Well, I will point out that, in a different area of government regulation, ALL of the cases of food poisoning from USDA regulated companies have come from large companies, none of them from the small companies.

The reason for this is simple. In big companies the guy who makes the rules about how to comply with the regulations does not actually see the workers doing the work day in and day out. As a result, he is unaware when what they are doing does not meet standards for the procedure. Those who do see what the workers are doing have other priorities. As a result of these priorities, they either let the workers get away with not quite following the procedures because it would interfere with productivity, or they miss that the workers are not following the procedure because they are not watching for that.

OK, your comprehension of economics is pathetic. I hope no one ever relies on your money advice or any other economic advice. As I said, you failed to explain where they were supposed to get money that did not come from their customers.

And where does that profit come from? Whether they roll the amount of the universal service charge into the rest of what they charge you, or split it out as a separate line item on the bill does not change the fact that YOU are paying it. They do not have any money that does not come from their customers, therefore any additional tax or expense (such as the universal access fee) which they have to pay is passed on to their customers. The amount of their profit is a completely separate calculation which is determined by how much more than their costs they can charge their customers. When costs go up for an individual company, that company is likely to need to reduce its profit margin. However, when costs go up for an entire industry, the cost to the consumer goes up.

Really? Where do you suggest they get the money to pay it, if not from their customers?

In other words the provision in the Constitution where the Framers wrote that tax bills MUST originate in the House does not actually mean anything.

The universal service charge is required to be passed on to you if the telcos want to stay in business. They have to get the money to pay it from somewhere. That somewhere is their customers. Yes, they could roll the universal service charge into the other charges rather than break it out as a separate item, but you would be paying it nonetheless.

The Iphone did not present a threat to Blackberry. What killed Blackberry was bad management. They abandoned their market to pursue the market opened by the Iphone. When Blackberry made this decision their sales were still growing but they were losing market share in the "smart phone" segment. What they failed to realize was that they were not in the "smart phone" business. They were in the "secure business phone" segment (secure may not quite be the right term, but it is probably how they should have viewed their market and represents the types of innovation they should have pursued).

Just yesterday on another thread someone asked "Wow, who is making the argument that we should 'sacrifice free speech for a better society'?" and today you come along and make that very argument.`

Except if you read the article I linked you discover that the author of that article does NOT agree with that. They appear to feel that no one should be allowed to express ideas which they find unacceptable.

Actually, yes it is. Censorship can indeed apply even if there is no government action involved. What does not come into play if there is no government action involved is the First Amendment

The answer is this person, among others: http://www.thecrimson.com/colu...

The FCC is trying to gather power for itself. My bet is that "net neutrality" will be like the Fairness Doctrine. It will be used to marginalize viewpoints, positions, and organizations which go against the government enforced orthodoxy.
If these rules were really what everyone believes net neutrality to be, why did the FCC Chairman insist on keeping the actual rules secret until they are actually passed?

That government granted monopoly was a federal law ALLOWING local government to interfere in the market and forbid other companies from competing with their ISP of choice. My understanding is that the courts had found against such arrangements until the federal law allowing them was passed.
So your answer to a problem created by the federal government is to give the federal government more power?

I have heard the theory of "natural monopolies". Classic examples are telephone service and cable service. Both of which became monopolies because of government intervention NOT because of market forces. The theory of "natural monopoly" was used to justify the government regulating both telephone service and cable service monopolies into existence.

Even without manipulation the data will be corrupted with incorrect information. If people come to rely on these timelines there will be no way to correct such erroneous information. Or if it can be corrected it will only be after spending a lot of effort to do so (and probably money).