It's interesting enough that according to that article, the reason for the existence of "monopolies" on the telegraph was the government itself. Because there are no monopolies unless the government can protect those monopolies. And that is exactly what this is about. Somebody decides that someone should regulate the whole Internet because otherwise it will be abused by the powerfull entities inside it. And the best solution that that "Somebody" can come up with is to hand it over to the government? That government will establish monopolies to control parts of it, somehow all the "freedoms" will go away and in the end that "Somebody" will praise the regulation because without it, it would have been much worse. Since, as the experience shows, once the government takes control of the communication channels, it is for the freedom and protection of it's users. Just look at China how well that regulation works there.

that's like saying the british government should be held responsible for their citizens commiting crimes. I steal something, the prime minister would go to jail for not preventing this from happening. wonder where a system like this would lead. well, since the only one, who can hold responsible the state is the state, the only outcome would be a police state. no crime would be commited, because it would be illegal for their citizens to say that a crime happened simply because by definition, the existence of the state prevents crimes from happening. in the name of preventing crime, anything would be allowed. freedom would cease to exist. crime wouldn't be solved, but because noone would allowed to say that, no crime would be happening. perfect safety. at least officialy. britain is on its way to become the first dictatorship in eu. they were the first to come up with the idea of freedom( as in limiting the state oppresion), they are the first to tear it to pieces. circle of life:) good luck