>>>>>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
>>>>>
>>>>>Does this mean that Comcast is going to start slowing bit-torrent traffic again?
>>>>
>>>>Just about fell out of my chair when I read about this ruling. You mean to tell me that private property may actually possibly still exist at least for broadband providers? Recent rulings/legislation suggests this cannot stand. Next stop...Supreme Court.
>>>
>>>I figured this would happen because the FCC really doesn't have the authority to do this...congress needs to fix that...
>>
>>*sigh*
>>
>>"fix" what? The FCC should have exactly zero say over a private network. While there is an argument to them regulating limited air wave frequencies there is no justifiable reason for them to have any involvement in a private network. Especially given the level of competition that exists in the provider market.
>>
>>>so I don't think anything will change even if it goes to the Supreme Court.
>>
>>Neither do I, I was being sarcastic. ;)
>>
>>>Plus I'm sure that the lobbyist will try to keep the FCC from having this power and the Republicans seem against it.
>>>
>>>What really errks me is this:
>>>"....Comcast welcomed the ruling in a statement that said: "Our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation." The National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the cable industry's lobby group, elaborated by saying that Comcast and its other members will "continue to embrace a free and open Internet as the right policy."...."
>>>
>>>I'm not quite sure how Comcast came to the conclusion that their reputation is now ok because of this ruling - fact still remains that they slowed traffic for certain things and only quit doing it after a huge uproar, bunch of complaints and the FCC telling them to quit. Not sure how that equates to "free and open internet".
>>
>>Comcast is a private company. They have every right to do with their network as they see fit. If their customers don't like the service their are other options for them to take their business.
>
>I see your points but I still disagree a little bit. First there isn't really a whole lot of competition for broadband connections. When I was in FL I had ONE choice - Comcast. Here in Hawaii I have ONE choice - Oceananc (which is owned by Time Warner). If they're screwing me just what exactly are you supposed to do? Go with dialup?

If you're that unhappy have you tried mobile broadband or satellite?

I know all about ISP limitation living in the middle of nowhere as I do. I was limited to available dial-up and one-way satellite for years. However, there were multiple providers for me to choose from and I nearly got involved with starting my own. Technology has advanced to where my options, while still limited by my location (no dsl, no cable) have expanded to include 2-way satellite, smart phone and mobile broadband, in addition to other more costly options.

>Next the FCC is supposed to be regulating communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in the USA so that seems like ISP's should be part of that.

Communications yes, management no.

>If there was no net neutrality then the whole concept of the internet is broken and it starts to get into censorship territory.

The FCC is the federal agency in charge of censoring communications. Careful what you ask for. ;)