The Guardian of London reports yesterday that the U.S. has quietly "given up control of the Internet." There is some group in California called ICANN that controls all domain names such as .com, .org, .edu. .gov etc. Now ICANN will become an international body subject to some control from foreign governments. The question here is how much control and which foreign governments? Remember, despots hate the free dissemination of information. You'll even see that in this country with the calls for control over talk radio. So .. .wither the Internet? I guess we'll stay tuned and see what happens.

Now over 12,000 following me on Twitter. Twitter name is "Talkmaster."

Speaking of entitlement culture. Our imperial federal government is trying to capitalize on your next right that must be protected by the Constitution .... Your right to high-speed, affordable Internet access!

You may think I am joking. But there are people out there who sincerely believe that they have the right to own a home and the government has the obligation to make sure that happens. And when it comes to Internet access, we are well on our way to enabling this entitlement mentality.

The FCC, by order of the Congress, has until February of 2010 to come up with a plan to address the issue of "Internet openness, definitions of affordability and what speeds are fast enough." According to whom, the government? So the government, rather than the private sector and the free market suddenly want its hand in determining what is considered "fast enough" Internet access what constitutes "affordable"? Also .. just how do you define "openness?"

It is the goal of the FCC to provide "all citizens" with "high-speed value-laden broadband." Thanks to Barack Obama's stimulus package, we are well on our way to achieving this.

Setting myself up for an "I told you so" here. The ultimate plan here will be for the government to begin controlling Internet content. Any decent Democrat would want this.

Have you heard of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009? It has been proposed by Sen. John Rockefeller and Sen. Olympia Snowe. This is a bill that would give the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security."

Many questions pop into my mind. But let's start with one. What exactly is considered a "critical information network"? (Other than Nealz Nuze, that is.) Well ... that could include a lot of private sector entities like banking, telecommunications, utilities and others. But that will be up to the president to decide.

Now listen to this ... this bill also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." Without any provision of the law?? There's that "rule of law" thing at work again. If this were Bush we would have Democrats screaming about warrentless this, that and the other thing.

And it establishes - you guessed it - more government! The Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor that would take the lead on Internet security matters and coordinate with the intelligence community and the private sector.

Take a look at the bill for yourself ... tell me if you think this is benign, or if you think that we're looking at a power grab and intrusion into the private sector and your private lives.

Have you heard about this plan proposed by the chairman of the FCC?  Kevin Martin is a Republican.  And his time as FCC chairman is short-lived.  But he wants the FCC to auction off "public airwaves", and the highest bidder would be mandated to set aside some of those airwaves for free nationwide Internet service.  Don't you just love that word?  Mandated? 

The opponents are lining up.  The cell phone companies say this isn't a feasible business model to be forced to provide free Internet.  Free speech advocates are upset because the winning big would be required to block pornography and offensive content for their free Internet access.  Also, who in the world would be willing to build up the infrastructure to provide free Internet, particularly in this economy?  Oh ... and "free?"  Their ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody pays ... and this stuff rolls downhill.  If it's a wireless provider setting up the "free" Internet in some local, you can bet that the people with the cell phones will be picking up the tab.

Solution?  Free market.  If the demand is there, let the free market provide it.  This is not a government function. 

A Zogby Poll asked people what they thought the most reliable source of news might be. The results are a little disarming. Some 37.6 % said the Internet; 20.3% said national TV news and 16% said radio news.

Please, people ... give this some more thought. Where were newspapers in this equation? Look; I post program notes on the Internet five times a day, and I'm flattered that over a million people look at them. Advertisers like it as well --- but while I provide links to newspaper stories, this is not a news site. This is commentary - opinion - and I do not pretend to be objective. Frankly I think that Internet should be at the bottom of the list, not at the top ... unless, that is, you're referring to Internet sites for recognized and long-standing newspapers and other legitimate news sources.