http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/ Engadget Comments for Court rules FCC doesn't have authority to impose net neutrality http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Apr 6th 2010 11:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
U.S. Constitution - 1

Big Government Control Freaks - 0]]>Apr 6th 2010 11:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
More like Big Business - 1

The People - 0

Without regulation imposing net neutrality, we are doomed to a future where service providers only serve up the content they approve of. You are truly an idiot if you think this is a good thing. Today is bittorrent, tomorrow it will be whatever service directly competes with the service providers other lines of profit. Use skype, well sorry that lowers our potential profit from our voip service so we will be blocking that.

Get a clue.]]>Apr 6th 2010 11:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Give me one good reason why you as an individual would want to change the way the internet is structured and I will concede being a "Big Government Control Freak".]]>Apr 6th 2010 11:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
Corporate censorship and control: 1

US Citizens: 0]]>Apr 6th 2010 11:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Apr 6th 2010 11:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
OMFG! Socialist! Communist! Fascist! Death Panel take over!

Seriously, get a clue.]]>Apr 6th 2010 11:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
Oh brother, the old line:

IF WE DONT LET DC RUN THE NET, COMCAST WONT LET ME GET TO GOOGLE!

When you prove that this is going on then we'll talk.

Until then. Down rank me if you want.

US Constitution - 1

Big government control freaks - 0]]>Apr 6th 2010 11:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/

Corporate censorship and control: 1

US Citizens: 0

Simple solution.

Dont use their service if you dont like the way they run it.

You dont have a RIGHT to internet access. It is a service you pay for, and are free NOT TO.

]]>Apr 6th 2010 11:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Apr 6th 2010 11:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
Tell me why do i have to wait until i have a nife in my heart to do something about it? You are an idiot for thinking that trying to stop big corp from controlling the flow of the net is a bad thing. Last think i want is to have to pay to view a site and that could most likely happen. You need to get off that high horse and come back to reality. Other countries don't seem to have a problem to upgrade their network and maintain everything neutral. ]]>Apr 6th 2010 11:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
1. Use encryption from now on. For everything.

2. Second, before granting Comcast a cable monopoly in a local area .. make them pledge net neutrality. If they are getting a monopoly a town has the right to dictate the terms.

3. Ideally, all monopoly rights of Comcast and other providers should be taken away at next license renewal.
]]>Apr 6th 2010 11:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Apr 6th 2010 11:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
"Tell me why do i have to wait until i have a nife in my heart to do something about it? You are an idiot for thinking that trying to stop big corp from controlling the flow of the net is a bad thing. Last think i want is to have to pay to view a site and that could most likely happen."

Have they? Other than throttling down bandwidth hogs and their bit torrent hobby? Nope.

Have you've been blocked from accessing any website? ...Nope

Have they slowed down your access to YouTube or Hulu? ...Nope


But we need to punish them. Why?

" BECAUSE THEY AT SOME POINT, MAYBE, I'M NOT SURE, BUT I HAVE AN ITCH THAT THEY MAY... make it hard for me to search on Google. I have no proof though!"]]>Apr 6th 2010 12:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
"The free flow of information is the foundation of democracy."

Go the the library and use their free internet then or read one of their many books and papers. What does this have to do with a private company that has, so far from the pro net-neutrality crowd, shown to have done nothing wrong?

"If these companies weren't interested in the blocking that flow, they never would have opposed this to begin with. "

So I see...

"How can you be against the Patriot Act if you aren't planning to do something wrong?"

See how that line of reason works out?

"You place far too much trust in companies that have concern for nothing but their profits."

You place far too much trust in government that have concern for nothing but their power.

I dont have to use Comcast service if I dont like it. I can get U-Verse or dont use broadband. It isnt a necessity for life, and it's not a right.]]>Apr 6th 2010 12:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Apr 6th 2010 12:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
I don't know. I generally feel that the free market does a better job, but we don't exactly have a free market with our ISP oligarchy.. or, more like, "pipe oligarchy" (cable or DSL).

It did fairly well in private hands for awhile, and I don't like government getting involved in... much. But the telecom companies are asking for it by screwing us over.]]>Apr 6th 2010 12:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
That is something to take to your local BBB or you can sue the company for breech of contract.

It is not a federal case that you pay for bandwidth X, but idiot company cant deliver. NN isnt going to make your speed faster.

ISPs should make it clear in their TOS that they WILL slow the pipe speed down if you are consuming such a high proportion of the FINITE amount available, that it is causing the whole thing to suffer.

]]>Apr 6th 2010 12:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Apr 6th 2010 12:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/just go lay down. ]]>Apr 6th 2010 12:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Apr 6th 2010 12:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Apr 6th 2010 12:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
"Some countries are making rights out of the internet and if America wants to talk about how they are all about free speech, equal opportunity, and cutting edge technology in the information age they will also make similar rights"

That's all sooooo nice.

Did you know in some countries your head of state has to be of a certain religion too? What other wonderful things can we learn to copy?

You right to free speech does not depend on the internet. If it vanished tomorrow, you would still be able to speak your peace as well as in 1787.

What ISP has censored your free speech? Maybe it's the same one that somehow keeps missing the pervs that download naked pictures of children? Or the ones that let the KKK or Communists spread their BS?

Should we make it a right to have tablet PC for free to every person in the U.S. or a smart phone? Isn't your free speech rights being hurt by not having that cutting edge tech too?

No one is blocking your ability to do a damn thing on the net. This is all boogie-man bullshit, and DC is licking its chops to get even more power by using clueless geeks as the perfect useful idiots.]]>Apr 6th 2010 12:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
Ok, so now we enter the world of pre-crime?

You haven't done anything, but we're going to regulate the hell out of you as if you did?

Double-plus good idea.]]>Apr 6th 2010 12:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
If the FCC can regulate the internet, how long until they ban porn, fowl language, ext... Give the FCC the power to enforce net neutrality and nothing else, in a clear law without excessive administrative slack. ]]>Apr 6th 2010 12:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Apr 6th 2010 12:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Apr 6th 2010 12:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
Yeah, when you can can your smart-ass responses and give some legit, logical, and constitutional reasons for this, then get back to me.]]>Apr 6th 2010 1:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
"ISPs should make it clear in their TOS that they WILL slow the pipe speed down if you are consuming such a high proportion of the FINITE amount available, that it is causing the whole thing to suffer."

That's where you're wrong, my friend. We pay for x amount of bandwidth. We use x amount of bandwidth. Sound good? Ok.

We use x amount of bandwidth for gaming, we get x amount of bandwidth. We suddenly use the same amount of bandwidth to torrent something, and only get z (z]]>Apr 6th 2010 1:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
LOL. Lets look at it like this. Where I live, the only people that I can get high speed internet from is Time Warner... Now if Time Warner gets paid off by any big name company, Time Warner can then block me from using that big companies threat or competitor. Say they wanted to block out ThePirateBay.com and many other torrent sites... Then I have no other options realistically to get my hands on torrents... and you could say that "Oh stop pirating", but I'm not... I'm a programmer and there are some outdated libraries and version software that can only be found via torrents... LEGALLY.

You try to find a good copy of VB6 and then you can make that case.

But the fact of the mater is, net neutrality is a good thing. However it COULD have an inverse effect that could prevent some NEEDED censorship. But overall, its going to stop big companies from getting even bigger by shutting out everyone else.

You say that Big Government is bad.... but at least we can vote Big Government out of office... Go ahead and try to vote Big Companies out. ]]>Apr 6th 2010 1:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Apr 6th 2010 1:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Also, as far as constitutionally. FCC is powered by the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 - in case you never took political science) and that clause can regulate the internet censorship because of its direct correlation with INTERstate commerce. Say Google censors out WalMart because Best Buy paid them off... That directly effects INTERSTATE commerce and thus has constitutional backing. ]]>Apr 6th 2010 1:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Apr 6th 2010 1:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
"Lets look at it like this. Where I live, the only people that I can get high speed internet from is Time Warner... Now if Time Warner gets paid off by any big name company, Time Warner can then block me from using that big companies threat or competitor. Say they wanted to block out ThePirateBay.com"

Have they? Nope. Next!

"You say that Big Government is bad.... but at least we can vote Big Government out of office... Go ahead and try to vote Big Companies out. "

#1 Judging form the cluelessness of some here, they will vote for even bigger government.

#2 You are FREE TO NOT USE A CORPORATION'S PRODUCT.

That is how you "vote Big Companies out."

]]>Apr 6th 2010 1:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Who cares about competition... you *could* switch providers to one that does allow what you want. If they are truly that great, market forces will bear out the best service.]]>Apr 6th 2010 2:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
should say:

"That directly affects INTERSTATE commerce and thus has constitutional backing. " Fixed.

But I'm a fairly conservative person and I'm having a hard time deciding which side is right on this issue. On one hand the past laws and policies giving telecom companies monopolies is biting everyone in the ass. I hate the fact that there really is no competition for home cable and internet service. In any given market there are perhaps 2 choices of where the consumer can order their internet and cable. That being said, if things stay the same with regards to how cable companies are freely allowed to throw their weight around in a particular city/region where they have service, then I'm all for net neutrality. The main issue is that the cable companies have spent billions of dollars investing in infrastructure to give service to every home. I'm sure they have gotten some government money in the past, but its not like these internet pipes are public roads that the people paid for with taxes. I do believe that if the Gov't regulates via net neutrality, then the cable companies should be financially compensated for the internet pipes that they paid for and laid (the ones they own).

But ideally a far better solution is to de-regulate such that more companies provide service for any particular market. Anyways, until I hear more, I'm still on the fence about this issue--I think both sides have very valid arguments.]]>Apr 6th 2010 2:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/I'm almost always against giving control over anything to the government, but these regulations should be passed.]]>Apr 6th 2010 3:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
You have neutrality with your phone packets. Your phone company is legally barred from interfering with your calls or degrading service just because you had the audacity to call someone who isn't in their network. Why would you stand for the same thing from an ISP? And before you say "I'll switch to someone else" there aren't many people who can do that. The vast majority in this country only have access to one ISP. ]]>Apr 6th 2010 3:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
Cory is 100% correct on the Commerce Clause. It is the Commerce Clause, in fact, that allowed the government to outlaw marijuana. To this day, THAT is the legislation they use to justify their prohibition to the courts (you can look this up easily.) Otherwise, they would have needed to amend to constitution (as they did for alcohol prohibition.)

So, not jacking this into a marijuana thread, just pointing out that if they can cite the commerce clause to keep pot out of our hands (which is totally outside the intent of the law), then they can certainly cite the commerce clause for net neutrality (which is completely inside the spirit of the law.)]]>Apr 6th 2010 4:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/It's entertaining how, for the most part, this is an extremely polarizing topic - the comments are either ranked high or into oblivion. Those in oblivion, however, seem more ignorant than anti-net neutrality.]]>Apr 6th 2010 4:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
It seams like Comcast has US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in their pockets.]]>Apr 6th 2010 4:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
the free market votes inept or stingy businesses out. unless there are big government regulations, then they can do whatever they want and stay in business just as how GMC and the rest that got bailed out did....

I find it VERY sad that the big government proponents are the highest ranked on here. when history shows all the time that governments are always inept and always corrupt. people need to stop turning to the government for services for this very reason.

if a company wants to block you from something, they need that right. just like you need the right to look for another company. if that company doesnt provide, then that company goes under. the founders of this country knew this thats why they created a constitution that restricts governments and enforces a free market(which we dont have right now).

if we want true "net nuetrality" we need to let the free market run its course. the free market relies on peoples choice. there really is not much choice in government, it does what it wants and ALWAYS FAILS.

so the real score is:

free market/constitution/peoples liberties: 1
big government: 0
big corporations: no score-if they piss of their customers it will be a -1 if they give the people what they want it will be a +1

i seriously dare anyone to try and argue these points with me. you will lose. the people who are for government intervention WILL LOSE]]>Apr 6th 2010 5:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
Yes, because the government is great at doing things. They are so efficient. No matter what you or I desire, in the end, we must follow the constitution. The constitution does not give the government the authority to do this. It doesn't even give it the authority to create the FCC.

No matter what your views are, or what you want to see happen, you must first ask if it's constitutional. In this case, it's just not. It could be good, it could be bad. Not following the constitution, and enforcing the limits on government is far worse in the long run. That's how you get legislation crammed down your throat that you don't want.

Most issues are for states to decide, not the central government. ]]>Apr 6th 2010 6:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Apr 6th 2010 6:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
What was that?

Sorry I can't read any of your comments, it seems they've become invisible.





dumbass]]>Apr 6th 2010 6:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
I agree with your sentiment... usually. When it comes to big government and economics, I'm typically conservative.

In this case, however, I'm inclined to think differently, primarily because the area in which live is serviced exclusively by Comcast. My only alternative would be satellite, which is notoriously less stable and reliable.

Also, in this particular case, throttling net traffic is ALWAYS good for the provider and not so good for the consumer, though they like to cite leveling the customer experience as the motivation. What, exactly, is Comcast's motivation to NOT throttle me back? Considering I *CAN'T* switch to another provider, I'd say your argument doesn't hold a lot of water here.

Again, I'm all for the market correcting itself. In the banking industry the bailout was a mistake. In the auto industry the bailout was a mistake... all because people have easily accessible alternatives. In the cable co. arena, there are no alternatives in a given region. In the end, they make billions and we get the shaft.

I applaud the FCC for actually trying to live up to its duty to the American citizenry, and not the corporations.

But, hey... I could be wrong.]]>Apr 6th 2010 6:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
great post!

FREEEEDOO001010001100M!!!!

and i don't live in USA :>]]>Apr 6th 2010 6:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Apr 6th 2010 9:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/Apr 6th 2010 9:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/
This news pisses me off! Oh well, let's eat cake!]]>Apr 6th 2010 10:21PM