Yeah... but that's like someone saying

"Hey Bob went grocery shopping yesterday!"

and you saying

"Yeah, it's Bob, and nothing bob does suprises me these days!"

While i disagree with the ruling... it's a fairly standard and somewhat expected result.

Really, the big difference... and the thing that would actually surprise... is that there is still some moves the FCC and US can play.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/01/net_neutrality_d_c_circuit_court_ruling_the_battle_s_been_lost_but_we_can.html

and the US is one of a very small number of countries that may be inclined enough to do so.

No. What I am saying doesn't really require an analogy.

I know what is happening in my country and I don't like it. I had thought and mainly hoped that the US would stay clear of such regulations and be indeed "the land of the free" as little as that means these days. Now I think different. My reasons for thinking this way are plenty but let's not dig into that.

I am not surprised because I now believe America will take "liberties with our liberties" even further than any other western goverment. It is important that there are moves that the FCC and the US can play. however, what is more significant is that it has got to this stage.

I will not be drawn into an argument over an unforseen future, however. It may be overturned or it might not be. Things may get worst in terms of censorship and regulations or they may not. That's for time to resolve.

You see but they actually can and probably will give themselves the power to regulate ISPs. Just like they took away that power in 2002

I have a question for you. Are you simply happy that they lost the case, or are you against net neutrality?

More the former than the latter. I'm extremely skeptical of net neutrality, but not really convinced either way.

What's to be skeptical of? All traffic should get equal priority, especially given that the "bigger" companies already get better speeds, since you're often bottlenecked by the server's response time rather than your ISPs limitations. Companies can compete simply by upgrading server capacities rather than telling ISPs to throttle other traffic.

Net neutrality is akin to antitrust rules in its execution: it encourages fair practices and "pure" competition.

u dont need net neutrality if u have a working market...

Uuuhhh? Why? You think it might be a good idea for ISPs to be able to control what content you have access to?

Sure, it's wonderful in theory just as antitrust rules are wonderful in theory. But whereas the market rarely creates or sustain monopolies, the government (a violent monopoly itself) frequently does. So it seems rather backwards to me to run to the FCC - an entity with a proven track record of censorship - based on fears that ISPs might begin to censor the internet.

The fact that their net neutrality rules already had huge exemptions - including a giant catch all exemption for "reasonable network management" - would mean that all ISP activity would henceforth be within the purview of the FCC much like all health insurer activity is now within the purview of the Secretary of HHS. Until we have regulatory neutrality where the rules apply to everyone equally, this will just be another playground for cronyism and perhaps lead to a more anti-competitive environment than the one net neutrality is supposed to prevent.

Given how close the present state of affairs already is to the ideals of net neutrality, I see no reason to be anything but skeptical of government regulation. The regulation that is today intended to preserve the status quo can - and almost invariably will - be used to stifle good innovations and encourage or enforce bad ones in the future.

Who has a greater vested interest in preventing unfettered access to information: ISPs or the federal government?

ISPs cleary. The federal government is plenty good at keeping us from knowing things they don't want us to and are well aware of the consiquences of trying to censor the internet. ISPs on the other hand have a massive new opportunity to control there own market and choose the winners and losers on the internet all while pulling in mounds of previously untapped profits.

I understand the distrust of the federal government. But I am baffled at how many people think companies are any better. It should be obvious by now that a company will never go "ok, that's enough". There is also very little, if any guidlines that a company will stick to unless they are forced to. If a corporation were an animal and you stuck it in front of a mountain of food it would eat itself to death. A buisniness has one job, to have as much money coming in as possible while having as little go out as possible. Anything else is just an acessory to that goal.

If you need evidence I simply suggest you look up what happened the last time the banks collapsed.