Aside from some pretty bad grammar and poorly composed thoughts I didn’t think her post was all that dense.

Her post seems to simply bring to light what Philip said – on the one hand people are decrying how incompetent the government is while at the same time calling for more government regulation of ISPs, and on the other hand TWC (and CBS for no adequately explored reason) are simply private businesses that are not (yet) subject to price increase justifications or involuntary censorship (not censure).

She does somewhat make the fleeting argument that DSL and cable Internet are the same thing with only the quality of the product (i.e. speed) being the key differentiation and high cost comes with higher quality. It’s a simplistic argument but it is there.

She also is confused about the concept of a “right.” To a degree she’s correct that the only “rights” we have are the ones granted to us by the government, but there is the argument that rights exist regardless of whether or not they are enforced or protected. For example, there is the human right to life, the (somewhat American) right to liberty, and the right to the *pursuit* of happiness. There is no right to the Internet though it is one of the channels through which we can exercise our right to free speech. There is no right to low-cost health care, but I would argue access to some minimal form of health care should be a right protected by law as it pertains to the right to life.

It wouldn’t be worth noting except that this person is being put forward as an expert, and she can’t even string together a coherent blog post.