Net neutrality needs to be written into law, asap. Greedy corporations are already taking money from every angle they can think of to get it, we really shouldn't allow another angle that in effect would actually limit what content most users would view based on how deep the pockets of the people producing it were.

Of course this could also open up new avenues for business for other ISPs to take advantage of. IMO this could actually end up correcting itself eventually... but with companies like virgin taking huge losses before they realize that the asshole make-more-money-more-ways-than-the-other-guy business strategy isn't always the best one.

Ow this is bad! I am so sick of greedy corporations but only a extreme minority take a stand so nothing will change. Corporations in my view are aiming to get the net split eventually so that only the rich have access to the best part of it and everyone else is severly limited.

Silly question: Is there a way to shoot someone nonviolently? If so, where can I buy one of these Ghandi guns and what effect does it have on the victim?

Rubber bullets! leaves a bruise but won't kill 90% of the time, assuming you don't hit them directly above their heart or in the temple, the first can cause heart failure/heart attack and the latter will just outright kill(most likely, survivable, but not easily survivable)

There, non-violent way to shoot someone.

These CEOs on the other hand need to be taken out back and shot point blank with hollow points in an m16, full clip for each of them. Now theres a violent shooting.

Yeah, violence -or the discussion thereof- is definitely the way to get you noticed and have your opinion heard.

As a more constructive comment: Try writing (or emailing) your representatives about the issue. True, your one voice won't mean much, but other people are writing. You honestly don't know which letter will push them far enough to take this seriously.

In addition, do your best to ensure you discuss the topic calmly and intelligently. The people who talk using internet slang or threats are stereotypically the non-voting populace, and they are thus often ignored by the people whose primary concern is getting votes.

Precisely. Many take posts on internet forums far too seriously.

We need a big activatable "must have sense of humor before reading post" banner or some such.

The big problem with his stance is that he's creating a conflict of interests. As an ISP subscriber, I don't want him to be deciding, based on who pays him off, what content I can access at a reasonable speed. *I* am paying for internet service, not the content providers, I think that *MY* desire to be able to access content of my choice at the full speed I pay for should be taken into account.

The corporations who accept pay from subscribers for internet service, and then refuse to deliver the service they promise unless the content providers also pay for it, are just institutionalizing bribery. You know, where you accept pay from one party to do a job, then refuse to actually do it unless a second party also pays? Yeah, that's pretty much what he's talking about.

I had some respect for this guy until this came out - he's developed a good reputation for providing service in industries that are supposed to be about service, but have signally failed to provide said service in the past. But if he's really saying that the customer doesn't deserve good bandwidth unless the content provider also pays, he's done a nice 180 degree turn there.

Everyone should have some frustrations directed at comcast... regardless of where they are living.

They are the big corporation that comes up with all this BS but does it on the sly, then announces that they are doing it AFTER some other corporation announces they are at least considering doing it so that they can then point at those people and say "But it was his idea!!! We're just following the crowd... honest(tm)!"