I'm pretty sure that both of my choices are government-regulated monopolies in my area.

"both of my choices" are monopolies?

Without competition, why would they ever offer you 100mb, let alone 1gb?

Because one of your "monopoly choices" is competing against the other. Verizon already offers 50mb with Fios and is spending billions to roll that out to more and more homes. Bright House and the other big cable companies are working on a major upgrade that will enable them to offer 150mb within a couple years, and they are doing that as a reaction to Fios, and Fios (and DSL before that) was a reaction to cable modems.

And Google is investing in a joint venture to provide nationwide wireless access. Funny thing, they aren't lobbying to put restrictions on giving themselves preferential access to that service.

What is being proposed now is that my ISP wants to charge Google, on top of charging Google's ISP, for transferring data to their network.

This is an urban legend. None of the major ISPs have "proposed" to do this. They couldn't manage billing everyone even if they wanted to, many or most would refuse to pay, and if ISPs blocked access to those who didn't too much would be blocked and their customers would revolt. This really isn't about charging Google unless Google wants to pay. It is about offering a competitor to Google the ability to pay to secure premium service quality to try to break into the market, to make itself more visible as the volume of content on the internet becomes more and more overwhelming. Google knows this isn't a bad idea -- after all, they do quite nicely selling sponsored links, another version of the same thing.

But what this really is about is that if the federal government writes into law rules on what ISPs can't do, those prohibitions will stay on the books for decades and have untold unintended consequences -- all to accomplish what? Where exactly is the harm we are suffering today with no net neutrality laws on the books?

The actual facts on reciprocal compensation and access charges (the mechanisms between carriers for exchange of telecom traffic) or peering (exchange of Internet traffic) are more complicated than your comment suggests but it is not worth getting into because it is not relevant to the question of whether Congress should pass new laws to regulate access to the Internet.

In McCain's case, I have seen no evidence that he is highly intelligent. And there is at least some evidence that he is, at best, an average intellect. So, even empirical evidence that he lacks of intellectual curiosity and ability to change, adapt and grow with times is worth a look.

He is not running for co-supervisor, he is running for president. And recent history has provided ample evidence that intelligence in a president is a good thing.

I am arguing that a President who is computer illiterate has a pretty big handicap. It also raises the question of lack of intellectual curiosity and ability to change, adapt and grow with time...

As an electrical engineering graduate student a decade ago I had a co-supervisor who could barely turn a computer on, let alone use it - he was, as you might guess, a theoretician (in digital communications, ironically enough), and in fact a highly successful one if you go by his publication record (several Proceedings of the IEEE, and a host of other IEEE journal publications). His research grants supported nine graduate students, a post-doc, and two full time technicians. He also provided several high end workstations for his students and staff to use, including myself, who's thesis topic was a mixture of computer and electrical engineering.

He could also play the piano to near concert standards, spoke five languages, was probably better read than most English profs (okay, possibly exaggerating a bit on that one), and loved to argue history and current events with his graduate students, both of which he was very well informed about. Lack of intellectual curiosity and ability to change, adapt and grow would not be on anyone's list of his attributes.

When we teased him about why he never learned how to use the computer, his response was always that it wasn't necessary for his work (pen and paper does it for many theoreticians), between family, grad students and research he had too many things on the go as it was, and he hired computer savvy staff for the occasions on which it was necessary. I suspect the same argument, only stronger, could be made by a president of the United States.

Most of the information that a President receives is prepared by people who have an agenda of some sort. The chief of staff controls access to the President. It is easy to become isolated in the Oval Office. Clearly it happened to GHW Bush.

With the internet, a President can access unfiltered information. He can find out what average people are thinking and even interact with them if he chooses.

The internet is the defining technology of our time. It has enriched most of our lives in many ways. I know it enable me to triple my income and have a much more rewarding career.

I am arguing that a President who is computer illiterate has a pretty big handicap. It also raises the question of lack of intellectual curiosity and ability to change, adapt and grow with time...

And then they are going to invest to upgrade your house from 6mb to 100mb when?? I'd rather have two or three providers offering me 100mb in 2012 and 1gb in 2020 than 10 providers offering me the same repackaged version of what we have today.

Without competition, why would they ever offer you 100mb, let alone 1gb?

I agree that the fact that you don't have many choices does help make the case for regulation, but it also makes the case against it -- the fact that you only have a couple is no longer anything to do with regulatory barriers, it is to do with the huge cost of building broadband.

I'm pretty sure that both of my choices are government-regulated monopolies in my area.

No, it is the other way around. Your telco gets charged a small amount by their carrier on a per minute basis for completing the call.

Not quite, my telco charges their telco a the same rate to connect my call to anybody on the other carrier's end. I'm pretty sure that this exact setup exists for data transfer between networks.

What is being proposed now is that my ISP wants to charge Google, on top of charging Google's ISP, for transferring data to their network. Even worse, if that data crosses a third-party network, that ISP will want their cut from both ISPs, plus Google. Now Google is having to pay 3 different ISPs to get their data to me.

That wasn't the question. The question was can _my_ telco charge them for the calls I make to them.

No, it is the other way around. Your telco gets charged a small amount by their carrier on a per minute basis for completing the call. Your carrier could charge you based on usage if it wanted to, but most US carriers don't do that to residential customers because we don't spend enough time on the phone for them to want to bother, especially since their costs for usage keep declining. But when dial-up was booming, they were starting to think about it because your carrier lost a bundle paying your dial-up ISP's carrier for all those 120 minute calls.

In any case, historic telco regulation is not exactly my idea of the best model for anything new.

Google isn't using Verizon's network, I am using Verizon's network.

That's like saying Comedy Central doesn't use Comcast to reach consumers. (Of course, Comcast pays Comedy Central, and not the other way around).

The fact that I am using the bandwidth I paid for to transport data from Google shouldn't matter to Verizon.

It does if Google wants to pay Verizon more for better access. You're losing the point here. ISPs don't manage the network to degrade non-harmful services like Google, they want the option to favor premium services which could hep consumers by giving our ISPs a source of revenue other than us, just as cable and TV networks do with advertising. Since ISPs are now too scared to proactively file-sharing degrade sites, they will just start charging us more when we use a certain level of bandwidth rather than today's all-you-can-eat.

if we're going to let them do that, then we have to make them open up their high-speed data lines to competitors.

And then they are going to invest to upgrade your house from 6mb to 100mb when?? I'd rather have two or three providers offering me 100mb in 2012 and 1gb in 2020 than 10 providers offering me the same repackaged version of what we have today.

I agree that the fact that you don't have many choices does help make the case for regulation, but it also makes the case against it -- the fact that you only have a couple is no longer anything to do with regulatory barriers, it is to do with the huge cost of building broadband. So if new regulations make broadband investment even less attractive, we make it even more likely that we will fall even further behind the rest of the world in broadband deployment.

I'm not claiming to have a perfect answer, just saying that I don't think rank and file consumers who say they support it have fully thought it through. Once they do, many backtrack, as I did. (I am a recovering net neutrality proponent). How else to explain why the fully Democratic Congress hasn't adopted a net neutrality bill (oh, right, the huge donations from Verizon and AT&T do also explain that).

Yes, QVC and HSN's telcos charges them for calls they receive. Multi-line Business calling plans are different from residential

That wasn't the question. The question was can _my_ telco charge them for the calls I make to them.

No. Traditional phone companies are not allowed to discriminate in that way, based upon monopoly-era laws. Those rules do not apply to Internet providers, and the Internet seems to be working just fine without it.

Only because thus far the ISPs haven't been using their monopoly muscle. Indeed, in the era of dial-up, they didn't even have a monopoly. Now that you have one, maybe two real choices for broadband, and you almost always have to buy it as part of a bundle of other services (telephone or tv), it's a different playing field.

Quick question, is Verizon allowed to charge QVC or HSN more than others because people call them more often,

Yes, QVC and HSN's telcos charges them for calls they receive. Multi-line Business calling plans are different from residential

or because they make money over Verizon's telephone service to my house?

No. Traditional phone companies are not allowed to discriminate in that way, based upon monopoly-era laws. Those rules do not apply to Internet providers, and the Internet seems to be working just fine without it.

I'm not making a point, just attempting to answer the question.

I'm sure that he has, at least in the sense that Obama has observed the military.

I would hope so too, but his campaign hasn't exactly been making that point, which makes me worry that maybe he hasn't.

Given current events, Obama has had plenty of opportunity to observe how the military works.

I'm not sure I'd classify that as first-hand knowledge.

McCain also has had plenty of opportunity to observe how computers and the internet work, the question is has he, or hasn't he?

I'm sure that he has, at least in the sense that Obama has observed the military.

How so? And how does this differ from McCain and the computer?

McCain can gain first-hand knowledge of how computers work by watching somebody work on one. Similarly, Obama can gain first-hand knowledge of how the military works by watching it work. Given current events, Obama has had plenty of opportunity to observe how the military works. McCain also has had plenty of opportunity to observe how computers and the internet work, the question is has he, or hasn't he?

He can obtain first-hand knowledge of the military without actually serving, just like he can have first-hand knowledge of how a car works without actually building one.

How so? And how does this differ from McCain and the computer?

Obama has no first-hand knowledge of military affairs, let alone war.

Correction, he has no first-hand experience. He can obtain first-hand knowledge of the military without actually serving, just like he can have first-hand knowledge of how a car works without actually building one.