While I completely advocate for net neutrality, a reading of the amendment will show that the limiting of funds only applies to those funds appropriated in HR3082. Since HR3082 relates to Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, this amendment realistically has little impact on the issue of net neutrality. When congress proposes a bill preventing the FCC from using its own funds to force net neutrality, that will be the time to create an uproar.

Wouldn't this be the same juror who has been thoughtful enough to give several in-depth answers to us /.ers? Is it suddenly news that someone picked up on a /. article and requested an interview where the juror repeated what has been discussed at great length here?

I have read many of your responses, and understand that under the letter of the law he was guilty. I also empathize with those who are preaching jury nullification, as I have been a victim of prosecutor over-reaching in the past as well. Personally, I have no problem being convicted of something that is fair and just. Up to five years and a felony charge in this situation would be and is, IMHO, not an acceptable verdict. However, I do not believe that he should not be convicted at all.

This leads me to question (simply for my own curiosity): Was there a lesser charge that was included? Could have the jury found him not-guilty of the felony offense, but found him guilty of a misdemeanor?

True you are... Just to help with your point to others: Even when AltaVista was THE search engine, you still said you were going to search AltaVista for something. You would tell someone to go to Yahoo and search for foobars. Google has created such a magnificent product that it became a verb. Very few brands throughout history have been able to achieve that, and if I am not mistaking, they are all still around today. They might have their competitors. They might even have lost their top spot in the market. But these brands have not (and probably will not) fail.

A little late to the party, but here are the answers... Google Voice IS NOT VOIP. Google voice is simply a "cloud" number that supports call forwarding. When you make a call using the Google Voice app, the app calls YOUR Google Voice number, which then forwards the call to your intended destination. It works the same for receiving calls. When a person calls you, the call is then forwarded to your actual phone number. Therefore, as long as you get free calls to/from your Google Voice number, all calls (to any number) are free. Assuming you use Google Voice exclusively for incoming and outgoing calls, that is. @Dun - Google Voice can not and will not use only a data connection to make outbound calls. Try removing all available networks (cell networks, not wifi) in your settings. This will disable the reception (your T-Mobile service) for your phone while leaving the rest of the phone operable. Then try to use Google Voice (make sure that you are connected to another data source, such as wifi). Google Voice will not work. If it wasn't dependent upon "plan minutes" it would work under this scenario.

I know of a few theaters that already block reception... I'm not sure what technique they use to do it, but in many theaters (in CA anyway) using a cell can't be done. I'm sure this will become the norm... One remodel at a time.