My take is (regardless of the veracity of TFA) that Comcast has a vested interest in addressing "copyright violations" as their parent company owns a large stock of "intellectual property." If they can't tell whether or not you're "stealing" their IP because you're using TOR, they see that as taking food out of their mouths. Just sayin'.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

I disagree. The last mile connections should be a public/quasi-public non-profit utility, with ISPs paying fees to the utility to connect to the last mile. They can then compete with each other on price and features (including speed).

Please give me just one credible example where someone (anyone) is advocating that the "government take over the ISP business" in the US. It doesn't even have to be long and involved.

I'm not talking about the pervasive monitoring by the NSA, DOD and other government agencies. That's a different issue. A very important one that deserves our attention and needs to be fought vigoriously. But that shouldn't be diluted with some paranoid fantasy about the US government trying to nationalize ISPs.

Please. Just one real example. Thought so.

That's absurd on its face. "Anything" is a really broad term. "Comcast and their kind will murder babies in their cribs to fight Common Carrier status." "Comcast and their kind will enslave the residents of Teaneck, NJ to fight Common Carrier status." "Comcast and their kind will come to your house and force you to watch as they rape your daughters to fight Common Carrier status."

Why not use a bit less hyperbole and a little more constructive argument? How about, "Comcast is using its virtual monopoly status and huge resources to influence politicians, spread FUD and muddy the waters to fight common carrier status." That would be much more useful and might even suggest courses of action. Wasn't that easy?

This is what I thought of when reading your post:

I cannot overemphasize the importance of good grammar.

What a crock. I could easily overemphasize the importance of good
grammar. For example, I could say: "Bad grammar is the leading cause
of slow, painful death in North America," or "Without good grammar, the
United States would have lost World War II."

-- Dave Barry,

That's regulation. So, it's not regulation you're against, it's the Federal government encroaching on your civil liberties. Not all regulation is bad, and common carrier status for all ISPs would be (it was at one time, and hopefully will again) a good regulation. I'd also point out that reclassifying ISPs (regardless of the type of infrastructure, e.g., cable vs. telecom) as common carriers is about the farthest the FCC *could* go. No one is asking them to do anything more than that.

I'm mad about government surveillance and attempts to throttle free speech and personal liberties too. But knee-jerk reactions aren't helpful at all. Sadly, we likely won't get common carrier status for all ISPs. What's worse is that the state/local/municipal politician sale will continue, with entrenched players having their lap dog politicians keep them safe from competition.

If a free and vibrant Internet is important to you, start with your local government. You and your neighbors have a much better chance to effect change there than at the Federal level

Yes, really. There's much more, but you can find that for yourself. No, it doesn't replace classroom learning, but it can be an excellent adjunct to it.

In other news, a spokesman for gun maker Smith & Wesson said today that "gun ranges are the classrooms of the future." Film at eleven.

Okay. So let's have all your passwords and full access to your home, office and other property to make sure you're not breaking any laws. What? You have nothing to hide? Good. So we can install audio and video monitoring devices in your car and your house, including the bedroom, bathroom, providing full 24/7 coverage. Nothing to worry about citizen, this is for your protection.

I've seen "supply-side" economics in action, and it doesn't work. Well, not for the neediest, at least. You can call me whatever names you want, but I'm neither a "liberal" nor a "communist." I find it amusing that you didn't seem to notice that overall employment and wages have stagnated or declined since the supply-siders started implementing their policies.

Hayek and Friedman were wrong. That's not to say that Keynes was right about everything either. Higher wages and progressive income (or, potentially even a VAT) taxes led to the largest economic expansion in history in the 25 years after WWII, That's history. Look at the data. I believe in evidence and data. It's quite refreshing. You ought to try it sometime. I'm not going to get into a protracted debate with someone who (apparently) is unwilling to change their mind when provided with data and logical reasoning.

I don't need others to tell me what to think or say. I do my own thinking and draw my own conclusions.

I tell you what, You keep on calling me names and believing whatever you want. I have no desire to bad-mouth you or your beliefs (even if I disagree), nor am I interested in evangelizing my own. You might consider that sometime.

In any case, have a nice day!

Trickle-Down Economics (n)
1. A (repeatedly) failed economic policy (sometimes referred to as Supply-Side) which posits that increasing wealth at the top of the socioeconomic ladder will increase wealth at all socioeconomic levels, i.e., the wealth will "trickle down" and raise everyone up.;
2. A poorly constructed lie stating that giving more to those who have the most will somehow make those with less (or nothing) better off;
3. Pissing on the poor;