I am not sure that this guy's jingoism is a satisfying substitute for reasoned argument.

For example an "unregulated Internet" sounds great, right? Less regulation means more freedom, right? Kind of. Think, for example, how much you would like to have an unregulated nuclear power plant in your neighborhood (or even your State). How about an unregulated water utility, waste-disposal plant, oil refinery or chemical industry? Supporters of this type of argument play on a basic distrust of government, which any thinking person has plenty of. However, do you really have more trust in private corporations? We need transparency and accountability in, not absence of, government.

The forces behind the "unregulated internet" movement are primarily the big telcos, who want to charge extra fees to content providers and limit or deny their customers access to all sites that refuse to pay. Is VideoSift, for example, prepared to pay Internet backbone operators around the world to allow you to see their site? MSNBC probably is.

So which do you think it is: blind idealism, corruption or just ignorance that drives his call for an unregulated Internet? Do any of these sound like the right way to run a government? In fact, they sound familiar; this guy may not be so different from W as he would like to us to believe.

See also these Net Neutrality videos on VideoSift

You can't really compare the EU and the North American telecommunications market, while this would work in the EU it wouldn't work in North America. Furthermore what you are talking about is still the same methodology of centralized control, by established telcos BT and Virgin Media tackling the old standard model. What I think is different with Joost and such is that they will try to provide actual online content we get on VS.

In the US as well telecommunications and media companies are too closely related and the already too much lax legislation + pork barrel regulation by the FCC and lobby group representation at Washington DC show how Net Neutrality at one point was being sold to consumers as being more expensive for them.

Furthermore media companies, especially Hollywood are too scared to offer their entire catalogs in digital format because Wal-mart which sells 40% of DVDs currently, would not appreciate a open standard digital source for films that would threaten brick and mortar supply chains. So what they did is launch the Wal-mart service, which is restrictive, ridiculously expensive (8 to 20 dollars), and generally crap because of DRM.

However this crappy service will fade quickly as BitTorrent founder Ashwin Navin is announcing its own legal movie distribution network. So far it sounds good, we all know the speed benefits of BT, there will be no DRM, pricing is said to be reasonable and alot of movies will be free supported by ads.

We will see how this develops. Though I still believe there is a place for IPTV content that is not just limited to supplying Hollywood but rather in the style of VS, i.e. sifted video selection channels by categories.

You can't force a CEO that is beholden to his shareholders to provide profit over social good to follow regulatory schemes, one needs to make it reflective in current business accounts for this idea not to get shot down in the current pro-lobby organization of goverment currently in Washington.

Nor is the public or media ready to be informed about the intricate nature of what pollution permits or regulation would mean for the American people. Big Telco in the US fighting Net Neutrality shows this.

Until I see this in the peoples concerns I will not give merit to simple idealogical assumptions that if it is right we must do it. The rest of the ruling class does not operate this way, because they act as economic agents of self service to their own wealth. Ironically they are usually the people who sit in control of these energy firms. So yeah...

You raise some good points.

"it would be stupidity to amend the text and jeopardize the case law that's been developed in the last 50 years."

I don't propose such action. I'm simply pointing out that there isn't a side that respects freedom, or the constitution. There isn't a side that threatens our freedom in particular. Both sides take their liberties with the Constitution. Let us not forget that it was a Democrat who instituted domestic concentration camps explicitly for American citizens and residents.

I think you're right, it would be stupidity to re-interpret the commerce clause. But I also believe that it was wrong to liberally interpret it in the first place, and that every law passed on the authority of that interpretation violates the Constitution. The Constitution grants the federal government only the powers explicitly listed in the first three articles.

"it was heavily subsidized by tax dollars, so it really IS the property of the people"

Now that is something that you're going to have to prove. Does public subsidisation equal public ownership? Are American farmers beholden to the will of the people because they rely on subsidisation? The government can't tell you what to do with your degree, subsidized by tax dollars. It's compelling to think that because we payed for it we own it, but I don't think that's true. Why do you suggest it in this case? The purpose of subsidisation is to encourage markets, not to purchase them.

Now, if I understand correctly, there are certain unfulfilled conditions that were attached to the money, but leaving them unfulfilled does not bring the telcoms under the purview of the federal government.

"The government will usually only step in to maximize competitiveness across industries - to allow Telcos to establish a monopoly market would not be in the interest of free markets as a whole and would definitely not be in the interests of freedom"

The federal government steps in not to maximize competitiveness but to enforce standing anti-trust legislation. The telcoms are not attempting to form a trust and hence do not fall under these laws.

My greater point here is that this man's anger is not well placed. There is a much greater malaise upon our nation, of which recent developments are only a symptom.

--Joe

Joe, the commerce clause IS liberally interpreted. Otherwise we wouldn't have any of the civil rights bills. Like it or not, the Constitution is a living, interpreted document, and it would be stupidity to amend the text and jeopardize the case law that's been developed in the last 50 years.

The information you're denying the readership here is that the Telcos did NOT pay for that infrastructure out of their own pockets - it was heavily subsidized by tax dollars, so it really IS the property of the people, not to be alienated for the benefit of private interests. Should we subject commerce and trade on the internet to free market forces? Of course! That's what's currently happening, and it's caused a massive rise in productivity.

The government will usually only step in to maximize competitiveness across industries - to allow Telcos to establish a monopoly market would not be in the interest of free markets as a whole and would definitely not be in the interests of freedom - thus, the government should not act against the interests of efficient markets and give the Telcos an undeserved windfall.