Replies

Next, the other cites Google's "propagandist" who the author says calls for the nationalization of the Internet because it will make it, "essentially open to all." What is wrong with that?-not the nationalization part, the open access part? Does the author mean to leave it to us to infer from the very fact of nationalization that the government will impose invidious discriminations?

The author objects to Cerf using the "road system" as an analogy when the fact is that ISP's and bigger players that ISP's connect to OWN THE NETWORKS, the networks they built themselves and offer access to in return for that stuff called money, the very same thing they used to build the networks in the first place. Google offers content, but they don't have much in the way of network infrastructure, so it wouldn't surprise me that they'd like to have the government essentially take over someone else's property and run it according to Google's liking.

What some people here are most likely arguing about is the right to do absolutely what ever you please with a $50 ISP account. If a 80-90 billion dollar corporation like Google wants to do what ever they please with someone else's network, perhaps they can build their own darn network themselves.