;)

Please forgive this unfunny joke-explaining response:

By reversal, you have made explicit part of the attack against the Great and Free Internet. One often sees statements like "Well, in the future, what is delivered today via Cable TV, will go over the Net, and because this is the WAVE OF THE FUTURE, there is nothing we can do, so the old free Net must be destroyed, since the Net will shortly become Cable TV, and by right, the Englobulators control Cable TV."

Of course, if you really want to destroy Cable TV and keep our Net, well, unsubscribe to Cable TV, and persuade others to unsubscribe, and also fight to keep our Net free.

Here is another answer:

You might find more allies than some think.

You may pull off a version, it is, I think, the final version, of the comment, except that some signers' names are missing from my website:

http://www.panix.com/~jays/Seth.Johnson-Reply-Two.Underdeveloped.Issues-FCC-DA-10-1667A1.pdf

My name is Jay Sulzberger, and I signed the comment.

No. Today we already have the Net and we have Cable TV. The point of this comment to the FCC is that the Net is not Cable TV. Much of the discussion at the FCC and in the newspapers uses the term "broadband", by which is meant a conflation of the Net and Cable TV and perhaps other special services, such as telephone service. The point of the comment is to distinguish the Net from Cable TV.

For another version of the same argument see my 2007 comment to the FCC at http://ecfsdocs.fcc.gov/filings/2007/06/15/5514681010.html

If you are against distinguishing the Net from Cable TV, then you are for the Englobulators grabbing our Net. After all the Englobulators already have Cable TV, and since you say the Net is really the same, well what's to argue about? To run your own website you would have to make a special deal with the Cable Company. To get email from your bank, well, you have to pay for Special Bank Email Service, to play a game with friends far away, you'd have to pay for Special Game Service, and if you invent a new application that runs over what was once the Net, perhaps the Cable Company will let you run it, after they get cut in, etc..

The point of this recent comment and of my 2007 comment is this:

The Internet is not some bundle of services delivered by the Telephone Company and/or the Cable Company.

If we are not clear on this we cannot defend our Net.

ad length of my comment: It is really only about 12 pages long; the rest is a list of IANA port numbers.