While I don't know specifically what case (re Comcast) you're referring to, I agree with your position on the overall issue. My point is that we need to be careful when asking for government intervention (and I was agreeing with Harry on that point). We might ask for neutral provision of access to be mandated by law, and find that the regulation makes it illegal to prioritize video or VOIP packets, for example. That would be a bad unintended consequence. It's important for people who understand the issue well to remind everyone else what it's about -- as you've done here (as in your last sentence about channels). It's also important for us to be careful when calling for government regulations, because we may find ourselves worse off after the fact. -Erik >> > Comcast effectively blocked content, using your logic, Erik. This issue > is about access to the Internet, without providers inserting themselves > between you and the content. Providers need to focus on transmission, > not engage in selective censoring of what you and I want to see, hear, > or communicate. The FCC needs to, at this point, reassign the Internet > in order to limit the role of providers to that of transmission, rather > than engage in services preferences activities. Think of the issue as > one of: do we want the Internet to look like cable companies deciding > what channels we receive for our Internet access fees? > Tom -- Erik K. Mitchell -- Web Developer erik.mitchell at gmail.com erik at ekmitchell.com http://ekmitchell.com/