Physics doesn't enforce monopolies.

Take cable - natural monopoly? Except it relies on government enforcement to create the actual monopoly. And even then, there are alternatives - DirectTV, fiber-based Internet video streaming, disc-based, public broadcast ... There's more than one way to skin a cat for every technical problem.

Natural monopolies aren't all that monopolistic. It may be more efficient if they were regulated in certain ways; but then you have to accept that the downsides are linked to regulation, not just the "natural" monopoly.

What does this have to do with the point that Christians can objectively point to their religious history and say that their god has been communicating with his creation?

If Jesus exists and was who he claimed to be - would his existence and teaching represent a creator communicating to his creation?

Can you objectively describe that as a creator refusing to communicate?

Not relevant to the point, which is that the religious can point to objective people, events, and artifacts as a creator communicating to his creation.

But to answer the question, you can also study what Jesus is said to have taught, and evaluate if they sound like the ravings of a madman.

Have you ever heard of this man called Jesus? Preached in the Middle East 2,000 years ago, claimed to be God, started a major world religion which formed a foundation for modern Western Civilization?

You know, the guy whose birth-year is the basis for the world's year numbering system? You've surely heard of him. Do you know his religion is organized around a book that claims to be God's communication to man?

Even if you don't believe that his religion is true, that is not the same as the purported creator refusing to communicate, or the communication being un-observable. The claimed attempts of communications are right there.

What understanding are you trying to add here?

You've just complained about municipally (government) granted monopolies. Who else has that power to restrict the competition?

Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Netflix aren't corporations, now?

I don't understand the need to delude oneself about the parties on each side of the debate.

"The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standard Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to link several billion devices worldwide. It is a network of networks ..."

The InterNET is a network. If you think otherwise, do you think you can download "the Internet" to your computer? The Internet is not a message. It is not a set of data. It is the global communications system. It is the medium. You are confusing Internet content with the Internet.

I suggest you drop the condescension.

4 references to "Internet", and you single out 1 instance where it wasn't capitalized. You're really grasping at straws when you're picking on typos on teh internetz.

So you think Internet access is a medium, while the Internet is a message? What is the message of the Internet?

The internet is a packet delivery service, just as the postal service is a mail delivery service. No access = No service.

It's linked to the idea of blasphemy and profanity, which is related to some idea/object being sacred. One does not blaspheme feces, for example.

The only way you make Science sacred is by elevating it into its own religion ... which it is quite unsuited for.

I'm not concerned that you're disrespecting some other religion out there. I'm wondering if you recognize those phrases treat science as its own religion. Which makes your contrast of science with religion nonsensical, because science was grouped into the set of religions.

Makes as much sense as to say, "Unlike fruit, apples are tasty and good for you." Nonsense.

Please explain what distinction you think you've made here.

Because the entire purpose of the Internet is ACCESS to network resources, from clients to servers and from peer to peer.

Regulating Internet access is by definition regulation of the Internet.

When did science become the deity of a religion where its name can be taken in vain and it has agency that men are to respect?

So in your opinion, the human brain has made improvements to itself at an exponential rate?

Are you talking about individual human brains or humans as a whole? Because the former results in senile old people, while DNA doesn't work that way.

Ah, but FDR was just the front man for his Communist/Masonic superiors! :P