I'm sure we're already getting ideas.

"In 2002, the agency said Internet service should not be subject to the same rules as highly regulated utilities, which are governed by regulations on matters like how much they can charge customers and what content they can agree to carry."

"Michael K. Powell, who was F.C.C. chairman in 2002 when the agency set up its Internet governance structure"

"Mr. Powell, who is now president of the cable industry’s chief lobbying group"

That's disgusting. I hate it when a member of government, especially a member of a regulatory agency goes from working to regulate an industry to working to de-regulate that same industry. At least this time there was a few years between him leaving the F.C.C. and him heading up the NCTA. Which isn't always the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/technology/appeals-court-rejects-fcc-rules-on-internet-service-providers.html

Edit: I should also point out that it was Mr. Powell who was running the F.C.C.  when they made the ingenious desicion to reclassify broadband as an "information service" rather than a "telecommunications service" all but stripping the F.C.C of it's ability to regulate it. Funny how that works out huh?

The F.C.C. has every right and ability to give itself the power to regulate broadband. They just failed miserably to do so this time around. What they needed to do was fix the mistake they made in 2002 by changing the classification of broadband back to a tellecomunications service. They sort of did that in 2010 but it was half assed and led to them lossing on Tuesday.

Agencies don't have rights, and they certainly don't have the right to give themselves more power. Sadly, they do have the ability since its rare that they get smacked by either the legislature or judiciary. Regardless, I'm glad that the FCC fucked itself over on some sort of technicality. Maybe the USDA can take a crack at it next by declaring the internet a member of the legume family.

This is a summary of what just took place;
The richer you are the more information you will have acces to on the Internet.
The poorer you are the less information you will have access to on the Internet.

When cable companies start filtering the websites you visit and hold you hostage if you don't pay them more to visit those sites, marks a sad and low point for consumerism in the USA.

Or at least thats one way.  The other way is that they will charge netflix etc fees to be on the internet/get good service etc.

Still terrible, but less notieable to the public.

The Good news... Canada won't be effected.

The Bad News... Canada doesn't have net nuetrality laws like this in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_Canada#IP_blocking

Most countries don't...  This was one area the USA was actually a leader in consumer advocacy... due to the US having all kinds of internet companies.

I think it's only like, the USA, the Dutch and some south American country that did it first.

Edit:  Chile.  It was Chile.

Not surprising really. It's America and these days nothing that comes out of that country surprises me.

The truth is, that for some, information is far too easily available to the masses. Information is power and that needs to be controlled among the peasants.

Censorship is the next logical step.

Uh...

A) the UK doesn't have Net Nuetrality either.  What the ruling allows ISPs in the US to do is exactly what ISPs in the UK alredy could do.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/02/ofcom_annual_plan/

B) The UK arrests people for saying mean things on facebook.

Oh, I know what Britain is like. It wasn't a comparison between the countries. Britain never claimed to be the "land of the free". Our ISPs do a lot more monitoring of our web activities than most. 

Even if I lived in N.Korea (and obviously had the capability to access this site which I probably wouldn't) my statement would have been the same. 

This is about the US and my statement was based thus.