I agree with you. Government regulation of the internet is going down the wrong hole. It's odd that opposing opinions can't be discussed on HN. They're just downvoted into oblivion and a hivemind forms.

It isn't government regulation of the internet. It's government regulation of cable companies that provide the internet.

I don't want the government monitoring or restricting my internet. I would like the government to prevent companies from doing that to me.

> It isn't a restriction of free speech. It's a restriction on what the newspapers can print to deliver the speech.

It's a restriction on bus drivers refusing passengers based on what newspaper they're reading.

As opposed to ... what, for-sale-lawmakers?

Sure. At least I can hold them accountable for selling themselves. Instead we get organizations that are making laws without accountability. I mean, Obama appointed a guy who was formerly a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry as the head of the FCC! Fox meet hen house.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler

I'm very well aware of the revolving door between regulatory agencies and the industries they're tasked with regulating.

That said, you do realize that the Tom Wheeler whose appointment is your go-to example of regulatory capture is the guy who appears to want to classify ISPs under Title II, don't you? That is, a former lobbyist for the telecoms is proposing a regulation that's counter to their interests, so they're buying a law to bar him, and the regulatory agency he works for, from doing that. Which is the corrupt side, again?

Also, hold them accountable how? With an incumbency rate > 90%, and congresscritters being all but necessarily for sale in order to finance their campaigns, how exactly does the farce of democracy and republicanism (note: small-r) that we have in the US punish the bad actors?