In the current political climate, Democrats in Congress and presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama support bringing back the Fairness Doctrine as a means to neutralize the effectiveness of conservative talk radio. Regardless of the underlying political agenda or your personal political party affiliation, the Fairness Doctrine is a horrible idea for free speech rights.

If the doctrine is revived, imagine what it will do to the content of your blog because the government will have the right to decide whether you’re being fair to opposing viewpoints. You may be forced to permit guest bloggers (your competitors or opponents) to post content on your site that fundamentally disagrees with what you believe and even the purpose of your site.

What are the odds that the Fairness Doctrine can be revived? Very good under two different scenarios.

1. The Democrats win majorities in both houses of Congress and the presidency.

2. The Republicans win the presidency but the Democrats win majorities in both houses of Congress, including at least 60 seats in the Senate.

This means that if you oppose suppression of Internet free speech you can use your vote this fall to support politicians who oppose the Fairness Doctrine. If that fails, you can then contact your elected representatives beginning in January 2009 and let them know your opposition to the doctrine. Frame it as a matter of free speech instead of ideology.

As a final note, if this post was made with the Fairness Doctrine in place, there’s a good chance that I’d be forced to provide space on my site for views supporting the Fairness Doctrine. If you happen to support the doctrine, please blog about it on your site. That’s the free market solution to exchanging ideas.

And of course, feel free to leave comments.

The issue really should not be about the ability of an ISP to discriminate between users. I’m actually a proponent of multi-tiered pricing structures controlled by the marketplace instead of regulated by the government. What is at stake is deceptive trade practices, i.e. charging Internet subscribers for services that are not provided because usage is limited behind-the-scenes without full disclosure.

If your cell phone company offered unlimited nights and weekends for a flat monthly rate but secretly impaired your rights to make such calls, you’d be justifiably ticked off because of the misrepresentations that induced you to use that particular company for the unlimited calls. Similarly, an ISP does not have the right to make material misrepresentations as to the nature of the services it provides to its Internet subscribers.

If Comcast is found to have engaged in such practices, unfortunately, the fines and penalties will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher fees in the future. The better route from the beginning would have been to have instituted a multi-tiered system where fees for usage are determined by the bandwidth used with full disclosure of the terms and conditions of the tiered structure.

Is that asking too much? What do you think?

Now there’s a short-range cell phone blocker on the market for less than 60 bucks.

There’s only two cons that I see to such a device.

First, the reviews suggest that it tends to run hot when used for long periods of time.

Secondly, my guess is that the mobile phone companies will be running to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) demanding that it be banned. They’ll use the excuse that emergency response personnel (police, fire departments, etc.) need reception everywhere or some other public interest argument.

The sad thing is that the lack of common sense and etiquette creates a demand for this device.

I’m all for using tech to improve our lives … but sometimes idiots go too far.

Speaking of which, check out this story about a man who had his thumbs surgically altered (including the bones shaved down) to make it easier to use his iPhone.

Hat tip to the Associated Press.

Using these restrictions as a model, Google is lobbying Congress to pass legislation that provides Internet neutrality with respect to access, thereby preventing ISPs from charging higher rates for priority access to the Net.

Hat tip to ContraCostaTimes.