Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

House Committee Approves 'Net Neutrality' Bill

Posted by Zonk on Fri May 26, 2006 12:39 PM
from the hold-the-celebrations dept.
The Internet Government Politics
An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the US House Judiciary Committee approved a bill yesterday that will prevent broadband providers from charging extra fees to websites for delivering their content to users." Ars's response is only guarded optimism, unfortunately. From the article: "The fate of the bill is not clear, as there are now two competing bills vying for the attention of the House floor. HR 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act, was overseen by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and is expected to be considered by full House. That bill is seen by some proponents of 'Net neutrality as being too weak, particularly after a Committee vote tossed aside an amendment put forth by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have enshrined the principle of network neutrality into US law. There is speculation that today's bill, HR 5417, could be proposed as an amendment to HR 5252."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Politics: Net Neutrality Bill in Congress 254 comments
hip2b2 writes "The US Congress is finally doing something to prevent large bandwidth providers and network operators from charging (or putting restrictions on) competing web and other Internet media content providers. According to this NetworkWorld article, the new bill sponsored by Democratic Representatives Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jay Inslee of Washington state, Anna Eshoo of California and Rick Boucher of Virginia in the House and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in the Senate. I am not a big fan of legislation, but, I hope this bill keeps the Internet a freer place." Here is our coverage of the first round.
[+] Hardware Firms Go Against Crowd on Net Neutrality 292 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Some of the largest hardware firms in the world, like Cisco and 3M, have sent a letter to U.S. policymakers asking them not to be too hasty on mandated net neutrality laws." From the News.com article: "'It is premature to attempt to enact some sort of network neutrality principles into law now,' says the letter, which was signed by 34 companies and sent to House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. 'Legislating in the absence of real understanding of the issue risks both solving the wrong problem and hobbling the rapidly developing new technologies and business models of the Internet with rigid, potentially stultifying rules.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

House Committee Approves 'Net Neutrality' Bill 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • One quote disturbs me... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cutting_Crew (708624) on Friday May 26 2006, @12:46PM (#15411004)
    on another link spilling this news over on Daily Tech [dailytech.com] that reads and i quote. [quote] Interestingly, the members of the committee that supported the bill said that they voted for the bill because existing competition to another bill that was already approved by a different committee. The decision to support the current bill they said, had nothing to do with actual concerns on the future of the Internet and what net neutrality is all about. [/quote]

    existing competition? what competition? if they arent going to decided on these important issues then why the hell are they there in the first place? 3rd rate politics all the way will always reign until someone with some balls and backbone will let their common sense be heard and voted on, rather than dancing around the issue.
    • if they arent going to decided on these important issues then why the hell are they there in the first place?

      To suck up your tax dollars and prepare for their forthcoming lucrative careers as directors/lobbyists/consultants of course. What, you thought they were working for you?

    • That's Congress for you (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MikeRT (947531) on Friday May 26 2006, @01:09PM (#15411155) Homepage
      The next time you get surprised by Congress' tone deafness, remember that they can get all worked up [washingtonpost.com] about a colleage getting raided, but not about a 80 year old couple getting raided under obviously horrendously false pretenses [blindmindseye.com]. They don't care about serving the public. Their approval ratings, both parties, are starting to approach single digits. If there was ever a time that it should be obvious that we live under the rule of an unaccountable, bifactional ruling party it would be now.
      • they can get all worked up about a colleague getting raided, but not about a 80 year old couple getting raided under obviously horrendously false pretenses. They don't care about serving the public

        Exactly. This is a prime example of how the two major parties collaborate to maintain the status quo. The idea that they are bitter enemies at the opposite end of the political spectrum (which is the picture we are presented with, at least by the mainstream media) is a joke.
    • The competition between the two bills. They knew the other one was on the House floor, and without this bill be passed by default.
    • The decision to support the current bill they said, had nothing to do with actual concerns on the future of the Internet and what net neutrality is all about.


      Nothing surprising there. Remember that pro is to con like progress is to congress.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art

  • I'm confused... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by packetmon (977047) on Friday May 26 2006, @12:47PM (#15411014) Homepage
    Do you mean that under USC 31337 (1)(a)(c)(e) subsection (a)(g) which was superceded by USC 1337 (a)(s)(s) following the guidelines of pork barrel contributors to the aforementioned parties in limine to carrying forth judgement on this matter that someone has to play fairly? Well that makes a lot of sense now doesn't it. However, how long till lobbyists grease up the right pockets and allow the big boys to do as they always do... Monopolize. Strangely I just thought about AT&T's semi new VoIP offering... Aren't they cutting their own throats by offering an all inclusive $49.99 service (local and long distance svce)? I mean after all, if they didn't they would have to charge an average of about $60.00 per month per customer for LD only... I guess its better for them to shoo away companies like Vonage and keep all the money for themselves. Blah to Skype and purveyors of things big companies can't cash in on (sarcasm ... you know ;O)

    • I'm confused as well. For example, what does this mean? " Net neutrality by some, inasmuch as it not only outlaws service degradation, but would also prevent service providers from selling Quality of Service (QoS) to consumers."

      So, is my upload and download speed now uncapped?

      Is it illegal for my work to use QoS?

      I have cable broadband (Cox), and I believe bittorents are QoSed, but I have no proof of it. I also believe that my ISP is spying on my Google searches. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but at work all

      • I also believe that my ISP is spying on my Google searches. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but at work all google searches are instantaneous. [...] I've had many searches with Cox broadband where it takes 30-40 or so seconds for a Google search to display, yet the Google search time on the left is often 0.2 or so seconds.

        They don't need to do anything to your connection to see what your google searches are, except sniff the first few packets, since google doesn't offer an encrypted page (though they do with

  • This is a hopeful first step, and it seems that politicians might have an eye for the value of the Internet after all.

    If Telco's really need more money (as they claim) to pay for the infrastructure they are maintaining (and expanding), they can always use (non-discriminatory) a pay-per-byte billing scheme instead of pay-per-byte-value.

    • Your pay per byte scheme will never fly. Would you be willing to pay for bytes transferred per say, Windows Updates? How about if you were running a small business with 100 machines? Let Machines = M Updates (in megabytes) = U T = Times a Month: 100M x 5U x 4T ... Would you like to pay for Microsoft's additional bandwidth use? What about companies sending java ads, etc. The pay per byte would definitely not fly. As for companies acting under the guise of needing infrastructure work, I say have them justify
      • Your pay per byte scheme will never fly.

        Explain to me why my cell phone company bills me by the minute then?

        I do not understand why in the world local phone calls cost as much or more than international 24x7 internet access. Doubly so when one considers that the same people provide the lines and service.

      • Of course, putting a dollar cost on wasted bandwidth creates a financial incentive to remove the waste. e.g. Symantec could set the price of Windows Update Cache Pro(TM) just below the cost of bandwidth that it saves...
      • FYI, if I had a hundred machines they'd be on a WSUS server so the updates would be downloaded once.

        We're charged for usage of our connection, so it is done. It's not per byte, it's sort of a complicated capacity/average use/peak use aggregate.

      • I think that a pay-per-byte scheme is very viable, if only because some of my European friends tell me that their ISP's already implement a scheme like that.

        It seems to work as follows: for your monthly fee you get a download limit of say 3 Gb. a month. If you exceed this limit occasionally and by a small amout, your ISP will feel that it costs them more to send you an extra invoice than they could charge you. Try to download 30 GB. in a month and you will find your connection suspended:

        (a) for the time

    • This is a hopeful first step, and it seems that politicians might have an eye for the value of the Internet after all.

      <cynical>The only thing the politicians have an eye for is keeping their jobs come November.</cynical>

      The voters are pissed off enough to really shake things up this year, and the politicians know it. Net neutrality had ridiculously broad support from an absurdly large number of organizations that frankly, I never thought I'd see on the same side of any argument. It made sense to

  • Yay! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by popeguilty (961923) <popeguilty@WELTYgmail.com minus author> on Friday May 26 2006, @12:47PM (#15411019)
    Countdown to random Internet Libertarian telling us all how this is a horrible infringement on private enterprise in five, four, three, two...

    Seriously, though, this is great. The Internet doesn't need to be run on a Mafia-style extortion plan, and it works best, in fact, when it doesn't. This is one of those times when government can do something right.

    • Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by arivanov (12034) on Friday May 26 2006, @12:51PM (#15411045) Homepage
      The Internet doesn't need to be run on a Mafia-style extortion plan.

      Afraid to tell you. It is being run on a Mafia-style extortion plan in the US for a long time. Ask any network engineer about "peering with a Tier 1 provider".

    • Re:Yay! (Score:3, Informative)

      by MobyDisk (75490)
      ...one, zero... Howdy, I'm your man!

      You don't understand the libertarian viewpoint: Libertarians aren't against all regulation. We are against regulation that interferes with business. Regulation of natural monopolies, such as companies that own phone lines and carry the data, is necessary.

      Now, specifically on net neutrality: net neutrality promotes fair access to a monopolized resource. That is good for business. It is good for everyone. I strongly support net neutrality.

      • Funny, I thought libertarianism was about, well, liberty. Not business. But, then, I guess that's the difference between libertarianism-with-a-small-l and Libertarian-with-a-capital-L (as in Libertarian Party). IMO, big business is at least as much of a threat to liberty in the modern world as government. Personally, I don't give a damn whether I'm being trampled on by government or by insert-large-corporation-here, the effects are largely the same. (Unless you take it to the "men with guns" level, but
      • You are the one who doesn't understand Libertarianism. Here is the party platform on monopolies [lp.org]. You can't just go redefining Libertarianism to mean whatever you want it to mean. That is one of my big beefs with Libertarians, whenever you call them on an issue, they waffle and say, "Oh, but that's not what we believe!" Either you are a Libertarian according to what the Libertarian party says, or you are a roll-your-own Anarcho-capitalist, and I would have a lot more respect for you if you would just call yo
        • Libertarians, like republicrats and democrans, come in multiple flavors. So to speak - I haven't tasted too many libs, and no reps :D Don't make the mistake of assuming that they all believe the same thing. That, of course, is the problem with any kind of label, there's always special cases that don't quite fit.
    • Countdown to random Internet Libertarian telling us all how this is a horrible infringement on private enterprise in five, four, three, two...

      Speaking as a random Internet Libertarian I would consider this as potentially good legislation. Libertarians aren't anarchists, a libertarian should support good laws which seek to punish certain actions that are willingly harmful to others. And no thoughtful libertarian should view conveyance on public rights of way (whether that be in a car or in a data packet)

  • This is awful (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Toby The Economist (811138) on Friday May 26 2006, @12:59PM (#15411096)
    We all sit here and sigh with relief that the law is being used to ensure our beloved internet remains net-neutral, and yet - do we really understand the issues or just have a superfical knowledge from the media and fear based upon that?

    And do we properly understand the consequences of State involement in this issue?

    We applaud, from our fear, that the State will step in and ensure the net is kept neutral.

    What we do we do if the State later steps in - as it will, now it has begun - and enacts bills which we detest and shudder at?

    In both cases - those we applaude and those we detest - the choice has been taken out of our hands, the decision has been made by the State and will so be the same for everyone.

    The solution to these matters lies properly in our own hands.

    If you object, GET OUT THERE AND DO SOMETHING.

    Make sure people know - convince them not to buy from a net-biased provider.

    Those who care about it will have the choice to buy from someone else - they have what they want. Those who don't care can buy from who they like - they have what they want.

    Don't use or applaud the use of the State to achieve your own ends and impose them upon everyone, because it will come back to bite you when the State is used to impose upon YOU.

    Let people make their own individual choices with the money they pay.

    • Re:This is awful (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Make sure people know - convince them not to buy from a net-biased provider.


      Yeah, yeah... markets can work where markets exist. The vast majority of individuals have 1 (or if they are really lucky 2) choices. If the local telco and cable provider are net biased, then tho only individual choice available is to not have internet access.

      Lets stop pretending that home internet access can be influenced by market forces. That would require a market.

    • Re:This is awful (Score:4, Informative)

      by Dachannien (617929) on Friday May 26 2006, @01:16PM (#15411197)
      Those who care about it will have the choice to buy from someone else

      What your diatribe fails to take into account is that broadband consumers have only three choices: one, their current broadband provider, be it their local phone or cable company; two, the other company not specified by number one; and three, no broadband at all.

      If we had true consumer choice in network providers, then we wouldn't need network neutrality laws - the market would work things out for itself. But that's not the case. As with any oligopoly, the government may need to intervene to ensure that the lack of competition isn't being leveraged at the expense of the consumer.

      • What your diatribe fails to take into account is that broadband consumers have only three choices: one, their current broadband provider, be it their local phone or cable company; two, the other company not specified by number one; and three, no broadband at all.

        Not necessarily. Many people have only one option, and some people have none, and are waiting with bated breath for something to come along. I can't get cable or dsl, there's no cellular coverage where I live, and I believe the trees are too t

    • You are the state. When it runs wild, it is only a reflection of the apathy of the people. You're right, get out there and do something; exercise your control over the state that serves you.

      "The State" does not exist in a vacuum. It is not a person. It is the tool that allows people, instead of dollars, to exert power.

      Ideally anyway. If we are not at that ideal, then the answer is to fix the state machinery. So go ahead, get busy!
    • The core problem with all of this argument is simply that communications providers are already a state mandated monopoly or duopoly in most cases. There is simply no competition to flee to if your ISP starts choking bandwidth to certain sites on the internet. What will you do if you live in GA and both your cable provider and your telco decide that you shouldn't be able to reach the website of planned parenthood? There's no other way to get broadband in GA, because the state (in the sense of the governme
    • The solution to these matters lies properly in our own hands.

      If you object, GET OUT THERE AND DO SOMETHING.

      I don't live in the States. Frankly, I'm inclide to leave you to the height you grew. If american sites become crippled, I'm confident they'll either set up mirrors abroad, or the outside competition will have an offerring.

      What does worry me is that the telecom monopolies will attempt to extend this idea to Europe. But given that they're all American companies, I can't really see the French giving in t
  • it may be. IT/Net crowd should push the law people to see things the right way. Google, microsoft, ibm, and others should spend money to get support in the congress, just like the telcos do. This is the only way.

  • Oh those pooooor telecoms (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MikeRT (947531) on Friday May 26 2006, @01:01PM (#15411111) Homepage

    The telecoms have resorted to blatantly socialist rhetoric [blindmindseye.com] lately. Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are "da Man" who is trying to keep the people down by "making them pay the whole bill."

    WTF?! Google, Microsoft and Yahoo probably pay more per month than all broadband users in the US combined for their bandwidth. The telecoms are just trying to avoid an ugly truth: $15 DSL that is 50% the speed of a several hundred dollar T1 is not a viable business. What we need is metered bandwidth.

    Metered bandwidth would be good for several reasons. First of all, it would in the long run reduce the cost of providing extremely fast service to most people because they don't use that much bandwidth. Most broadband users could easily get by on 5GB/month for $10-$15, then $0.25-$0.50/GB downstream after that. Second, it would provide a financial disincentive for people to use file sharing software for illegal reasons, thus providing the "social solution" to the "social problem" of how to handle mass copyright infringement without DRM or legislation. Third, it would distribute the costs of funding network development fairly.

    If 1% of a broadband service's users are using up to 40% of the bandwidth (which Comcast has said is their problem), that's a lot of people paying to subsidize the costs of 1% enjoying the "full benefits" of the network. Why shouldn't that 1% pay for downloading 50GB,100GB (or in one guy's case, 600GB) of data?

    I don't want to subsidize the infrastructure with my taxes anymore, and I don't want to pay the same rate for my ~5GB-10GB/month of bandwidth use as someone who uses 100GB+. I also don't want the government telling private businesses that they cannot reserve part of their networks for their own services. As long as they are providing you with the QoS that they advertise and contractually agree to provide you, why do you care if Verizon keeps 80% of the network for their IP TV service? If we get up to 10mbps as the standard rate, and they keep 40mbps for themselves, is that 10mbps any slower? Of course not. Your piece of the pie just keeps becoming more and more in real numbers as their network expands.

    • Metered bandwidth would be good for several reasons. ... it would provide a financial disincentive for people to use file sharing software for illegal reasons...

      Maybe, maybe not. In that scenario, if I download an episode of "24" from iTunes, I have to pay Apple and my ISP, but if I download it through unauthorized channels I only pay my ISP. But metering would certainly shift the balance from sharing towards leeching.

    • I don't want to subsidize the infrastructure with my taxes anymore, and I don't want to pay the same rate for my ~5GB-10GB/month of bandwidth use as someone who uses 100GB+. I also don't want the government telling private businesses that they cannot reserve part of their networks for their own services. As long as they are providing you with the QoS that they advertise and contractually agree to provide you, why do you care if Verizon keeps 80% of the network for their IP TV service? If we get up to 10mbp

      • Or the provider, whose board of directors has a preponderance of individuals with strong religous beliefs, suddenly deciding that they can't in all conscience operate a company that provides access to 'immoral' content and implements blocking for any site that serves porn, nudity, excessive violence, abortion-rights views, or any other opinion they disapprove of?

        Loss of their common carrier status, and responsibility for all traffic that crosses their network?

        • Or the provider, whose board of directors has a preponderance of individuals with strong religous beliefs, suddenly deciding that they can't in all conscience operate a company that provides access to 'immoral' content and implements blocking for any site that serves porn, nudity, excessive violence, abortion-rights views, or any other opinion they disapprove of?

          Loss of their common carrier status, and responsibility for all traffic that crosses their network?

          Interesting! So maybe we could apply the same
    • Oh, god! Metered Bandwidth! What happens when I download a file just to find out it's corrupt and have to download it again? Why did it get corrupted? Was it my ISP or the server on the other end? If it's my ISP, am I entitled to a refund? If so, how do I prove it was my ISP?

      More importantly, we'd all have to think about how much bandwidth we're using. To provide a financial disincentive for people to use file sharing software for illegal reasons, they'd have to charge for upstream bandwidth too (otherwise
      • What happens when I download a file just to find out it's corrupt and have to download it again?

        You would pay for it. It's not that big a deal, really. Do you kick yourself when you forget to turn off the lights in the basement overnight? It's still a far cry from running a 20 kW air conditioner.

        Truly such a thing would kill the Internet.

        It would kill the provider who tried it, thanks to the good old competition. As long as the statistics hold up, the flat-rate model is viable.

    • Re:Oh those pooooor telecoms (Score:5, Interesting)

      by arth1 (260657) on Friday May 26 2006, @01:33PM (#15411334) Homepage Journal
      If 1% of a broadband service's users are using up to 40% of the bandwidth (which Comcast has said is their problem), that's a lot of people paying to subsidize the costs of 1% enjoying the "full benefits" of the network. Why shouldn't that 1% pay for downloading 50GB,100GB (or in one guy's case, 600GB) of data?

      Because those people already pay for this?
      The real problem is that in the US, you have oligopolies that are careful not to thread on each other's toes. Like Comcast/Cox -- you seldom if ever have the choice between the two, so it's not really competition.

      Why should I pay $80 per month for a 0-4 Mbps up / 0-384 kbps down, when my friends in Norway pay $50 for a 8-20 Mbps up / 4-10 Mbps down? And in addition, I'll lose my service if I use "too much" bandwidth, or use it for any non-approved purpose, unlike them. Never mind that I don't get a full internet service in the first place, but blocked ports both ways.

      Some kind of regulation is needed as long as there is no true competition.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art

  • If any of you haven't seen them yet... (Score:4, Informative)

    by vertinox (846076) on Friday May 26 2006, @01:03PM (#15411123)
    Check out Savetheinternet.com [savetheinternet.com].

    Grass roots campaign for the Net Neutrality bill. They have been helping out by giving information to people on how to contact their reps and so on.

    Heck even Moby supports them.

  • They neglected to mention... (Score:4, Funny)

    by QRDeNameland (873957) on Friday May 26 2006, @01:30PM (#15411318)
    The article neglects to mention a little known competing Congressional bill sponsored by the Telcos...the Communications Opportunity for Protecting Revenue Of Providers Harping About Government Intervention Act or COPROPHAGIA.

    Basically it says that the Telcos can write their own rules and the rest of us can eat shit.

  • The inability to "block impair, discriminate or interfere with anyone's services or applications or content," makes the following illegal:

    - QoS
    - NAT
    - Virus Scanning
    - Spam filtering
    - Traffic Shaping
    - Pop-up blocking
    - Port Blocking

    This means the traffic on the Internet will now be even more dominated by malware and scumbags then ever before. This is a good thing?
    • Did you (or the mods for that matter) bother to read past that first sentence? Immediately after the part you quoted, it says:

      If a provider were to offer increase VoIP performance, for instance, the bill would require such providers to prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service "to all data of that type... without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhances quality of service."

      In other words, QoS and the like is still allowed, it just has to be fair. You can't give

  • oh boy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Because when I think "things that are efficient and unbiased", I think "US government regulations".

    • Caps and Usage Fees (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Oculus Habent (562837) <oculus@habent.gmail@com> on Friday May 26 2006, @01:08PM (#15411147) Journal
      I predict this leads to wider adoption of usage caps and bandwidth charges on broadband services. If they can't charge the site owners, they'll start charging the users.
      • they'll start charging the users

        Is that a bad thing? This is how it works now. Anyone who uses bandwidth just pays according to how much they use (peak or on average). In this sense both home users, colo users and providers contribute to the network equipment and running costs further up-stream.

        Where things would go wrong is if large corps were able to buy bandwidth on a large scale on behalf of their end users from end to end at the loss of service to other users.

    • This bill and bills like it are a horrible idea. The power and success of the Internet is that it's lightly regulated and robustly competitive, especially for hosting services.

      The internet's success comes from the fact that network operators are given special privileges to act like common carriers and with it are required to act as impartial carriers of data. They are now trying to form a cartel and bypass that requirement of impartiality.

      If some ISP wants to charge extra or restrict access to some Internet application how do you think their customers will behave?

      Given that their customers are other network carriers in this instance who want to do the same thing to gouge money from the successful, I suspect they'll agree to collude and form a cartel.

      Either way the individual customers and overall market should decide prices and services NOT the Federal Government.

      The federal government should not decide prices, but if network operators want all of the privileges afforded to common carriers, they should have to impartially carry data like common carriers, not charge extra for not intentionally slowing things down for people who aren't even their direct customers.

      An analogy might be, what if the law said only one package shipping companies could operate in a given geographic region, to avoid confusion (only one phone and one cable company is given access to the last mile public right of ways in most places). So one company took over for each state. All fine and good. They agree to impartially carry the packages in return for immunity to prosecution for accidentally transporting drugs or guns or child porn, since they just move anything without looking. They all agree to carry one another's packages, some paying the other a small fee, but basically it all working out. Then the company in California decides, hey, why don't we make sure packages coming from Ford motors are delayed in our shipping room an extra week unless they pay us an additional fee. Its not like they can stop using us, we're 18 customers away from them. The market can't respond effectively through so many intermediaries. They are no longer behaving impartially, so why shouldn't they be held accountable for what they are shipping? And what about the other shippers? Will they cancel their relationships with this one, or will they make a deal and all start doing the same as a way to get more money? My bet is the latter.

      I'm all for the free market working things out, but this is nowhere near a free market situation at this point. When anyone can string up lines on the telephone poles and run wires to all the houses, then we'll be getting close. Most end users have no choice, or very little choice. They can go with the monopoly cable company or the monopoly phone company, both of whom only bundle their service with their other service. Hell, it is cheaper for me to buy cable TV + cable internet than it is to just buy cable internet. That doesn't exactly sound like something the free market would produce?

      If you want the Feds to give everyone the same access everywhere and for the same price (such as was done with phone, mail, and electrical service) then you penalize the rational consumers and promote things like urban sprawl and government sponsored (universal access) monopolies.

      The government is already enforcing monopolies on cable and telephone lines, which are the only "last mile" connection available to most users. Claiming then, that you should not regulate the behaviors of those monopolies is just plain foolish.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.