On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Michael Painter wrote: I'd be very interested in what folks here think of this: http://news.com.com/Time+for+a+real+Internet+highway/2010-1028_3-5894664.htm... I think it's a news.com.com.com URL, and therefore most likely not very worth opening, much less reading. I'm very interested in why you didn't bother at least summarizing the story as a general courtesy to folks here. matto --matt@snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin>< The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:07:32 -1000 "Michael Painter" <tvhawaii@shaka.com> wrote:

I'd be very interested in what folks here think of this:

http://news.com.com/Time+for+a+real+Internet+highway/2010-1028_3-5894664.htm...

All I can see are two actual arguments for government intervention in the Internet. First is that they already grabbed all sorts of other important utilities so why not grab this one. Patently absurd even if they had demonstrated any sort of special competence in the areas they already meddle with. Prove your case based on the requirements of this industry, not a sheep follows sheep rule. Second seems to be that the area that he grew up in that survived hundreds of years without electricity got electicity a few years before the market could bring it in. Big deal. What does that prove? Perhaps he still doesn't have Internet access when he goes home to visit the folks and thinks that it should be a right for everyone. Utter hogwash! I won't even go into the issue of which government should take it over. I assume that he thinks that the US government is the only entity that should run the Internet. Sorry, content free article. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.