Re: You can't save Internet Freedom by taking it away [was: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Lobbyists Trying to Destroy Internet Freedom?]

[Charles HOPE]

I don't know which is more polite.  I fear people are tired of this thread, but it would be rude to ignore your responses. David Meade wrote: I guess because the reason Net Neutrality is important to me is because it would prevent "powers that be" from taking action contrary to rights I already have.  What's interesting here is that you and others think that you have rights to use equipment that is not yours.  On the other hand, if you want to start making the case that you have some claim to the equipment, I suppose you can start by analyzing the collusion and licensing between the wire companies and government, as public utilities. I am not completely deaf to the idea, but I think that the hidden assumption should be brought out and exposed. Ron Watson wrote: This seems weasely. Why not admit that it is regulation for the Good Cause of Protecting the Internet from Evil? What is weasely is the idea that the internet is not regulated already. The communications cartel has all kinds of regulations that they are operating under. Can't have x% much marketshare, they have to allow traffic to flow over their lines freely, they have to comply with a myriad of laws already. Indeed, you are correct. Boy those airlines sure have things together, don't they? I understand that the industry exploded, prices plummeted, and airline travel opened up to many millions of people that couldn't afford it in the 1970s. I generally favor deregulation, but... How about all that raised fuel efficiency by not placing regulations on the American auto companies?   Boy, energy markets in California sure went well, didn't they. On the other hand, what is called "deregulation" is very often semi regulation, in the interests of enriching political cronies, and when the thieves are busted, it goes down in history as a market failure and more proof that freedom is dangerous. Somehow the true culprit -- government itself -- generally gets off scot-free! Such as the Savings and Loan scandal, where they allowed banks certain freedoms but continued to insure them with public money, leaving open the exploit that was soon discovered.  The owners could pillage their own banks, and get bailed out with tax money.  I support real deregulation, but when big business cronies are writing the legislation, they will always install backdoors so that their friends can hack the system. This whole conversation, especially your guys' semantical arguments over the Bill of Rights, which I enjoyed, remind me of trying to talk to someone from another political stripe about 'socialism'. The definitions are so poor and misunderstood from years of Conservative rhetoric, that people actually think that China and Russia were communist systems. The Conservatives were not the only ones putting out such rhetoric; Moscow and Beijing also were trying to announce themselves as Communist! SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.