The "Net Neutrality" debate is confusing, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Andy Kessler from The Weekly Standard calls the issue "bizarre" and "hard to understand" and opines: "both sides are off their rocker." He argues that the answer is not regulation. The telcos and cable companies, he says, are loathe to upgrade their networks -- it's expensive, and, why would they without the government stepping in? They want neutrality regulations to be quelled because "without the ability to extract money from the webbies for the use of their not-so-fast Alexander Graham Bell-era wires (forget that you and I already overpay for this), AT&T or Verizon might not have any business model going forward."

Kessler's "modest proposal" is creative and a little diabolical (ergo: I love it). "Maybe the incumbent network providers--the Verizons, Comcasts, AT&Ts--can be made to compete; threatening to seize their stagnating networks via eminent domain is just one creative idea to get them to do this. A truly competitive, non-neutral network could work, but only if we know its real economic value. If telcos or cable charge too much, someone should be in a position to steal the customer. Maybe then we'd see useful services and a better Internet. Sounds like capitalism."

What does the blogerati think about the idea of seizing broadband in the name of eminent domain?