Seriously? I'm rather astounded by this post. You are basically saying, "net neutrality is bad because one crazy communist is supporting it." It's rather akin to saying, "health reform (at all) is bad, because the extreme liberals want to socialize our health care system." I would think I would find some better arguments on this site. There are serious problems when network providers can discriminate between traffic going through their system on a whim. Their customers are paying them for access to the internet, not fast access to msnbc.com and slow access to foxnews.com. The sane people in this debate are arguing for sane things. There will always be insane people. Why listen to them?
>> Matt Monday, November 2, 2009 10:54 AM

"Net neutrality" as described above, I believe, would not be truly neutral. It would be neutral in the eyes of those controlling the 'public utility'.I, for one, do not have any problem with a 'network' provider discriminating what I see on their network. They are only a click away from loosing my viewing. Journalistic freedom is one of the founding principals of our country. All sides of issues may speak up, but no one should be forced to listen.If, as the post says, the people quoted are socialist/communist minded people and if they were in control, you might not even be able to comment in a place like this. For that matter maybe they would select me for exclusion.For now we still have our rights as provided in the Constitution.
>> SchelllysWay Monday, November 2, 2009 12:11 PM

"They are only a click away from losing my viewing" is speaking of content providers, not network providers! That's the issue! All of these posts on this site about net neutrality are just adding to the confusion over this issue, not solving anything. Yes, if you don't like msnbc you can go to foxnews, or wherever you want. But only if the people who are providing the internet service let you go there. The net neutrality laws that are seriously being discussed (as opposed to the crazy ideas some insane people are spouting) are about requiring those who give you an internet connection to give you access to any site you want without artificially speeding up or slowly down certain traffic because they like or dislike it.
>> Matt Monday, November 2, 2009 12:44 PM

My question is, what will happen if this type of regulatory policy is adopted here in the US?? What I mean is, will it effect other countries too?
>> Kyle, FL Monday, November 2, 2009 2:00 PM

@Matt - So then you're saying that Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem, seeing as how Comcast or any other ISP does not "artificially speed up or slow down" websites - unless they contain illegal content. (Bit torrents, et cetera.) When did everyone become so panicked and paranoid about ISPs? Is there a birther-esc conspiracy I don't know about? *** "Hey Comcast, thanks for laying down all that cable wire - we really appreciate it. Now that you've already invested millions into the technology, we're not going to let you charge people for it. kthxbye." - The Government.
>> Dr. Peter Venkman, Ph.D. Monday, November 2, 2009 2:11 PM

You bring up a great point Kyle, that helps my point. Other countries do not have a neutral net - Iran and China block youtube. All any of the sane people actually want is for networks to not be allowed to effectively block websites by throttling traffic to them. With the current "war" against Fox news, you'd think the right would be more afraid than they are of this actually happening. There is nothing currently illegal about network providers deciding out of political expediency that they don't like Fox news. You can disagree about whether or not you think that should be illegal, but don't misconstrue the debate by saying people want things they don't. At least not the sane people.
>> Matt Monday, November 2, 2009 2:15 PM

If a company is providing you with service, they can provide you with whatever service they want as long as they are upfront about it when you sign the contract and don't defraud you. If a certain internet provider blocks access to certain things, don't use that provider. You don't have a right to the internet, you don't have a right to use their service. This post however, is looking into the long run motivation of things like Net Neutrally and the Fairness Doctrine. All of these polices don't exist in a vacuum. It is a coordinated attack on free speech and capitalism. If we keep discounting all of the radical progressives and communists involved, we are going to wake up one day wondering what happened and how we lost our liberty.
>> TCH Monday, November 2, 2009 2:15 PM

Matt, when you say Iran and China block things like YouTube, you are referring to the Governments of Iran and China. That is the problem, we don't want the government to have anything to do with the internet or have anything to do with content because that is exactly what they will do. If Internet Explorer blocks YouTube (or Fox News), I will just use FireFox. If the Government blocks YouTube (or Fox News, or whatever), then what? “We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it.” What exactly do you thing he meant by that?
>> TCH Monday, November 2, 2009 2:18 PM

That's exactly my point, Dr. Venkman. This website is spreading misinformation. Look at Google's public policy blog, or any sane person who is talking about net neutrality (and the debates about what actually might show up in the regulation, which has nothing to do with the "Marxists" quoted here). They say nothing about not letting ISPs charge for their service. And I've seen in my city content being throttled. Not all peer-to-peer communication is illegal - throttling all of it because some of it is stifles innovation. The internet was built on the open spread of ideas - all people want is for that openness to continue.
>> Matt Monday, November 2, 2009 2:19 PM

The government deciding what ISPs can charge any given user is included in net neutrality - it prevents ISPs from "limiting" bandwidth, thus every subscriber has access to "unlimited" bandwidth. Which means that when you want to download an entire season of Will and Grace, my Internet slows down - regardless of how much I am willing to pay my ISP. (i.e., a free market.)
>> Dr. Peter Venkman, Ph.D. Monday, November 2, 2009 2:25 PM

Once again a misunderstanding of the issue. I'm sorry, but freaking out about what the commies are doing without really understanding what's going on is the whole problem with the net neutrality posts on this website. Internet Explorer and Firefox have nothing to do with it. I only have one internet cable coming to my house. I don't really have a choice of which internet provider I use. Firefox is a browser, not an internet provider. Now, the real issue. What if Comcast strikes a deal with Yahoo and throttles the traffic to competing websites? That's not all that unlikely, and that's what content providers (and consumers!) are afraid of.
>> Matt Monday, November 2, 2009 2:36 PM

You are right about the browser vs. provider part, I had that part wrong. But ok lets take your argument. What if Comcast makes a deal with Yahoo? That is Comcast and Yahoo's right to make a deal. You don't have a right to the internet. If you want to use their product, you use it on their terms. If enough people don't like it, Comcast and Yahoo will lose customers and go out of business. Now why would Comcast want to alienate their customers by making that deal? However, once the government has their hands on it, what motivation would they have to stifle any dissenting information, like Fox News? You know, kind of like the Iranian and Chinese governments.
>> TCH Monday, November 2, 2009 2:41 PM

As I said earlier, you can disagree about whether or not you think that internet providers should be allowed to discriminate between packets sent across their network. I happen to think that they shouldn't. Comcast has a monopoly on my internet service, unless I pay exorbitant amounts to get a new cable laid to my house. If I want internet at all, I abide by Comcast's wishes - that's a market failure. The government's job is to handle market failures. No one sane is saying that the government should control the internet, just make sure that private companies who own the cables don't have the power to destroy internet content providers on a whim. Please don't scare people by saying that net neutrality is something it isn't.
>> Matt Monday, November 2, 2009 3:05 PM

One other thing I should make clear - I agree with your last point, Dr. Venkman. I think that you should pay for some fixed amount of bandwidth, and you pay more for higher bandwidth. That's rather sane. Contracts that say "unlimited" at all should be outlawed, because there's really no such thing as unlimited bandwidth. I'm not some crazy commy, turns out. Most supporters of net neutrality are not commies. My problem is that you all are throwing this issue way out of proportion and are claiming that net neutrality is something far removed from anything anyone is actually arguing for. As much as I disliked the label of "scare tactics" on the health care debate, this posts reminds me very much of the term.
>> Matt Monday, November 2, 2009 3:15 PM

That is not a market failure, just because you don't want to pay what the market demands for the internet you want, doesn't make it a failure. I want a brand new BMW but don't want to pay the exorbitant amounts to buy one. Is that a market failure? Should the government step in and make sure I can get a BMW? It isn't a market failure YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO THE INTERNET. You should be happy that you live in a country and in a time where you can buy access to the internet. It is right that if you want internet you either get it from comcast on their terms, or you pay extra to get it from someone else. The Government has nothing to do with it as long as Comcast didn't violate your contract.
>> TCH Monday, November 2, 2009 3:23 PM

Well, at least now we've arrived at the heart of the issue. I would argue that the internet has become fundamental to the functioning of our society. Look at the last presidential election, and even this website. An America without the internet would fall apart, because we have become dependent on it. In that sense, it is a right, and should be protected from the very serious potential hazards that could come from companies acting in their own self interest. Yes, that sounds anti-capitalist, but capitalism does fail occasionally. I've seen it happen.
>> Matt Monday, November 2, 2009 3:45 PM

Really? The internet is a right? So how exactly do you exercise that right without infringing upon the property rights of those who have worked, invested, and risked to provide you with your "right?" Is food a right? Food is much more important to my survival than the Internet, so should the government regulate all food industries? What if I live in a town with a McDonald's but no Pizza Hut? Should the government force McDonald's to make me a pizza? What about cars? Many people need cars to get to work, are those rights too? How about houses? Just bc you have a beef with Comcast doesn't mean the government can come in and violate Comcast's right to run their business as they see fit.
>> TCH Monday, November 2, 2009 3:52 PM

And I'll try to be clear again - it's hard sometimes with the character limit to these comments. I pay my utilities. I have nothing against private companies owning utilities and charging me for them. The internet is very similar to running water, because in a given area it's really hard to get more than one company that will lay down internet cables. I'm saying that internet is very much like power and water, and should be treated similarly.
>> Matt Monday, November 2, 2009 3:53 PM

@TCH - Wow, you seem pretty upset about this. I agree that when the private companies discriminate against certain websites/content providers by providing slower service or sending packets at different rates, they've overstepped their bounds, unless you pay for it.
>> Angie Monday, November 2, 2009 4:00 PM

We need to bailout GeoCities. http://geocities.yahoo.com/index.php
>> Dr. Peter Venkman, Ph.D. Monday, November 2, 2009 4:01 PM

THC you said: "If a company is providing you with service, they can provide you with whatever service they want as long as they are upfront about it when you sign the contract and don't defraud you. If a certain internet provider blocks access to certain things, don't use that provider." This assumes that I have another choice, which I don't. Unfortunately, Comcast and others have something of a monopoly.
>> James L. Carroll Monday, November 2, 2009 4:03 PM

@Angie - ISPs don't do that. They only slow down users that use tons of bandwidth on P2P servers, which is in violation of a contract that the user signed when he/she signed up for the service. Granted, P2P servers are not illegal persay, but they are often used for nefarious purposes. Plus their use limits bandwidth to other customers. Net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem, plain and simple.
>> Dr. Peter Venkman, Ph.D. Monday, November 2, 2009 4:06 PM

you also said: "This post however, is looking into the long run motivation of things like Net Neutrally and the Fairness Doctrine. All of these polices don't exist in a vacuum. It is a coordinated attack on free speech and capitalism." It seems to me (as a die hard republican, and someone who works in the computer world, that you are on the exact wrong side in this debate if you are interested in free speech. Free speech demands net neutrality so that people like Comcast cant decide that they like leftist news over the right right. To protect conservative news requires that all internet traffic be treated the same. You are on the exact wrong side of this debate in order to protect freedom of the press.
>> James L. Carroll Monday, November 2, 2009 4:07 PM

Then you made an argument that is almost good, you said that you don't want government to have anything to do with the internet. I want as little regulation as possible, but I also don't want companies to have power to block or censer. So we want just enough government intervention to force ISP's to treat all traffic equally, to INSURE free speech, since I CAN'T just use a different ISP, when Comcast is really my only reasonable ISP choice. (I wish this thing would let me make a longer reply, working my way down the arguments slowly)...
>> James L. Carroll Monday, November 2, 2009 4:10 PM

James, Then don't use it if you don't like it. It is their company and their product, you don't have any right to tell them how to manage their product. Do you want the government to come into your business and tell you how to manage whatever it is you do? And you do have other choices, you might have to use slower satellite service or something you don't like, but if Comcast is so bad, then switch to someone else. It isn't a monopoly if there are "others." Even with that there are other substitutes. Get a cell phone with tethering and login with 3G. Just because you can't have everything your way, doesn't mean you can violate the property rights of internet providers.
>> TCH Monday, November 2, 2009 4:10 PM

Dr Venkman said: "it prevents ISPs from "limiting" bandwidth, thus every subscriber has access to "unlimited" bandwidth. Which means that when you want to download an entire season of Will and Grace, my Internet slows down - regardless of how much I am willing to pay my ISP. (i.e., a free market.)" That is just false and indicates you have no idea what you are talking about. It's about treating all traffic equally, not about forcing ISP's to give unlimited traffic to everyone. They can limit my traffic, but they can't treat Fox News traffic differently then they treat CNN traffic. Thus this is essential for free speech.
>> James L. Carroll Monday, November 2, 2009 4:14 PM

This is ridiculous. This problem has been invented - "all traffic be treated equally"? It currently is treated equally - and there is no evidence to make us think otherwise. You are all *cough cough* chasing ghosts. -- "Comcast is my only choice"? Go to Verizon/other wireless providers and get satellite service. Laying down wire is a natural monopoly - there is no incentive for another company to lay down wire right next to existing wire. Plus, it is uncertain how much longer wired Internet connections will even be relevant. -- Net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem, and nothing posted here has made me think otherwise.
>> Dr. Peter Venkman, Ph.D. Monday, November 2, 2009 4:16 PM

Dr Peter Venkman said: "@Angie - ISPs don't do that. They only slow down users that use tons of bandwidth on P2P servers, which is in violation of a contract that the user signed when he/she signed up for the service. Granted, P2P servers are not illegal persay, but they are often used for nefarious purposes. Plus their use limits bandwidth to other customers. Net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem, plain and simple." But they CAN, and that's the scary part! The net neutrality movement is trying to prevent them from doing just that.
>> James L. Carroll Monday, November 2, 2009 4:17 PM

The government is the ONLY entity that can, by definition, censor. Companies have no responsibility to grant you free speech, free speech can only be violated by force. Internet providers can't force you to not say anything, but they also don't have to allow you to say it with with their product. If it wasn't for these internet providers, you wouldn't have the internet AT ALL. They don't owe you anything beyond what you agree to in the contract you entered. If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't enter it. If that means you don't get super fast internet, that is the trade off you make. I can't eat prime rib every night either, we all make trade offs.
>> TCH Monday, November 2, 2009 4:19 PM

Dr. Venkman, I'm fine with your arguments (the most recent ones). I don't necessarily agree with them, but they are at least honest points. My main problem was that all of the posts on net neutrality that I have seen on this website didn't make any reasonable argument, they just posted a bunch of misleading information that obscured the real issues. It appears that in these comments we've been able to bring up the real issues. When posting something on the blog, treat the real issues, not the hype.
>> Matt Monday, November 2, 2009 4:22 PM

James, Yes and Walmart CAN decide to stop selling certain kinds of foods. Should we institute Food Neutrality to make sure they have to provide every type of food everyone wants at any time, just in case they decide to stop selling specific food or stop selling food altogether?
>> TCH Monday, November 2, 2009 4:22 PM

TCH, on your 4:10 post... you are wrong on so many levels. First, I don't really have other choices. Second, I am not violating the property rights of someone by regulating them enough to force them to treat all traffic equally. Third, not all government regulation is bad, IF there is a compelling need, and in this case there is, freedom of speech itself is at stake. (it is so frustrating to be responding 8 posts back because of the comment length limitation here... )
>> James L. Carroll Monday, November 2, 2009 4:25 PM

Matt, you are just missing the bigger picture. You feel some kind of entitlement to have fast internet and to have your self interest fulfilled while demonizing the self interest of the internet companies. The bigger picture here is about defending property rights and any semblance of a free market left in this country. If the government can regulate the internet, where does it stop and what about the rights of the internet providers? And how long before the government starts blocking "dangerous" websites? Whether it is Obama and Fox News or the Republicans and Porn can you really feel comfortable that the government won't expand its authority here like it has every where else.
>> TCH Monday, November 2, 2009 4:27 PM

Venkman: you are wrong again, they already DON'T treat all traffic equally, they already treat p2p traffic differently. p2p CAN be used to break the law, but doesn't have to be. In fact, it is the most "democratic" and "free speech" oriented internet protocol, so they are treating the most "free" of the protocols differently, to limit YOUR free speech. Next they will just block Fox, since we all know they "aren't a news company" according to the powers that be... you guys are so on the wrong side of this if you really believe in freedom! If you want freedom of speech, be sure and support net neutrality!
>> James L. Carroll Monday, November 2, 2009 4:30 PM

James, you do have other options, you might have to move, but that is not Comcasts fault. I wish I could live by the Ocean, but I can't reality sucks sometimes. You also could use a cell phone provider or a satellite, so you do have options, you just don't like them. It is violating their property right because their company IS their property. They can use their property anyway they want. If they want to allow you to only visit LOLCats, that it their choice. Since when is it the governments job to protect compelling needs? Silly me I thought the government was supposed to protect individual rights. Again, isn't food more of a need than the internet?
>> TCH Monday, November 2, 2009 4:31 PM

TCH, you're very libertarian, I see, and that's ok. You're entitled to your opinion. It's my opinion that the internet is more important than you think it is. It's substantially different from food, cars, or any of your other examples. It's much more similar to newspapers and magazines, especially because it is largely replacing them. Everyone I know gets the vast majority of their information from the internet. For that reason, the internet needs to be open, accessible without barriers to everyone (that pays for it, much like a utility). I'm all for letting internet companies make money, just making sure they aren't allowed, ever, to trample another company or news source just because they feel like it.
>> Matt Monday, November 2, 2009 4:34 PM

@James L. Carroll - No, Comcast/ISPs tracks users sucking a lot of bandwidth. (Breach of contract.) They then check to see what they are downloading. If they are breaking the law, they are issued a warning. If they do it again, their bandwidth is limited/their service is cut. That is 100% legal. -- Net neutrality prevents ISPs from giving preferential treatment to Customer A as opposed to Customer B. It proposes that the Internet is a "right," and should not be limited to anyone. The reason people are saying we NEED net neutrality is because ISPs like Comcast are limiting bandwidth to "repeat offender" users who suck up bandwidth. Proponents see that as detrimental to their Internet rights. Read up on it.
>> Dr. Peter Venkman, Ph.D. Monday, November 2, 2009 4:36 PM

TCH, on your 4:22 post, if Wallmart were the only food provider, and they only sold food raised by Democrats, then yes, the government could and should step in and force them to sell all food equally. The difference here is that I don't have other choices to go to for ISP services. Services such as phone lines, water service, gas service, and other sorts of utilities that involve what you called "natural" monopolies because they have a line into your home have traditionally had some regulation imposed, as they should, especially in this case with free speech itself at stake.
>> James L. Carroll Monday, November 2, 2009 4:38 PM

(Continued) There is no evidence that Comcast or anyone else treats Google better than Yahoo, or that they ever will. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None. Don't lose any sleep over it. ISPs in some cases have a natural monopoly, but there are alternatives (satellite). There is nothing here that needs fixing by the government or anyone else. It is, again, a solution looking for a problem. If someone would like to post, in plain English, what is currently being done to limit our Internet freedoms, please post them. I'd love to hear it.
>> Dr. Peter Venkman, Ph.D. Monday, November 2, 2009 4:40 PM

TCH, companies can censer just as well as government IF they have a Monopoly on the primary means of communication. On your 4:22 post, if Wallmart were the only food provider, and they only sold food raised by Democrats, then yes, the government could and should step in and force them to sell all food equally. The difference here is that I don't have other choices to go to for ISP services. Services such as phone lines, water service, gas service, and other sorts of utilities that involve "natural" monopolies because they have a line into your home have traditionally had some regulation imposed, as they should, especially in this case.
>> James L. Carroll Monday, November 2, 2009 4:43 PM

Matt and James, So you guys don't care about the rights of others as long as you get everything you want exactly how you want it, right? Just because you wouldn't have the internet (or food) without the efforts of other people means nothing to you because you want the internet exactly how you want it and don't care at all about how they want to run their companies. So you both support the Fairness Doctrine too right? Limbaugh should have to give equal time to a Democrat in the interest of Free Speech right? It is sad that neither of you understand what is meant by free speech. The providers aren't stopping you from speaking, if you can't do it there, then go someplace else, they don't have to provide you with anything.
>> TCH Monday, November 2, 2009 4:44 PM

James, NO by definition, ONLY governments can censor, you don't know what the word means. If I have a mega phone on a street corner, I don't have to let you use it, that isn't censorship. If I am saying something on my megaphone, you can't take it from me, or stop me from speaking, but you can talk louder over me. Censorship is only if the government were to come and arrest me from speaking on my mega phone. And a property rights violation would be if the government took my mega phone and gave it to you so you could use it. You can't violate the rights of the person with the mega phone (or internet) because you want to say something.
>> TCH Monday, November 2, 2009 4:49 PM

Venkman: go here: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/06/comcast-beginni/ They are only NOW starting a protocol nutral approach to throttling. Net nutrality doesn't mean that they can't throttle, it means that they can't throttle in a way that gives preference to one form of speech over another. i.e. it protects free speech, and your understanding of the issue is wrong.
>> James L. Carroll Monday, November 2, 2009 4:50 PM

Wired (who is hardly a reliable source) has been pushing for net neutrality since the advent of broadband; nor does that article disprove that net neutrality seeks to end throttling of any kind. Here are some questions for you, James: 1.) Are you denying that P2P is almost always used for nefarious purposes; 2.) Are you suggesting that Comcast limiting P2P communication is stifling "speech" on the Internet; and lastly 3.) are you honestly suggesting that Comcast/another ISP is more likely to censor the Internt than the government? Enough with splitting hairs; those three questions are the core issue here.
>> Dr. Peter Venkman, Ph.D. Monday, November 2, 2009 4:58 PM

TCH, I must disagree. I don't support the "fairness doctrine," giving equal time to Democrats and Republicans on the radio. The issues here are totally different. But I DO support Republicans and Democrats being given equal chance to set up a radio station. It is the equal chance to set up a station that is at issue here. Say I have a computer, run a web page, and disseminate conservative information. Without some regulation Comcast, that manages the connection to my web page could choose to give my neighbour (who runs a Democratic web page) a faster connection if they wanted to. What I want is minimal regulation to insure that I have an equal chance to speak as they do. Now if no one chooses to listen to me, that is a different issue.
>> James L. Carroll Monday, November 2, 2009 4:59 PM

Wow, TCH. Ok, I'm done with this. It doesn't appear that we can have an intelligent conversation anymore. There was a small point in there where we were actually talking about issues instead of name calling. I suppose calling everyone communists from the beginning and again at the end doesn't help any. And I probably played some part in reducing the level of communication going on. I just hope that further posts on this subject are actually focused on the real issues, not just resorting to name calling.
>> Matt Monday, November 2, 2009 5:02 PM

Venkman 1) not by me, I use it for legitimate purposes, 2) yes, most definitely, and worse it sets a prescient, since their throttling techniques are not net neutral, and not transparent, we don't know for sure HOW they are limiting, and WHAT they are limiting, or how much they are limiting, thus they CAN very well be limiting Fox news over CNN, or could in the future 3) no, I think that they are equally likely to censor. Thus I favour the most limited amount of regulation to simply force them to limit in a "net neutral" way. What I must stress though, is that net neutrality does not mean that they can't limit bandwidth, that is just FALSE FALSE FALSE, PERIOD, it just means that they must limit in a content neutral way.
>> James L. Carroll Monday, November 2, 2009 5:06 PM

James, what responsibility does Comcast have to make sure your blog gets the same speed as any other site? If they don't want to even allow people to see your site, they don't have to, it is THEIR product. What part of this don't you get? It is theirs, they can sell it and offer it anyway they want. If their customers don't like it, they won't have customers and they will go out of business. You DON"T HAVE A RIGHT TO THE INTERNET. Matt, I didn't call you names, I simply restated your position, if your position makes you a communist, than you should rethink your position. I am a proud supporter of individual rights, you obviously aren't
>> TCH Monday, November 2, 2009 5:10 PM

@James - 1.) Way to duck the question. What legitimate purposes are those? Do tell, please. 2.) So you admit that you are simply inventing things that Comcast "might" be doing. You just admitted you're chasing ghosts. 3.) They are equally as likely? Again, ducking the question. As for the throttling argument, agree to disagree. It is pointless to argue at this point.
>> Dr. Peter Venkman, Ph.D. Monday, November 2, 2009 5:14 PM

TCH, the government can and should have some regulatory power, and on that point we differ. If they have control over the primary means of communication, then insuring free speech demands some minimal regulation. As for what the throttling argument is about, the problem is that the simple facts are clearly against you Dr. Venkman. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/02/comcast-and-net-neutrality-advocates-clash-at-fcc-hearing.ars This is interesting, because you actually get to hear Comcast speak about it... and THEY are talking about how they throttle differently for different protocols... that is the issue.
>> James L. Carroll Monday, November 2, 2009 5:38 PM

Venkman: 1) Currently I am using BT to Download and share copies of Fedora11, in the past I have used it to share papers, music, pictures, and data files that I have created. 2) No, I admit that they are currently doing something I don't like, and COULD do something VERY dangerous in the future. But opponents are chasing ghosts too, they are worried that if you allow limited regulation then the government COULD limit free speech, even though that is the most protected right in America today. 3) How did I duck? Private companies have a financial motivation to prefer their own services over those of others, and so yes, they are HIGHLY likely to censer. Perhaps even MORE likely than our government given the first amendment. Both are a danger.
>> James L. Carroll Monday, November 2, 2009 5:45 PM

TCH, the problem is that normally I would agree with you. In general regulation is bad, and almost always limits freedom of companies to do what they want with what is their own. However, I won't go as far as you and say that therefore regulation should NEVER happen. I believe (and so do most reasonable people) that in some cases regulation is good and necessary, so long as it is minimal. The question is whether in this one case, it is reasonable to protect free speech by forcing those who have a Monopoly on the largest and most effective means of speech to treat all speech equally. I believe that this need is sufficient to justify a minimal regulation.
>> James L. Carroll Monday, November 2, 2009 5:49 PM