It isn't FUD at all. History provides ample evidence that whenever government or any quasi-government organization gets to regulate something there is always a political aim in doing so to the detriment of users and usually to the benefit of government or corporations.

When there was a single provider of domain names in the U.S. they were very expensive. When the monopoly was broken domain names are now much cheaper.

If a "passport" is required for internet access you can be sure that the hoops will be set in ways that prevent some people from having access. Even when they intend to do no harm at all. Convicted felons I predict would be the first group to be banned. Followed by children below a certain age. Then they will require that filters be put in place for some types of "passports" etc...

The internet is a very public place for the practice of free speech and dissemination of all sorts of information, both good and bad. It has been said that the antidote for "bad" speech is not regulation but more speech. Only the individual is capable of determining what he gets from the internet is good or bad... for HIM, NOT the government. Governments will always want to regulate communications between individuals. Governments prefer ignorant taxpayers. A passport would provide the means to identify an individual so they could be readily punished or prevented from exercising the right to speak freely. This is ALWAYS a bad thing.

The answer to the wild and woolly internet is for people to get more intelligent which is something the internet does very well in spite of all of the crap that is out there. Any regulation at all is a bad thing.

Kaspersky is at best a fool.

Edwin

While I am a Free Market advocate, in most cases a free market does not exist BECAUSE of government regulation.

In the case of ISP's in many if not most areas broadband connections are provided by a single provider or 2 at the most. Those 2 are usually DSL from the local telephone company which is a government granted monopoly and the local Cable TV provider which is also a government granted monopoly. In rural areas often there is no broadband at all except for satellite which uses a satellite downlink and a dial-up uplink or a more expensive up/down dish. both of which are kind of sucky.

Being there is a real lack of competition there isn't much incentive for the 2 local ISP's to upgrade their services and they would much prefer to keep their existing rates, speeds and capacities.

As a result when there is heavy load by a few types of users these ISP's would rather choke off the service than to upgrade their capacity. If the other ISP is allowed to do the same then there isn't much reason for users to switch either. There is actually a sort of collusion when the 2 companies aren't forced to upgrade because the other ISP won't upgrade either. The result is crappy service and little hope of improvement.

What I would like to see is not only a net-neutrality which prevents ISP's from throtteling certain ports or users but FCC rules which prohibits cities from granting monopolies to telecomm and Cable TV operators. There would then be more competition in telecomm altogether which always results in better services at lower rates.

If you're going to have peacemeal regulation in the hopes of having more competition then there isn't really much hope of improving the state of any utility service. In a totally free market not only would there be cheaper and better broadband but cheaper and better services from ALL utilities.

This is not conjecture. It is actually the case in a few places. There is a city somewhere in Texas that has competition between electric companies. They even use a single set of transmission lines! If a customer decides to buy electricity from company X they simply order the service and company X comes out and switches the meter. the electricity providers negotiate between themselves for the maintenance of the transmission lines and how the electricity is injected into the grid. Utilities buy power from each other now so this isn't a radical change.

The same could be done for telecomm including cable companies which would make the method of getting the data to your house (the last mile) a mere technical question. The idea that a city would be buried under a huge amount of utility lines is simple propaganda put out by utilities seeking a monopoly and has been used since the early days of the quasi-public utility provider to justify their monopoly of providing crappy service at exaggerated rates.

Edwin

The ICC forbids this. It's in the constitution in case you want to know what the ICC is.

After they spend all their money on game consoles and games they just can't afford the HDTV. I'm sure none of the gamers have wives to supplement their incomes.