers pay an extra fee).

Greed on both sides.

BitTorrent users can consume large amounts of internet bandwidth downloading and uploading files. This can and does reduce speeds for everyone. So the ISP’s claim they have the right to manage the bandwidth hogs. One is inclined to agree, however their methods are questionable. Why filter types of traffic? Why not just curtail the bandwidth hogs directly by capping, cutting them off or simply charge them for the abuse? The answer in my opinion is that Movies and TV shows are often transmitted via BitTorrent, so cable companies don’t like that, so they target it directly under the guise of network management to control the Bandwidth hogs, but really it is plain anti-competitive behavior. Why would Shaw degrade Vonage traffic? Maybe because they sell a competing product and don’t appreciate their internet service being used to compete with another service of theirs.

Legislate and we are dealing with the government and its agencies (Big Brother). Don’t legislate and we are dealing with large greedy corporations. What to do?

What  is the root cause?…..

The *real problem* IMHO is conflict of interest at the large ISP’s. Not only do they provide internet access they also provide content and services on the internet. The temptation to boost your own services or hinder your competitions will always be there. The more money involved in an internet service segment, the greater the temptation. Inevitably an ISP  will monkey with the traffic across its network to serve its own interests.

..and a solution…..?

A *reasonable solution* IMHO is to separate the provision of internet to homes and businesses from the content and service provision. In the telephone industry the Bells have to run a legally separate internet company from their telephone company. Should the Bells favor their internet company over another, the FCC will soon find out from their competition. In a similar way companies like Comcast, Shaw etc should be forced to deliver and sell internet separately from the provision of TV, Movies and Phone services. The conflicts of interest must be eliminated.

Eliminating conflicts of interest should allow for a reasonably Neutral net without the need for specific legislation of the traffic to try and ensure it. That way we can keep the government away from legislating what can happen or not happen on the internet itself. The temptation for the government to censor the internet is too great to allow them to decide what goes over it. Let’s not legislate the traffic, regulate the large ISP’s instead to ensure fair play.

Fingers Crossed

It’ll be interesting to see how the US deals with this issue. Hopefully sanity will prevail.

Check out the latest Digg Dialogg with the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Julius Genachowski, appointed under Obama’s administration in June 2009. Prior to his appointment, he spent ten years in the technology industry, working as both an executive and an  entrepreneur. Genachowski has a history of public service, serving previously at the FCC as well as clerking for the U.S. Supreme Court for two years. He received a JD from Harvard where he was co-Notes editor of the Harvard Law Review, and has a BA from Columbia University.

 Click here to view the latest vid

Digg Dialogg lets you submit your questions to notable leaders and luminaries. Rather than editors or journalists, the Digg community decides the most popular questions to be posed in the interview

As we all start buying more devices that wirelessly connect to the internet, there’s a growing concern that there won’t be enough spectrum to accommodate all of that data usage. Unlike fiber, you can’t just make more spectrum, so one of the options that remains is freeing up spectrum from other sources. Sources like over the air (OTA) broadcasts.

As part of its development of the National Broadband Plan, the FCC has started poking around TV broadcasters to find out how much spectrum they are using, and if any of it can be freed up for other commercial purposes. The Commission released a public notice (document) today asking questions such as:

1. What factors should the Commission consider when examining and comparing the benefits of spectrum used for over-the-air television broadcasting and those of spectrum used for wireless broadband services?

2. What would be the impact to the U.S. economy if insufficient additional spectrum were made available for wireless broadband deployment, in terms of investments, jobs, consumer welfare, innovation, and other indicators of global leadership?

3. What would be the impact to the U.S. economy and public welfare if the coverage of free over-the-air broadcast television was diminished to accommodate a repacking of stations to recover spectrum?

4. How do television broadcasters use the capabilities of digital television today? Please provide information on data rate allocations to HD, SD, multicast streams, bandwidth leasing arrangements, etc. and the business rationale behind these choices.

TV broadcasters currently have 6 Mhz of spectrum per station and experts say that they only use 1 – 2 Mhz to deliver HD channels today depending on the type of transmission standard use, they could use as little as 1 MHz per standard definition channel broadcasting using MPEG 4and as much as 5 MHz for an HD broadcasting using MPEG-2. That number could go up with the advent of 3-D TVs or some other kind of as-yet-invented video technology rolls out.

Right now the FCC is just in inquiry mode as it collects data. And it’s easy for the tech savvy to dismiss the importance of OTA TV given how we’re shifting to MSO-delivered and over-the-top TV, but there are still lots of people who rely on free, over-the-air transmissions. The Commission’s challenge will be in balancing the need for more wireless bandwidth (damn you, iPhone!) with the public interest in having free broadcast television.

For more, check out Stacey’s post on how The FCC Sees the Future — and it’s VoIP over at Gigaom.

The Federal Communications Commission is prepping for a future without the circuit-switched network that currently handles most of the landline and wireless calls in this country, and late yesterday released a public notice seeking comments on how to lay the regulatory groundwork for an all-IP communications network. The notice likens the transition to that of moving from analog cell phone service to digital or from analog TV to digital, but it has the potential to be much more disruptive.

That disruption will come from three factors, and the most obvious one will be familiar to us since we just went through the digital TV transition — how do we make sure everyone has access to an IP network as the old circuit-switched network fades away? Cutting off someone’s copper landline isn’t going to fly in many homes. Although the FCC is not proposing any sort of cut-off date, the writing is on the wall for the fate of copper landlines, and laggards will have to be transitioned off those lines as the costs of maintaining the circuit-switched network become too much for carriers to bear.

The transition to an all-IP network also will require a change in the way the FCC collects data and the government disperses communications funds. This a key reason why Universal Service Fund (USF) reform is so crucial, since it could help allocate money from the $7 billion-a-year program across all forms of broadband access. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski hit on this in a speech he gave yesterday saying:

I won’t test this audience’s patience with detail on the USF. The key points for today are these: USF is a multibillion-dollar annual fund that continues to support yesterday’s communications infrastructure. The goal of universality is as important as ever — and to meet our country’s innovation goals, we need to reorient the fund to support broadband communications. This is a thorny issue, with no shortage of practical and statutory challenges.

However, the FCC is also seeking a role in the change that will come from the ability to integrate voice, video and data in unique ways on an all-IP network, the disruption that matters most to entrepreneurs and end users. Just look at what BT is attempting to do or services like Google Voice (s goog). This is where FCC efforts in traffic pumping and net neutrality come so strongly into play. In the circuit-switched network, telecommunications firms have certain rules they must follow about terminating calls and emergency access, regulations that VoIP providers don’t always have.

Right now, VoIP is voice, but once voice is mixed with data it becomes what Google calls an Internet application (its defense for blocking certain Google Voice calls to rural areas earlier this year). Since an all-IP network has the potential to turn all of our voice calls into Internet applications, the FCC has to figure out how to handle that traffic in a way that preserves everyone’s right to connect with the people they want to communicate with, and ensure that citizens can turn to the broadband network for help in an emergency.

Comments are due to the FCC by Dec. 21, but as the nation prepares to deliver a National Broadband plan in 77 days, it’s worth keeping this larger picture of our future in mind. It’s gonna be awesome.