BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-update-good news

Subject: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality
From: michaelr
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:06 PM

FCC loses in court.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:12 PM

Well, there goes freedom of online speech.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:27 PM

It's off to the Supremes.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 09:22 PM

Like I said....

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality
From: michaelr
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 09:40 PM

Well, we can try to do something about it by making a public comment:

From MoveOn.org

Since 2006, MoveOn members have been working to save the free and open Internet. And now, for the first time, we're on the verge of making an open Internet the law of the land.

The Federal Communications Commission is getting ready to rule on net neutrality—the key principle that keeps the internet open to all. But Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon know it, so they're fighting in court and claiming the FCC doesn't have the authority to do its job.

It's a smokescreen. The FCC still has all the authority it needs to make net neutrality the law. The only question is whether it'll have the political will to take on these corporate giants.

That's where the SavetheInternet.com Coalition comes in. We already have 1.75 million voices telling Washington that we must make net neutrality the law, but we're aiming for two million.

The FCC is only taking public comments until this Thursday before making a final ruling, so we need 250,000 signatures today and tomorrow to send a resounding message that the FCC won't be able to ignore.

Can you add your name below, and then tell your friends to sign so we reach two million?

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=87793&id=19723-1452401-AfLyqdx&t=3

The Internet is the future of communications, and we need to keep it open, available and affordable to all Americans so it can continue to drive free speech, democratic participation, and economic growth. Net neutrality ensures that you can go anywhere and access whatever you want on the Internet, without having to pay corporate gatekeepers for the privilege.

Without net neutrality, AT&T could charge its subscribers more to visit the website of their local bookstore than Amazon.com.2 Or, as one DSL provider was caught doing just yesterday, they could start forcing you to use their own search engine instead of Google.3 And they'd love that extra profit, so they've sent armies of lobbyists to Washington to in one final push to control the internet.

When MoveOn members joined with hundreds of other organizations to form the SavetheInternet.com coalition in 2006, we could only dream of having a president who would fight to make net neutrality the law. But with President Obama's support, and his appointee Julius Genachowski chairing the FCC, we're on the verge of winning a huge victory for a free and open Internet.4
Can you add your name and tell your friends to help us reach our goal of 2 million signatures by this Thursday?

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=87793&id=19723-1452401-AfLyqdx&t=4

Thanks for all you do.

–Daniel, Marika, Anna, Eli, and the rest of the team

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:34 PM

Well, the way the 'libs' have been butchering the Constitution, losing another 'right' should be of great news to ya'....unless you start to re-think what this is all about!

Sweet Dreams,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:48 PM

"It's off to the Supremes. "

Are they still recording?

"The Internet is the future of communications, and we need to keep it open, available and affordable "

The greedy are too stupid to see that they are only cutting their own throat - they always have been.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 11:02 PM

This is a big problem. For a lot of people. Let's see if Obama steps up to the plate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html This is a New York Times link, durable, compared to Yahoo and such.

U.S. Court Curbs F.C.C. Authority on Web Traffic

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that regulators had limited power over Web traffic under current law. The decision will allow Internet service companies to block or slow specific sites and charge video sites like YouTube to deliver their content faster to users.

The court decision was a setback to efforts by the Federal Communications Commission to require companies to give Web users equal access to all content, even if some of that content is clogging the network.

The court ruling, which came after Comcast asserted that it had the right to slow its cable customers' access to a file-sharing service called BitTorrent, could prompt efforts in Congress to change the law in order to give the F.C.C. explicit authority to regulate Internet service.

That could prove difficult politically, however, since some conservative Republicans philosophically oppose giving the agency more power, on the grounds that Internet providers should be able to decide what services they offer and at what price.

More broadly, the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could raise obstacles to the Obama administration's effort to increase Americans' access to high-speed Internet networks.

For example, the national broadband plan released by the administration last month proposed to shift billions of dollars in money from a fund to provide phone service in rural areas to one that helps pay for Internet access in those areas. Legal observers said the court decision suggested that the F.C.C. did not have the authority to make that switch.

The F.C.C. will now have to reconsider its strategy for mandating "net neutrality," the principle that all Internet content should be treated equally by network providers. One option would be to reclassify broadband service as a sort of basic utility subject to strict regulation, like telephone service. Telephone companies and broadband providers have already indicated that they would vigorously oppose such a move.

The appeals court's 3-0 decision, which was written by one of the court's more liberal members, Judge David S. Tatel, focused on the narrow issue of whether the F.C.C. had authority to regulate Comcast's network management practices.

But it was a clear victory for those who favor limiting the F.C.C.'s regulation of the Internet, said Phil Kerpen, a vice president at Americans for Prosperity, a group that advocates limited government. "The F.C.C. has no legal basis for imposing its dystopian regulatory vision under the net neutrality banner," he said.

As a practical matter, the court ruling will not have any immediate impact on Internet users, since Comcast and other large Internet providers are not currently restricting specific types of Web content and have no plans to do so.

Comcast, the nation's largest cable provider, had a muted reaction to its victory. The company said it was gratified by the court's decision but added that it had changed the management policies that led it to restrict access to BitTorrent, a service used to exchange a range of large data files, from pirated movies to complex software programs.

"Comcast remains committed to the F.C.C.'s existing open Internet principles, and we will continue to work constructively with this F.C.C. as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet," Comcast said in a statement.

The company is currently seeking federal approval for its proposed acquisition of a majority stake in NBC Universal, the parent of the NBC broadcast network and a cadre of popular cable channels. Some members of Congress and consumer groups have opposed the merger, saying that it would enable Comcast to favor its own cable channels and discriminate against those owned by competitors — something the company has said it does not intend to do.

After the ruling on Tuesday, consumer advocates voiced similar concerns about Comcast's potential power over the Internet, saying that the company could, for example, give priority to transmission of video services of NBC channels and restrict those owned by a competitor like CBS.

Read the rest at the link site.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 03:43 PM

Yes, Fugitive from Sanity. It's about the liberty to disenfranchise the weak and profiteer. How stupid are you?

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality
From: olddude
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 03:48 PM

Some of the carriers are now reducing the download and upload speed of video's and music so they can charge more ...You will have to pay higher rates if you want video or audio content ... sure thing ... hose the general public, make them pay till they bleed ... yup that's a great thing to do to bolster the economy ...

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 05:24 PM

Hey! That's the wonder of unregulated, BuShite Republican Capitalism fer ya!

You sum kinda Communist er somethin?

Of course, Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican) realized it was a crock 100 years aho, buy hey, that was then & this is now.....

Amerkuns' memories are REAL short.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Jul 10 - 05:18 PM

You can do something, today, by writing a public comment to the FCC at This Place. Today is the last day to comment!

Tell the FCC your own story about Net Neutrality. Go here now to submit it — the comment period ends Thursday.

The agency is deciding whether to reassert its authority to protect broadband access from phone and cable companies, which want to be able to block access to online information and prioritize their own content and services over their competitors'.

AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have spent more than $50 million in 2010 on lawyers and lobbyists to undermine the FCC's ability to protect Internet users like us.

We need to tell the FCC to "reclassify" broadband and protect the open Internet for good. Our online future rests on the FCC putting the public interest before phone and cable company profits.

Please take a few minutes and use this easy tool to tell the FCC — in your own words — why the Internet is important to you, and why we need Net Neutrality now.

Thanks,

Carl Schwensohn
Free Press Activist
Minneapolis, MN

P.S. Please act now — the FCC's comment period ends Thursday.

P.P.S. Get the word out to everyone you know. Forward this e-mail or share it on Facebook and Twitter.

Want to learn more? Join us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

If you haven't already, you can also join our E-Activist list.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-Act Today, NOW!
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jul 10 - 07:43 PM

OK- have done. Thanks, Kat.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-Act Today, NOW!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Jul 10 - 09:43 PM

You can send your opinion to the FCC but the decisions ultimately lie with the courts.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-Act Today, NOW!
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 10:52 PM

Just got this today - we have until the 21st!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After more than a year of waffling on Net Neutrality, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski just announced plans to issue weak regulations that give just about everything to giant phone and cable companies, and leave Internet users with almost nothing.1

Genachowski calls his plan Net Neutrality. But it's fake. It doesn't live up to President Obama's pledge to create lasting and enforceable Net Neutrality protections or to Genachowski's own promises to deliver for the president.2

This is a huge betrayal. But we still have time to fix Genachowski's toothless rule before it goes to a vote on Dec. 21.

Pick Up the Phone. Tell FCC Commissioner Copps:
"Accept Nothing Less than Real Net Neutrality."

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has been an unwavering champion for Net Neutrality, and he holds the power to fix the chairman's bad rule.

Click this link and we'll provide you with a number and script for your call. Tell Commissioner Copps that Genachowski's fake Net Neutrality plan fails on so many fronts:

   1. It fails to protect Net Neutrality for people who access the Internet using wireless devices. There is only one Internet: Users must be free to access any legal website, service or application whether they're at home or using a mobile phone.

   2. It fails to prevent new "paid prioritization" schemes planned by industry. We can't let AT&T and Comcast charge steep tolls to speed up the sites and services of a few media giants while slowing down everyone else.

   3. It fails to close massive loopholes. The FCC can't let Verizon build a new "private Internet" under the guise of "specialized services" that would stifle competition and innovation.

   4. It fails to restore the FCC's authority, which was stripped away during a Bush-era frenzy of deregulation. If the FCC doesn't "reclassify" its broadband authority under Title II of the Communications Act, it risks making Net Neutrality rules that will be tossed out in court right away.

Commissioner Copps is a longstanding champion of real Net Neutrality. If he knows you've got his back, he can toughen up the language of Genachowski's plan.

Chairman Genachowski needs his vote. Commissioner Copps has real political leverage to fix this rule and move us toward the Net Neutrality protections that millions of people demand.

Make the call and then tell your friends to take action, too.

Thanks,

Timothy Karr
Free Press
www.freepress.net
www.SavetheInternet.com

1. SavetheInternet.com, "Damning Praise for Genachowski's Plan" http://act2.freepress.net/go/1145?akid=2125.9635018.Kn3uus&t=7

2. Huffington Post, "FCC Chairman Announces Fake Net Neutrality Proposal" http://act2.freepress.net/go/1111?akid=2125.9635018.Kn3uus&t=9

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-Act Today, NOW!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 12:38 AM

Richard Bridge: "Yes, Fugitive from Sanity. It's about the liberty to disenfranchise the weak and profiteer. How stupid are you?"

Referring to:

GfS: 'Well, the way the 'libs' have been butchering the Constitution, losing another 'right' should be of great news to ya'....unless you start to re-think what this is all about!"

That's quite a jump there. I think your just predispositioned to bitch at everything I post, because of your 'impairment'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-Act Today, NOW!
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 10:20 AM

Do you live only to resurrect old arguments to derail any thread? That's rhetorical, please do NOT answer.

I hope a few of you others will read what I posted, yesterday, and feel moved to act on it.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-Act Today, N
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 10:35 AM

I am on a Mac at the moment and the keyboard is French, so I cannot make apostrophes or question marks. Cannot cut and paste, either.

When I get to a PC, I will add my two cents on the link, Kat.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-Act Today, NOW!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 04:03 PM

All government regulatory bodies are ultimately subject to the courts.
Your opinions may influence the writing of FCC proposals, but not the court decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-Act Today, NOW!
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 04:08 PM

Thanks, B.

Subject: Internet neutrality-it's history
From: michaelr
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 08:05 PM

And so we lose another chunk of our constitutionally guaranteed freedom: (from CREDO)

Today President Obama's Federal Communications Commission betrayed the fundamental principle of net neutrality and sold us out to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

This is the culmination of a long struggle, and it's important we discuss frankly what led to this point. So this will be a longer e-mail than we traditionally send, with some recommended action items at the end.

Despite what you may have read in the headlines, the rules passed by the FCC today amount to nothing more than a cynical ploy by Democrats to claim a victory on net neutrality while actually caving on real protections for consumers.

Make no mistake, AT&T lobbyists pre-approved this proposal, which means consumers lost and Big Telecom won.

Net neutrality is a principle that says that Internet users, not Internet service providers (ISPs), should be in control. It ensures that Internet service providers can't speed up, slow down, or block Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination.

Yet today the FCC, let by Obama-appointee Julius Genachowski and cheered on by the White House, voted to adopt rules that will enshrine in federal regulations for the first time the ability of AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and other ISPs to discriminate between sources and types of content. And despite the fact that there is only one Internet, the rules also largely exempt cell phones and wireless devices from what meager protections the rules afford.

It's no exaggeration to say that this decision marks the beginning of the end for the Internet as we know it.

Senator Al Franken laid out what's at stake with this ruling, saying:

"The FCC's action today is simply inadequate to protect consumers or preserve the free and open Internet. I am particularly disappointed to learn that the order will not specifically ban paid prioritization, allowing big companies to pay for a fast lane on the Internet and abandoning the foundation of net neutrality. The rule also contains almost no protections for mobile broadband service, remaining silent on the blocking of content, applications, and devices. Wireless technology is the future of the Internet, and for many rural Minnesotans, it's often the only choice for broadband."

So how did we get here? Just two years ago, net neutrality advocates were heartened by the election of a president who promised to defend net neutrality and appoint an FCC Chair who would do the same.

Initially, things looked good. After President Obama was inaugurated and after he appointed Chairman Genachowski to head the FCC, we had what we thought were three net neutrality supporters on the five-member commission and the support of the president. It seemed reasonable, therefore, to support the FCC in writing the net neutrality regulations that we needed.

But it was the FCC's unwillingness to undo a Bush-era decision to deregulate broadband Internet providers that demonstrated how weak the Obama administration's support for net neutrality really was.

This Bush-era decision classified broadband Internet providers outside of the legal framework that traditionally applied to companies that offer two-way communication services

After a federal court ruled that unless the FCC reversed the Bush-era decision to deregulate broadband the FCC couldn't enforce net neutrality rules, Genachowski tested the waters with a proposal to reregulate (or in the jargon of the FCC "reclassify") broadband. Genachowski himself said that, according to the FCC General Counsel, pushing ahead with policies without reregulating broadband would be unwise given the tenuous legal footing the FCC would find itself in. In fact, Genachowski said:

"...continuing to pursue policies with respect to broadband Internet access [without reclassifying broadband] has a serious risk of failure in court. It would involve a protracted, piecemeal approach to defending essential policy initiatives designed to protect consumers, promote competition, extend broadband to all Americans, pursue necessary public safety measures, and preserve the free and open Internet. The concern is that this path would lead the Commission straight back to its current uncertain situation-and years will have passed without actually implementing the key policies needed to improve broadband in America and enhance economic growth and broad opportunity for all Americans."

But the Chairman changed his tune after he unsurprisingly came under pressure from the telecom giants.

From what we can gather, one of the decisive moments came when 74 Democrats signed a letter to the FCC warning Genachowski not to reclassify broadband. The letter, which was promoted by telecom lobbyists, cleverly included language to support Congressional action to address the issue of net neutrality. But given that Congress was demonstrably beholden to the telecom lobbyists, and with the Republicans threatening the FCC outright, the subtext was clear. No FCC action on reclassification meant no viable chance to implement real net neutrality rules.

Chairman Genachowski was quickly cowed by political pressure and signaled an unwillingness to reclassify broadband. And rather than trying to give us net neutrality protections, he has instead sought to find a way of cynically passing something he can claim is net neutrality, when it's nothing of the sort.

In the end, there is no way to paint this decision today as anything less than a defeat for net neutrality advocates and for our democracy.

The process demonstrated a breakdown in institutions of government that are supposed to safeguard the public interest and implement the will of the people. Here we have an example of a federal agency with the full power and authority to fulfill its mandate and protect the public interest, caving to nothing more than the withering stare of those they must regulate. The president said he supported net neutrality. There was no Republican filibuster holding us back. We simply needed the Chairman to propose real net neutrality rules that would hold up in a court of law, and we needed the three Democrats on the FCC to vote to pass them. It was that simple. And yet we failed to make it happen.

The lack of political will to confront the telecommunications giants effectively gave these oligarchic interests a veto over the rules that govern their behavior. In this way the narrow interests of a few powerful and wealthy corporations were prioritized over the public good and the literally millions of people who spoke out and demanded that the FCC protect our free and open Internet.

This is a clear example of industry capture of a regulatory body, and a damning indictment of government institutions that are supposed to regulate — not be run by — corporate interests.

Also let's remember that a free and open Internet is an important part of 21st Century democracy. By failing to protect it, this set of rulings is similar to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that tilted the realm of public discourse even more in favor of the wealthy and the powerful.

We have to be honest and share with you who have fought with us for real net neutrality a frank assessment of what just happened at the FCC. There is not right now a next step we can propose that will undo the damage that was done today to the free and open Internet.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-Act Today, NOW!
From: kendall
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 08:31 PM

Money talks; bullshit walks.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-Act Today, NOW!
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 08:44 PM

Shit!

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 10:17 PM

So get Congressional legislation passed with enough votes of override a veto.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-
From: michaelr
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 10:21 PM

Excuse me, Kendall -- it's more like Money lets Bullshit talk. Freedom walks, with a gag in its mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 12:06 PM

Obama once again betrayed us. He promised to stand up for it but appointed someone who wants to destroy it.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 02:42 PM

Actually, its working just fine!!!! Why FIX IT ?....Now watch, the government gets involved, the problems and 'solutions' will start popping up, with the bureaucrats start taking bribes from the highest 'bidder', to be 'assigned' to fix it. Yup, the FIX is in!!!
Some of you are really suckers!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-
From: kendall
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 07:35 PM

The Oracle speaks!

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 07:57 PM

"....Now watch, the government gets involved,..."

Ummm... despite all the Libertarian and Republican rhetoric decrying "government regulation", who else CAN even make a dent in the tendency of 'business interests' in trying to manipulate the entire system for their personal financial advantage?

The internet/WWW was not invented to serve as a cash cow for moneyed interests! They are free to USE it to offer goods & services, but they want to control access so THEY can install what amounts to toll gates and toll roads and allow less-than-free access to the basics.

There's nothing wrong with charging people for 'services rendered', but weak rules like those just laid out will end with ISPs squeezing every possible dime out of folks like me. I am not against fair return, but I AM against the rule book being written to favor those most likely to abuse the privilege.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-
From: Amos
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 08:40 PM

The article has it backwards. The FCC has had its authority confirmed to enforce net neutrality. This is a good thing assuming they use it well. When the next ComCast raises its ugly head it will be proven valuable to have this authority in place to prevent commercial abuse by means of preferential transmissions.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 09:40 PM

Bill D: "Ummm... despite all the Libertarian and Republican rhetoric decrying "government regulation", who else CAN even make a dent in the tendency of 'business interests' in trying to manipulate the entire system for their personal financial advantage?"

They will, for a corrupted bribe!..besides, if there is a buck in it for them, they'll do about anything..and pretty much have. In any event, it's the common folk who are going to be screwed.

NOTHING has been 'prevented'..only passing through another set of hands, which, of course, the rules get bent, for a fee, or a favor.
P.S. They sure looked the other way for the anti-trust, and anti-monopoly laws!!!!!

GfS

Subject: GOOD NEWS
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 04:04 PM

Just came in the email, from one of Colorado's senators:

Kat,

I wanted you to be the first to know.

Earlier today, the Senate voted 52 - 46 to reject a GOP measure to overturn Net Neutrality, the principle that guarantees all users of the Internet are treated equally and prevents large communications conglomerates from throttling bandwidth to favor certain websites and users over others.

This victory would not have been possible without your support and the support of tens of thousands of grassroots activists who signed the 20,000 Strong for Net Neutrality Petition.

Let me be the first to say a sincere "thank you" for all you've done.

From the very beginning, the Internet has facilitated the free exchange of ideas by operating as a level playing field. It has spurred innovation in our economy, allowing anyone with a new idea and a website a chance to reach customers and be successful. And the Internet's democratic nature has helped us uphold America's highest ideals by making it easier for citizens to become active participants in our government.

With your help, we made sure the Internet won't be used to put success and the ability to participate in democracy out of reach for millions of people. Instead, the Internet will continue to drive innovation, create opportunities and jobs, and support the promise of the American Dream.

Yours,

Mark Udall

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-update-good news
From: gnu
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 07:21 PM

Three cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-update-good news
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 07:30 PM

Yup. Looks like Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchinson have had a really bad last 24-hours.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-update-good news
From: michaelr
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 08:03 PM

Well, there's a bit of good news. Thanks for posting, Kat.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-update-good news
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 01:23 PM

Petitions can work

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-update-good news
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 02:34 PM

Yes!

Thanks, folks.

Subject: RE: BS: A blow to Internet neutrality-update-good news
From: AllisonA(Animaterra)
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 05:16 PM

Oh, what a relief. Thanks, Kat!