True, I wanted to also point out that not only do they have corporate tax deductions but the amount for state taxation is probably buffeted by the incentive programs that many states use to attract large corporations.

Time Warner completed it's "spin-off" of Time Warner Cable in mid March. Couple that with what Time Warner Inc. execs are saying about "TV Everywhere". With that in mind as well as the rise of streaming video services such as Netflix it is hard to not see these ridiculous bandwidth caps as an attempt to hang on to their current Cable TV business model. Especially since they are charging about the same for a full TV, Phone, and Internet package now (almost $140 a month after taxes) as they will charge for an Internet only connection with a 175 Gig cap (100 cap for $75 and $75 more gigs over that...). I live in Austin and honestly I am looking at AT&T (who only offers a 3 Mb downstream in my area) as a viable option. At least they are talking about caps of 150 GB a month... and that speed is only a a third of what I usually get from TWC. On the up side at least 2 mayoral candidates here have issued statements against the caps. While that is encouraging I am not sure if it will still be an issue after the election but it is nice to live in a city where this issue gets noticed by the politicians. The thing about this though that really gets to me is that it isn't a consumption model. After all one of the main points is that there will be NO rollover of unused bandwidth. To return to the over used analogy of a restaurant for the consumption model. If I pay you for a plate and don't finish it... give me a doggy bag! I understand if it is a buffet and I don't get one, but to have someone pay for a plate of food and then snatch the plate away after half an hour regardless of whether or not they are finished... that's just cruel! Now, can we all agree to NOT use the restaurant analogy again?

After reading the pdf of the law that Wired links to I found that in Section 3 part B number 5 reads:
(5) a description of policies and procedures to ensure thatâ"
(A) any individual who is denied access to that website on the basis of information obtained through the system is promptly notified of the basis for the denial and has the ability to challenge the denial of access; and
(B) if the social networking website finds that information is inaccurate, incomplete, or cannot be verified, the site immediately notifies the appropriate State registry and the Department of Justice, so that they may delete or correct that information in the respective State and national databases;

however it also includes these gems further on in Section 3:

(4) PAYMENTOFFEE.â"A social networking website
approved to use the system shall pay any fee established by
the Attorney General for use of the system.
(5) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.â"
(A) IN GENERAL.â"A civil claim against a social networking website, including any director, officer, employee, parent, contractor, or agent of that social networking website, arising from the use by such website of the National Sex Offender Registry, may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
(B) INTENTIONAL, RECKLESS, OR OTHER MISCONDUCT.â"
Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a claim if the social networking website, or a director, officer, employee, parent, contractor, or agent of that social networking websiteâ"
(i) engaged in intentional misconduct; or
(ii) acted, or failed to actâ"
(I) with actual malice;
(II) with reckless disregard to a substantial
risk of causing injury without legal justification;
or
(III) for a purpose unrelated to the perform-
ance of any responsibility or function described
in paragraph (3).

Kinda says "don't worry you won't be prosecuted, unless if we decide to."

They of course have the gumption to stick this in at the end of Section 3:

(6) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION .â"Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any Internet website, including a social networking website, to use the system, and no Federal or State liability, or any other actionable adverse consequence, shall be imposed on such website based on its decision not
to do so.

Another example of the government saying, "You don't have to sign up... unless if you want to be labeled a bastion for child molesters and be shut down by us."

The most interesting part to me of any law though is what is added that seems irrelevant. For instance Section 4 deals with REMOVING part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Specifically it makes it no longer a requirement that the tracking devices for registered offenders contain "cellular technology" nor be in a "single unit". It also does away with the requirement that tracking devices have, "two- and three-way voice communication". I am not sure if this is considered "streamlining" or not. I guess we have to wait and see who gets the grant for the new tracking devices and how much they contribute to McCain's campaign.