Dear Carlton, A very interesting Article that you sent that was written by Vladmir where he talks about ETNO and Gambardella's proposal. Here are my comments. On the issue raised by Luigi Gambardella, it follows that a proposal by the European Network Operators Association (ETNO) on the principle that Sender Party pays in terms of Traffic is similar to the principle of Calling Party pays. The irony is that the link mentions that there is significant traffic sent to Europe from the US. If we think about this further, there is a sense of irony because as far as e commerce goes, US companies have consistent preferred to be taxed from source (US) and not at "place of consumption" or "destination". The EC and the US have no doubt been at loggerheads where it comes to the issue of taxation and the US of course has since the passage of the US Congress's Tax Freedom Act 1998[ (*authored by Representative Christopher Cox and Senator Ron Wyden and signed into law on October 21 1998 by then President Clinton*) which following expiry continued to be reauthorised and it most recent reauthorisation) was in October 2007 where this has been extended till 2014] consistently held that taxation for them would be from source, which means "no tax" as opposed to EC's attempts to tax at consumption. There are some in Europe who think that ETNO is pushing for a separate class of human rights for businesses. Take Finland where they hold that 1MB access of Broadband as a Human Right. Whilst 1MB is a human right in Finland it is not so for much of the world where access, availability, affordability is still an issue. It would be reasonable to expect that if this 1MB access is a human right then it is must be supplied to every houselhold and subsidised access for those who cannot afford it. The reality is all Telcos all over the world charge different prices for different products and the more the bandwidth and increase in QoS, the more you pay. If we take Finland's position and say X Bandwidth is a human right and therefore either (FREE) or heavily subsidised by Government, then anything on top of it is chargeable to whoever wants to pay for it within reason. The variations would depend on whether the markets are liberalised, whether the prices are market driven or regulated by the relevant competition authority. I think that there is a distinction between what ordinary access is. Recently talks about US FCC proposed Universal Service Funds on global submarine cable investments to benefit much of the developing world where they land had been met with much criticism by those who would have to pay into the USF. On the other hand declaring access as a human right may mean getting massive subsidies for global submarine deployment in developing countries but of course I am dreaming...lol With something like Network Neutrality which is a multidimensional concept where issues such as:- - Prioritisation of Traffic -challenges include (access, availability, affordability) should a packet be prioritised because someone paid top dollar to have it posted (commercial) compared to an ordinary content; - Traffic Management where bulk unsolicited mail can clog up the already little pipes in existence; - National Security/IPRs - telco/ISP driven packet sniffing? where it's no longer about size, it's about content. If the TPP unfolds and the Digital Rights Management system unfolds where this is regulated, yes your packets will be screened.