Sorry to be a pedant, but the phrase is "all intents and purposes." Just thought you might like to know.

On topic, there are compelling arguments both for and against state regulation of net neutrality. I agree with you, it really does sound like the FCC is charging ahead without paying due attention to all the stakeholders involved, here. I suspect it has more to do with lobbyists from major ISPs than it does the White House.

I have to admit I'm kind of paranoid but the way things were in the 70's and the way they are now makes me shudder.

And if Chavez likes it i question this

Side Note Why do actors and directors fall in love with dictators. Centralized power controlled by one man. Just crazy.  But smaller groups of people are controlling more and more of the world.  money and power

I think I am starting to hate money 

I thought the ISP's were AGAINST Net Nuetrality... I guess it all depends on what it  means to you.

Well, what you have here is people who don't like laws insuring net neutrality, spinning that the laws actually HINDER freedom on the Internet.  One can argue that the market can insure net neutrality, but the spin as we see here, is going out of the lines.

I also find it interesting that, for some reason, my cable company ISP won't allow me to get ESPN 3, so I can watch games over XBox Live.  Maybe ESPN is requiring payment from ISPs to stream over Cablevision, or Cablevision is the one wanting to charge extra fees. 

this was what I was about to write.

ESPN does charge a fee for ESPN3 some ISPs can watch it, some can't.

http://gigaom.com/video/world-cup-woes-why-doest-espn3-work-with-your-isp/

I can't say i have a problem with it honestly.  Though why it's not just an option like ESPNinsider i don't know.

First of all... it is difficult to tell from your wall o' text if you are being serious.  If so, I'm sure that the kool-aid tastes delicious.

First of all, Clinton did not "stop the never-ending wellfare" and those budget trimming concessions he did make were  not really of his choosing.  Perhaps now that we are free of one-party control in the legislative/executive branches there will be more of this compromise.

Secondly, yeah yeah, blame Bush.  I don't care for him (as a president either) but it gets a bit tiring that, whenever someone calls out Obama, someone immediately feels obligated to deflect the critique by compairing Bush and Obama.

I agree about getting out of Iraq/Afganistan - but not getting IN AT ALL would have been even better, eh?

"Trying to catch us up with other countries (sic) health care," would only be an accurate statement if the recent "overhaul" was actually a step in the right direction.  Here's a clue... it isn't.  Plus it is already under legal challenge, and these assaults will only get more numerous as time marches on.

It's quite easy to blame the educational system for your own faults, but there are some damn fine students produced from this educational system.  I might also add that - unlike many countries - we have to attempt to educate everyone.  While our current system of trying to shoe-horn everyone into college - even though they would be better suited to a trade school, academy or vo-tech - is broken, stop trying to blame schools for your own lack of grammar, mathematical prowess and grasp of syntax. 

School is similar to life in that you get out of it what you put into it.  YOU didn't push yourself!  That is your own fault... and to a (much) lesser extent, the fault of your parents.  Please stop blaming others for your own inadequacies and you'll find life to be much more pleasant.

Finally, California should NOT be bailed out.  They (as a state government) refuse to cut back or show adequate fiscal restraint.  It isn't the rest of the union's responsibility to bail out dead beat states.  It's a damn shame that people don't believe more in individual responsibility these days... states included.

Wait, this one's a *good* law. I was hearing rumors about the FCC pushing the broadband companies into a "pay-per-usage" model like Comcast tested in a few test markets a few years ago, where to have unlimited bandwidth you had to pay like hundreds of dollars a month, and it was a tiered system for bandwidth usage similar to what the 3G providers are stumping for

If this is actually the net neutrality guarantees we've been waiting for, that's a good thing. ISP-controlled discrimination for services is the kind of thing we should fight.

Wow, people will easily fall for propaganda.  "Mr. McDowell is a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission."  He is hardly impartial and is clearly twisting the truth to meet his agenda.  All these republicans are against net-neutrality because I'm sure they've gotten hefty donations from the major ISPs.  So they twist what is an attempt to protect the consumer from the whims of ISPs into a big scary conspiracy by the government to take over from the poor vulnerable ISPs.  Don't buy it.

Net-neutrality is for keeping things the way they are now.  If you like the way the internet runs now, then it doesn't make sense to be against net neutrality.  Don't let the fear mongers distort the truth.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101

Looking at what they actually did is... interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/business/media/21fcc.html