Your video, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea - The Internet Cable Highway, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 110 Badge!

Bidouleroux - I have to say that it is indeed you that has a totally bogus argument. Electrical signals in wires and water flowing though a pipe do not operate on the same principle.

With water, like with telecom and power systems, a single infrastructure is the only practical solution. However, different water providers operating on the same grid can not work because while people may pay differing amounts for water of varying quality, when mixed in a pipe, every gets the same quality water in the end and you no longer got what you paid for. If you neighbor is poor and can only afford water with fecal matter in it, guess what, you are getting fecal matter too. If you have HDTV and your neighbor doesn't, the fact that his/her cable signal is passing along the same wire as yours doesn't not diminish the quality of either signal.

At the same time, the free-market is a fine solution when the item in question is not necessary for the basic survival of a human being! We can all survive without a telephone, internet, cable tv and even electricity. People did for thousands of years. People can not survive with access to clean drinking water. Hence, something like water, that must be of a high quality, must always be publicly owned and administered in order for the public to ensure its quality and access. It's not a monopoly if the "mono" in question is everyone.

As a teacher of economics, I find the the free-market to be the most misunderstood and widely misused idea I have ever come across. Like I said before, it is a fine solution when the item in question is not necessary for the basic survival of a human being. The result of not understanding such limits of the free-market will ultimately cause the disastrous application of it to situations like that in Bolivia and dozens of other nations. The free-market is a tool, and like any tool, it is not the best solution for every problem.

I like to think of it as a story much like cable TV. At first you paid for Cable because it had exclusive programs (or in our example websites.) Not only were cable programs free of advertisements, but had a much wider channel base. Eventually some channels became exclusive to specific providers and commercials began to creep back in.

Since the massive liftoff of the internet cable tv subscriptions are tapering off. And now to adjust to the market ISP companys are trying to grab a hold on the internet to make a profit.

I really don't know what they think they can control but sites that are massive (i.e. You Tube, MySpace, Facebook, etc.) Could be bought by said companys and come exclusively to the highest bidder.

This won't work for several reasons: 1. You can't smash the internet into bite size meals for the American consumer. 2. The massive and large website that sell exclusive rights will eventually begin to dissipate as they begin to exclude a large part of the populous. 3. Because if you want to make money you have to have something people have a hard time doing without or feel a strong need to have. If you have 3 sites out of 30 Billion others... Well your not cornering too much of a market.

I dread the day it comes to that. I think most peoples fears about this are not sound or reasonable. But that's just my opinion.

P.S. On a side note, too many people make money from a free internet and anyone who would regulate that would be bad for business. Google knows this and is one of the major opposer's to what the large telecom companys are attempting.