Disagree. Government agencies are not what I consider responsive to voting populace. I'd prefer limited government interaction regarding how broadband is commercially available to me. With one exception, antitrust regulation, which is regulated by the FTC rather than the FCC. I feel the FTC should compel cable companies to open use of their infrastructure to competing companies at reasonable operating rates if they can be defined as monopolies. This would allow you to actually vote the proper way - with your wallet. If multiple companies could compete to offer you broadband, and Comcast decided to limit your traffic, you can vote by switching to one who doesn't. If that company allowed P2P or other services that clog the tubes, then Comcast will bill them for their higher usage and you'd in turn be charged more for your outrageous consumption. In the end, I think what's fundamental is that we need to be prepared to pay for what we use as these tubes can only carry finite amounts of data, and with scarcity, you find high pricing. The market will find the best solution, as long as the infrastructure is "properly" regulated (antitrust vs. net neutrality).

That being said, I wished they focused more on what counts: phone service. I CAN PLAY DRM'D MP3'S BUT YOU WON'T GIVE ME MY 3G NETWORK!?

Wah, wah. They do focus on what counts - shareholder value. Their management apparently believes they can make a higher margin / total profit on charging for media services than providing a great 3G network

Fact is, you need to be willing to pay a lot more for 3G than you are. If you (as in all customers) were willing to pay more and increase the margin they project for that service, you could shift their focus to 3Q services instead of music services, because it's all about the bottom line.