somebody wrote:
> Why should Comcast be restricted in what they can
> offer should they happen to be the only provider offering services to you?

You just answered your own question. They're not being restricted in what 
they offer. They're being restricted in how much they can charge, because 
they're the only providers offering that service to you.

> If I'm a business in that situation, I would simply unavail my services to
> you and be done with it instead of your singular circumstance have dictate
> how I do business globally. Thus you would actually be worse off.

Then you don't get to do business anywhere.  And at least that way, someone 
else can come in and provide services.

You think Microsoft couldn't just tell the EU "OK, we won't sell Windows 
there."  Why do you think they didn't do that?

And I mean, hey, why should we make it illegal for Comcast to come into your 
house and take money out of your wallet while you're sleeping? That'll get 
them lots of profit too.  Or maybe only to the people who can't drive, or 
are in a wheelchair, as long as you're making stupid arguments.

> I am not seeing the point of legally forcing Comcast's hand and thus
> effectively punishing them just because they provide services in areas where
> nobody else is willing to. 

You probably don't see the point in legally forcing owners of apartment 
complexes to rent to minorities, either, or making business owners mark some 
parking spots as reserved for disabled people, I'm guessing.

The point is the betterment of society in general. The same reason we make 
people get vaccinated, we send people to school, we require people to pass a 
drivers license test before driving, and we outlaw discrimination, and we 
let everyone vote without having to pay extra for the privilege.

Since the *only* reason to let Comcast filter certain "premium" connections 
is to make the corporation more money, and the corporation exists solely 
because individuals have granted that permission, I don't see why you think 
it's a good idea to let Comcast charge thru the nose their captive audiences.

But sure, continue to act like Comcast and TW are doing everyone a favor in 
spite of the fact that you've been told repeatedly that at least in this 
country they're all granted monopolies by the government. It's better than 
admitting you might have been wrong in some way, eh?

> Sure, if they engage in illegal, monopolistic
> practices, maybe to keep out the competition from your area, that's another
> matter and should be dealt with existing anti-monopoly laws.

I get the feeling you're not even reading the responses to your messages.

But that's OK. You probably think MCI sued AT&T for monopolistic practices, 
and that's what led to the break-up of AT&T in the '80s.

> I guess it depends on whether you regard full access to the internet as a
> right or not. To me, the baseline is no access at all. Anything above is a
> bonus.

It's a good thing to have an informed populace, don't you think? Do you 
think government secrecy, secret police raids, trials behind closed doors, 
and censorship are good things? It's not a matter of right. It's a matter of 
lots of people recognizing that government-granted monopolies of utilities 
need to be regulated to keep them from taking advantage of their customers.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message