Andre:

It would be nice to have a free market for internet services, but it just isn't practical because of the way the infrastructure works. You can't just duplicate it for every competing company. It's a natural monopoly.

Now, through government regulation the owners of the infrastructure are required to essentially rent it out for a fair price, again giving us Earthlink, Speakeasy, and similar services.

Less government control, as ATLListener mentions, would mean less market competition and higher prices.

And I don't agree that "freedom loving people" should always want less government involvement even if they suffer for it. In my opinion, "freedom loving people" should want more freedom, period. If some degree of government regulation can protect you from monopolistic abuses and allow you to enjoy something that gives us all the opportunity to be more free (as well as wealthier, better educated, and happier) it's okay. And this has generally been the principle of every first world society.

The government is not evil in our country, and it does not do everything wrong, nor destroy everything it touches. Our government has achieved some of the greatest things in the world. That doesn't mean we should give it control over everything, but if we can't have personal choice over something, it's better to have democratic choice rather than letting someone else decide for us to all of our detriment.

The fact is, without some government involvement we wouldn't have the internet at all.

It's just like roads. We have government run roads because there's no way to have a competitive market. And the internet is becoming as important as roads. Now, that doesn't mean the government has to provide internet service, because there are some differences from roads, but we do need regulation to get the best service we can get.

Now, government censorship is a concern, but right now censorship and incredibly harmful restriction of information by private internet providers is a much greater threat to the United States. And again, it's generally Democrats who make the strongest stand against internet censorship of both a government and corporate nature, though certainly not all Democrats are this way.

I live near a prominent American indian reservation and I see all the ills of a socialist country being played out only miles from my home. The reservation is owned by the tribe, and they do not pay federal taxes. Tribal members are guaranteed homes (even if it takes 15 years and all they have to show for it is a dirt hogan), they do not pay for water or electricity hook ups so they try to sue the phone and electric companies to give it to them free. They are poor and underprivileged, right? Each tribal member now gets a free cell phone because we would hate for them to have to pay for such a needed device. Internet is right around the corner. Nothing is stopping them from moving off of the rez, we have a fairly healthy economy and there are plenty of jobs, but then they would have to be responsible for themselves, pay taxes, and not be able to blame the white man for their ills.

...what we should do about the internet. After all, he invented it.

The only thing we need for the interent is LESS GOVT CONTROL so that we can have more market competition and drive the prices DOWN.

The govt has no right or reaon to be concerned with "whats fast enough." This is none of their business.

This is going to lead to govt control, taxation, and CENSORSHIP of internet access within the borders of the US. People are going to have to proxy to NON FASCIST nations to load any information that speaks against GL obama.. president for life.

The federal government can and has helped improve our access to the internet. First of all, there's no free market. Most broadband internet providers are monopolies, and they don't have our best interests at heart, so the federal government can help. Broadband providers also advertise falsely in a big way. None of them can actually provide the speeds they claim to all of their customers, and most fail to disclose that there are limits on how much you can use the service (and these limits are secret).

Some will note they can get Earthlink, Speakeasy, etc. in addition to their local telecom. That is only because the government mandated the owners of the infrastructure backbone work with those companies.

Without government regulation, our internet providers will just raise rates and introduce limitations.

It's internet providers, not the government, that is trying to control Internet content in this country. They want to limit what sites you use to ones they run or make money off, unless you pay an exorbitant fee. This would mean the end of the internet as it is, utterly destroying the free exchange of ideas and commerce, and making the putting in control of everything with no competition or incentive to provide anything good.

And it's mostly Democrats (and liberal Republicans, to a lesser extent) that are trying to stop it, including Obama when he was in the Senate.

Other countries with stronger regulation have much faster speeds and much lower costs. So the government can benefit us here.

And no, we don't need free computers along with this. Computers do have a free market (for the most part), and their prices have gone way down and performance has gone way up.

And this is a good things. Widespread internet access encourages commerce and free speech in huge ways.

It comes down to this: Do you want some control over your internet access through the federal government, or do you want to leave it completely to whatever company owns your region, with the knowledge that the former will almost guarantee better service and more openness?

Major ISP's are rolling out data caps, with a high price if you go over your montly limit (in most cases around $1 per meg over the cap). So, who's going to help the poor when they go over their cap, and get a $1000 bill for usage?

....no mention of Bush's bailout plan and the socilization written into it which opened the door for Obama. Wake up Neal....try to be consistent instead of selective with the outrage.

I guess the right to speech, bear arms, and move about the country means I get a government-provided blog/radio-show/newspaper to speak in, a government-provided firearm, and a government-provided car (GM?)

This is absurd! This taking the idea of rights, and twisting it into an excuse to tax the rich, in order to provide the lowest common denominator in taxes, in order to level the playing field. Where does it end? We have the right to have sex, so what's next? Government-provided porn???

What good is internet access without a computing device with which to access the internet. Do we now buy computers for everyone? Sheesh!

I have the right to internet access, and I have the right to own a home. Just like I have the right to own a gun. It doesn't mean the government has to provide me with a home, gun, and internet access. It means that IF I wish to pursue those things, the government has an obligation to stay out of my way.

my 300 baud modem? That's about the performance we'll be able to get if the Barry and Joe Show gets its claws into the net.

Enumerated Powers, anyone? Beam me up!