From: Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster@mykolab.com> On 5/15/2014 10:06 AM, Ryan Brooks wrote:

It's a shame the use of 'fast lane' is ubiquitous in this argument. If the local distribution networks would like to actually build something fast, then this would be a different story.

Okay, then call it the "faster lane" or the "uncongested lane" or something that actually reflects bias and preferential treatment. It's a done deal now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/15/fcc-approves-pl... -------------------------------------------- According to the doc it's not a done deal: "The proposal is not a final rule, but the vote on Thursday is a significant step forward" "Agencies almost always change their rules from the initial proposal" "The next phase will be four months of public comments, after which the commissioners will vote again on redrafted rules that are meant to take into account public opinion." But, yeah. I don't believe for a minute that all/any this is above board when it's coming from a lobbyist. scott