well, I did not know it either and as it developed I checked things out and it's kind of a big issue....while I detest government interference in just about anything, the same sort of 'interference' is being presented by private carriers in regards to material they consider objectionable, competitive, or otherwise not up to their particular standards whatever they may be. I think at this point I support a 100% neutrality policy for ANY entity supplying access to the internet on a contract basis. While FM's opinion is completely valid, (in letting the customer base determine which suppliers live and die based on their own policies), I believe that it is 'fringe' or 'niche' points of view that need protection from these carriers and don't see how a small segment of customer base can control the policies extended to the majority. "Churn" is an accepted part of any such business and they plan for it so I don't believe the tail can wag the dog in this case. The slippery slope here, is that even if government regulation is simply stated, i.e. "There Shall be NO bias in presenting materials to subscribers of internet services", it would represent a precedent which, if it 'passes muster', would serve as the basis for all sorts of OTHER government regulations on internet access. I guess the BEST approach would be for subscribers to find the HOMEs of the OWNERs of these corporations and noisily, voiciferously, and belligerently protest a company's policy in limiting subscribers' access to certain materials. Outside of that, FM is correct...pull up stakes and subscribe to another 'friendlier' service...that is, of course, if you have the ability to do so...I for one cannot...there's only 1 provider out here in the boonies, and 1 provider only....