Oh wait, that's right, you keep going on and on about their monopoly.

Seriously? I never once mentioned monopoly. None of the 3 articles I linked mentioned monopoly once. So... never constitutes going on and on. Idiot.

Older article, but talks about how ISPs are making huge margins while actually reducing their capital investments:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

Two more recent articles looking at the margins ISPs make:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/...
http://gigaom.com/2011/05/12/n...

True revenue and profit reports aren't easy to get ahold of for the big ISPs. Yes, I'm sure the profits are higher in higher density areas. No, I never made any comparisons to prices paid in North America vs. Europe and Asia. The fact remains that the big ISPs took huge amounts of money SPECIFICALLY to provide broadband to rural areas. They can't then turn around and say they couldn't do it because the cost was prohibitive due to population density. They knew the populations when they took the money. You make a statement like the big providers are going bankrupt and tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about, without providing any sources?

And unfortunately that's going to be the downfall of net neutrality. Too many people who would prefer to have equal access to everything... until they can't watch their show without it buffering. The big ISPs know that the will to fight is low enough they can do what they want and get away with it.

Gah!
s/they're/their

If the FCC's new proposal passes, ISPs like Verizon and Comcast could also charge Netflix for faster direct connections to its customers over the last mile."

So the ISPs would be able to charge their customers for access (which is often tiered), companies like Netflix for access and then companies like Netflix AGAIN for faster access. The go to excuse that they use is that they're infrastructure can't support giving everyone everything, but they took billions from the government to build out infrastructure and then never did it. Oh, I guess that makes it quadruple dipping?

I might be missing something, but isn't it usually easier to get a back door into software than to seize a server? Reading the articles it's using or piggybacking on P2P, but you have to get the software from -somewhere- initially, and I assume there will be updates. Even if those updates are pushed out via the integrated P2P network, I'd imagine there's still ways they could compromise it. And wouldn't the tracking of user names make things more dangerous should the software be compromised?

When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza Pi.

And calling it a phablet is like calling your car a corse. -.-

Sure, but when I inject DNA into someone's ear I get put on the sex offender registry.