<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Regulate first, ask questions later</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bennett.com/blog/2008/07/regulate-first-ask-questions-later/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bennett.com/blog/2008/07/regulate-first-ask-questions-later/</link>
	<description>A regular old blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:51:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brett Glass</title>
		<link>http://bennett.com/blog/2008/07/regulate-first-ask-questions-later/comment-page-1/#comment-427044</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Glass</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:40:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bennett.com/blog/?p=4668#comment-427044</guid>
		<description>Alas, this is a victory AGAINST the Internet rather than FOR the Internet. The lobbyists who prompted this decision lied, and lied, and lied againâ€¦. The truth is that Comcast never censored the Internet one bit (not even the site of the lobbyists, who were slandering it) and was preserving quality of service in the face of attempted bandwidth hogging. Big corporations are often evil, but in this case Comcast was doing The Right Thing and deserved praise, not a penalty. (We need to encourage them when they do that, so that it happens more often.) 

This decision is particularly troubling because it lets the nose of the regulatory camel into the Internetâ€™s big tent. If you can tell ISPs that they canâ€™t manage bandwidth, next youâ€™ll be telling them what content to carry and not to carry. In fact, the FCC is already floating a proposal for censored public Internet. Thatâ€™s the last thing we need.

Oh, and Free Press is continuing to censor postings I&#039;ve made to its blog. So much for free, open media and political debate!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alas, this is a victory AGAINST the Internet rather than FOR the Internet. The lobbyists who prompted this decision lied, and lied, and lied againâ€¦. The truth is that Comcast never censored the Internet one bit (not even the site of the lobbyists, who were slandering it) and was preserving quality of service in the face of attempted bandwidth hogging. Big corporations are often evil, but in this case Comcast was doing The Right Thing and deserved praise, not a penalty. (We need to encourage them when they do that, so that it happens more often.) </p>
<p>This decision is particularly troubling because it lets the nose of the regulatory camel into the Internetâ€™s big tent. If you can tell ISPs that they canâ€™t manage bandwidth, next youâ€™ll be telling them what content to carry and not to carry. In fact, the FCC is already floating a proposal for censored public Internet. Thatâ€™s the last thing we need.</p>
<p>Oh, and Free Press is continuing to censor postings I&#8217;ve made to its blog. So much for free, open media and political debate!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.181 seconds -->
