For that reason, writes Keen in the Daily Beast, we should not spend billions of dollars upgrading U.S. Internet connections. Expanding broadband access to the great unwebbed, at a time when the economy is in the tank, will just lead to the spread of halfbaked conspiracy theories and the rise of populist anger.

Wait, what happened to blogs stopping the rise of Hitler? Oh, well, Keen's a bit of a snob: He doesn't like blogs, YouTube, MySpace, or basically anything on the Internet that anyone else likes. But we had no idea he was actually, provably stupid.

First of all, let's get real about the broadband plan. It's not going to get that many more people on the Internet. Already, 90 percent of U.S. Internet users are on broadband. The ones who aren't are mostly happy with their dial-up connections, which they use to check email and download photos of their grandkids. And people who aren't online are generally old rather than poor. Anyone a demagogue would want to reach, they already can today.

No, what the broadband stimulus package really amounts to a bailout for phone companies, which would otherwise have to spend their own money upgrading their networks for higher capacity. This, in turn, will allow for faster delivery of online video.

And who's going to pay for all that video? Why, advertisers. And finicky advertisers are far better regulators of loopy extremists than the government will ever be. They hate controversy! As do Internet companies, if only because it means having to spend money on customer-service personnel. So much easier to let the community flag a video as "offensive" and take it down.

So the Father Coughlins of the world will be left broadcasting low-resolution bile over the slowest of connections, constantly running into bandwidth caps. Meanwhile, safe, apolitical pablum will zip speedily over government-subsidized lines, safely narcotizing the masses. Sure, we have plenty to fear from a national broadband plan. But it's not Andrew Keen's racist, classist paranoia that he might run into someone poorer and less white than him in a chat room.

No. Metcalfe literally ate his words two years after his prediction. In the decade since, Internet infrastructure upgrades continue to outpace growth. So even though worldwide traffic grew by half last year, peak utilization is now less than 50 percent of available capacity. Don't believe out-of-date claims about "last mile" bottlenecks, either. Home broadband users have been built out to more traffic than they're using. Comcast's caps are about per-customer profitability, not system overload. If anything, you should feel encouraged to use the Net even more. Just make sure your ISP is willing to let you have at it. (Photo by zinkwazi)

High-speed Internet access is so important to the welfare of U.S. consumers that America can't afford not to offer it — free of charge — to anybody who wants it, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin says. Martin would like to use an old $6 billion federal subsidy for land lines to subsidize broadband instead. Only 38% of rural households are broadband customers, and only 25% of households with incomes less than $20,000. A chunk of wireless airwaves known as AWS-3 (Advanced Wireless Services) is due to be auctioned to carriers next year. Martin wants to attach a requirement to reserve 25% of AWS-3 network capacity for free broadband.

T-Mobile paid $4 billion two years ago to buy AWS-1 spectrum, which abuts AWS-3. T-Mobile's chief technical officer says wireless broadband for rural customers in the AWS-3 spectrum would interfere with paying T-Mobile customers. Martin says FCC engineers are studying the interference issue.

Not in USAT's report: Martin wants to content-filter the free stuff. (Photo by AP/Jeff Roberson)

The problem for Comcast and other Internet service providers is that they can no longer block file-sharing traffic from their networks. And yet file-sharing usage is consuming more and more bandwidth, which they must pay for. Broadband providers are businesses, not charities. So they are increasingly considering charging their users by the bit for bandwidth over a certain level. Most users won't be affected, but file-sharing downloaders will be.

The prospect of pay-by-the-bit bandwidth had immediate consequences for BitTorrent's two main businesses: an online-media store delivered via file sharing, and a content-delivery network which competed with the likes of Akamai and Limelight Networks.

For users who would have to pay bandwidth fees to their ISPs on top of paying the usual charges, BitTorrent's Torrent Entertainment Network store would soon look uncompetitive with the likes of Apple's iTunes Store and Microsoft's Xbox Marketplace — which prompted Best Buy to back out of talks to acquire TEN for $15 million.

As for BitTorrent's content-delivery network, it was premised on the notion that BitTorrent would negotiate with ISPs to get privileged delivery for their file-sharing packets, while Comcast blocked others. With the FCC forcing Comcast to treat all file-sharing traffic equally, the promise of that business evaporated.

Which leaves BitTorrent with not much of a business. As the first Napster showed, peer-to-peer file sharing is easy to make popular — and surpassingly hard to make profitable. BitTorrent may have improved on Napster's technology. But it never solved the fundamental business problem.

Any California customer of the five ISPs already signed on in New York is included in the restrictions. For customers, the initiative's inability to target porn-serving newsgroups means the loss of access to many innocent newsgroups. But there are countless workarounds for Usenet users, a demographic dominated by technical types, to get access. For Cuomo et al., the initiative sounds so good on paper that they don't have to even bother making it work.

Google's wireless dreams have been thwarted at every turn, from the botched Wi-Fi effort with Earthlink to Verizon reneging on open-access provisions after the spectrum auction. I doubt Page's blatant desire to line his own pockets will win the FCC over. Perhaps he should refine his pitch and mention the possibility of 10 percent more campaign donations. (Photo by Danny Sullivan)

Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas didn't confirm or deny the plan to BroadbandReports, only saying "Comcast is currently evaluating this service and pricing model." Earlier this week, the company ditched the proposed "P2P bill of rights" it was developing with file sharing startup Pando. (Photo by AP/Paul Sakuma)

The cable provider is preparing to test a new billing scheme in Beaumont, Texas that would charge customers based on actual Internet usage instead of a flat monthly fee. This means BitTorrent downloaders would pay a premium for all those packets they seed across the net. Pirated content is far less appealing when it isn't free.

AT&T is seeing pressure from cable providers in providing broadband Internet access. And while young singles were the first to abandon landlines for cell-phone-only lives, increasingly families, lured by free mobile-to-mobile calls, are doing so, too. When households go unwired, they rarely switch back. Naked DSL may not be the phone company's favorite way to make money off its copper wires. But it's far better than nothing.